Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Idea for steps to merge WP:PUF into WP:FFD[edit]

Per this discussion, consensus has been formed to merge Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Here's my high-level idea for the immediate steps to merge WP:PUF into WP:FFD and the order which these steps should be taken:

  1. Update the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading to accommodate WP:PUF
  2. Update Twinkle so that it no longer lists WP:PUF as an option for "File:" discussions while updating the FFD option to explain that FFD is now used for PUF discussions (Pinging This, that and the other and MusikAnimal regarding this.)
  3. Have AnomieBOT stop creating WP:PUF daily subpages; the rest of AnomieBOT's functions on PUF should probably remain active until all discussions at PUF are closed (Pinging Anomie regarding this.)

...In all honesty, this merge will most likely not be as complicated as the WP:NFCR merge to FFD since no page was/will be renamed as a result of the merge consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Pinging Oiyarbepsy since they seem to have already started edits on this merge. By the way, it looks as though AnomieBOT has now been set up to no longer create daily subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Steel1943, looks like User:Legobot actually runs PUF, not Anomie. Or maybe it's both. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Handles daily subpage creation (Apparently, this task has now been shut down)
  2. Closing discussions for deleted pages and
  3. Removing daily subpage links for pages more than 7 days old from the "holding cell" when all of the page's discussions are closed
However, It looks like Legobot only:
  1. Adds pages as links to the "holding cell" after the discussion page is more than 7 days old
...Meaning Legobot's function on the page should automatically cease in time since the daily subpages are no longer being created by AnomieBOT. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @GeoffreyT2000, Stefan2, and Oiyarbepsy: Having DumbBOT stop creating those categories may take a while, mainly since the bot's operator, Tizio, last edited 8 months ago. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Not a big problem, I think. If no one lists a file on PUF, the dated category will just appear in CAT:CSD shortly after the date in the category name because empty PUF categories automatically nominate themselves for speedy deletion per WP:G6. It will create some extra work for admins who wish to delete such categories, but it won't disrupt the project too much. If it is possible to contact the bot's operator, it should of course be arranged so that the bot stops creating these categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Affected templates[edit]

PUF uses a lot of templates which need to be taken care of:

  • {{Puf2}}, {{puf2a}}, {{Puf2 preload}} and {{fdw-puf}} should always be substituted and should not be used in the future. They have been listed at TFD.
  • {{Puf}} and {{pufc}} are not to be substituted and shouldn't be deleted or modified until all discussions have been closed.
  • {{Possibly unfree files subcategory starter}} is used for creating new daily categories. It could maybe be changed to automatically nominate new pages for immediate speedy deletion until the bot operator can stop creation of new dated categories. Once the bot operator stops creating new dated categories, it should