UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

This page will be used for users to request that pages falling into certain categories be deleted as appropriate by a sysop without having to go through all the red tape of Speedy Deletions and Deletions. A list of pages in the Scheduled Deletions list is located here.

Deletion Scheduling

Deletion Scheduling requests should be requested in the same general format as normal Deletions. Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp. Votes in this case shall be as follows:

  • Yea - For approval of the deletion scheduling request
  • Nay - For disapproval of the deletion scheduling request

Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use ~~~~)

After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the Archive.

Scheduling requests under consideration

Defunct Group Images

For the purposes of this proposed deletion, a "defunct group" is one whose page has been deleted from the wiki through either of the deletion pages. If a defunct group has any images related to their group (provided that they are otherwise unused) they may be deleted along with the group page. -- Cheese 00:00, 3 October 2009 (BST)

  1. Yes - Doesn't happen very often but saves it waiting for the month long unused requirement. -- Cheese 00:00, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  2. Yes - Deleting a group's page and subpages should also bring with it the deletion of images used only on those pages. We're coming to get you, Barbara 00:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  3. No - How 'bout you expand it any page, not just group? Assuming the image is not used. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:12, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  4. No - As Gnome. Cyberbob  Talk  00:36, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  5. No - This only applies to pages less than a month old, which means that the owner would have to request through A/SD or A/D, and can be easily asked if they want the images gone as well. Group pages less than a month old that are deleted without the owners permission are extremely rare -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:22 3 October 2009 (BST)
  6. No - As per above. Fou-Lu 02:46, 4 October 2009 (BST)
  7. N0 i have no idea what i'm doing----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 15:01, 4 October 2009 (BST)
  8. No - As Boxy. It's redundant. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:56, 5 October 2009 (BST)
  9. No -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 5 October 2009 (BST)
  10. No - Eh, they'll eventually work their way into unused images. --ZsL 06:47, 6 October 2009 (BST)
  11. No --Papa Johnny 17:30, 7 October 2009 (BST)
  12. No --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:27, 7 October 2009 (BST)
  13. Yes - What Gnome said.--Teln 03:13, 9 October 2009 (BST)
  14. No - As boxy. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 08:47, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Unused images

Currently unused images are deleted after they have gone one month without an edit. This is way too long; any image that has gone unedited for more than like a week (if that) is pretty much guaranteed to make it all the way down the line. I propose shortening the length of time unused images can go without edits before they are deleted to one week. Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)

The deletion of unused images is already problematic. Images can not be restored if a mistake is made, and it is very easy to delete images that have been removed in a page wiping vandal act that may not be noticed for some days, or in edit disputes. As soon as they are edited off a page, the image shows up as unused and (unless they've been uploaded recently) immediately qualify for scheduled deletion, with no way for the sysop to track down which page they used to be included on -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)
Have you looked at the list? It is made up of stupid ingame screenshots, outdated Necronet scans and logos for groups that have become defunct. In my weeks of trimming the list that is quite literally all I have ever seen, and if I was to ever see one that broke this mold I would hold off on nuking it simply because of this fact. The danger you speak of Does Not Exist. Cyberbob  Talk  16:15, 1 October 2009 (BST)
And in the event that it occurs (which in an extremely rare occasion that it will), it isn't beyond a sysop to notice it was uploaded either more than a month ago, or longer than the last unused-deletions purge, so an image under any criteria you hypothetically mentioned would stick out like a sore thumb and be fixable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:31, 2 October 2009 (BST)
How are you going to track down which page an image was removed from, DDR?
Even though it is damn easy to tell which page images like a hockey stick are likely to be used on, I still remember people trying to keep a "real" hockey stick on the melee weapons page, only to have it replaced with ice hockey sticks, and the images deleted as unused.
Unless it is obvious which page the image came from, there is no way to know where the images in unused images were used on a wiki of this size. Perhaps there is a way to totally rewrite the unused images criteria, so that unused images between a week and a month are free to be deleted on sight, but older ones that turn up are put on an image archive page for a month or two, and only then are they deleted if they remain unused, to give people time to notice that they've been taken off a page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:39 3 October 2009 (BST)
Great, so we should bend over backwards with even more stupid red tape just so idiots don't have their retarded images deleted because of their own laziness and inattention? No thanks. Cyberbob  Talk  03:51, 3 October 2009 (BST)
Sorry, that should be "I" there instead of "we" - everyone else is happy to sit back and let me do all the work but when I look for something that would make my life so much easier it's all NO U CANT DO THAT HERE ALLOW ME TO SUGGEST AN EVEN WORSE SYSTEM Cyberbob  Talk  03:55, 3 October 2009 (BST)
How does this make your life easier? It just means you can delete images earlier -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:58 3 October 2009 (BST)
My prime motivation has been to keep the list as short as possible. Deleting them earlier means that I won't get so pissed off when I see stupid cunts uploading stupid cuntish shit because I know it'll be gone sooner. Cyberbob  Talk  04:03, 3 October 2009 (BST)
No, that's why I haven't been worried too much by the problems I've outlined above before, because it's been obvious to me for a while. There are huge numbers of useless images that need to be deleted with a minimum of fuss, even if it occasionally causes problems, and we have the criteria to do that now -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:58 3 October 2009 (BST)
If you don't give a shit then don't bother typing words Cyberbob  Talk  04:03, 3 October 2009 (BST)
In the worst case scenario (when the image doesn't elude to whom it belongs to), go through the user. Even with the history purge interfering it's rarely difficult. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:37, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  1. Yes Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 1 October 2009 (BST)
  2. Yes --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)
    No - As Boxy. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:39, 1 October 2009 (BST)
  3. ?' Are they causing a problem of some sort? If so then I see no reason not to. --Honestmistake 12:11, 1 October 2009 (BST)
    No Sorry Bob, Boxy convinced me too. Without a very good reason I am unlikely to change my mind again. --Honestmistake 13:09, 1 October 2009 (BST)
  4. No - There are problems with this scheduled deletion criteria already, it doesn't need strengthening -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:35 1 October 2009 (BST)
  5. No --SirArgo Talk 17:21, 1 October 2009 (BST)
  6. yes Because actually whats left in unused images isn't of huge use. Besides with a shorter time span, if I had it saved on my computer on monday to upload, I probably have it still saved the following monday. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:58, 1 October 2009 (BST)
  7. No While I feel one month is too long for the amount of images that get uploaded and forgotten, one week is much too short- users could conceivably upload a few images for a page or project, get sidetracked in real life for a week, and return to find their images had been deleted. I would support shortening it down to two or three weeks, but one week is just too short.--~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 01:34, 2 October 2009 (BST)
  8. No - But only because, as I said on IRC, 2 weeks is more apt in my opinion. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:13, 2 October 2009 (BST)
  9. No - As redhawk and boxy.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 14:55, 2 October 2009 (BST)
  10. No - because the original schedule is fucked up in the first place. Back in the day of Crit12 groups used to be deleted, and when their owners requested the page to be undeleted it couldnt be fully because the images were deleted, without the required period to deem them unused has passed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 21:25, 2 October 2009 (BST)
    Good thing Crit 12 doesn't exist anymore, eh? Cyberbob  Talk  00:34, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  11. No - Perhaps two weeks or 15-20 days would be suitable but one week is much too short. We're coming to get you, Barbara 00:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  12. Nope - --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 00:15, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  13. No - I think 2 weeks is a more suitable alternative. --ZsL 01:37, 3 October 2009 (BST)
  14. no whats the damn rush? some people don't live on this wiki. and need more time to edit or complete projects. shit. goddamn.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 15:03, 4 October 2009 (BST)
  15. Weak No - As Boxy. Not like the server's going to explode if we don't delete images quickly. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:55, 5 October 2009 (BST)
  16. No -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:30, 5 October 2009 (BST)
  17. No --Papa Johnny 17:29, 7 October 2009 (BST)
  18. No --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 19:27, 7 October 2009 (BST)

Recent Requests

0x0 Images

Failed with 5 for, 9 against. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:04, 27 September 2009 (BST)

Image revision removal
Image revisions that are older than 7 days are to be removed.
Approved 16 May 2006
Monumental Screw Ups
Pages in this form: with//////lots//////of//////slashes, and this one: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup are unable to be moved or edited via normal means. Their content is to be manually moved to a sensible pagename without extraneous //s in its title and the original page is to be deleted on sight.
Note to sysops: A method for deleting these pages can be found here.
Approved 23 August 2006
Unused redirects resulting from page moves
redirects resulting from moves, that only show admin pages in their "what links here" list.
Approved 3 Mar 2007
Copyrighted images
Images that are requested to be deleted by the copyright holder
Approved 10 Nov 2007
Broken redirects
redirects that lead to nonexistent pages
Approved 12 Dec 2007
Personal Information
If a user wants personal information about themselves deleted from the wiki, they should be able to get it speedy deleted. Things like your name, your phone number, your email or home address, your workplace, pictures of your family etc. Link
Approved 11 July 2008
Porn is to be deleted on sight.
I like porn, you like porn, but this isnt the place for it.
Approved 22 July 2008
Revoked 2 August 2009
User page redirects
in the main space should be delete on sight as crit 3 or 9 (excluding those redirecting to Kevan).
Approved 26 November 2008
Swearing in page titles
Pages that have swearing in the title that is directed at a user or group (or their actions).
Approved 22 July 2008
Crit 7 by Proxy
If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page.
Approved 26 March 2009
As of January 2010, this scheduling now includes pages that the author has blanked or replaced with text indicating a desire to be deleted. However, pages used as inclusions (such as many templates) are excluded from this criterion.
Approved 3 January 2010
Crit 11
Userpages/Journals that are in the User: namespace but are non-existent users, and are already duplicated in the appropriate User: or Journal: subspace may be deleted on sight.
Approved 30 June 2009
Adbot-created pages
Pages created by Adbots and Spambots are to be deleted on sight.
Approved 30 July 2009
Unnecessary banned user pages
The User: pages of permabanned spambots and vandal alts (that have no contributions showing) are to be deleted on sight.
Approved 27 November 2009
Grouped location pages
Grouped location pages are to be deleted once each individual location has its own page and all incoming links (excluding those refrencing deletion) are diverted.
Approved 1 December 2009
Unused Image Removal
Images on the Unused Image list that are two weeks old are to be deleted. Images that are linked by text only will appear on the unused image list also.
Approved 10 December 2009
Associated talk pages
Talk pages associated with pages that are deleted under other policies, including talk pages missed in previous deletions.
Approved 19th May 2010
Amended 14th August 2011
Crit 9
Personal Page (Prefix Rule): The page is named after a user without the "User:" or "Journal:" prefixes and its content has been moved to the appropriate User or Journal page. Includes pages that should be User subpages, ie. in-game characters.
Approved 29th August 2011
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling&oldid=1575871"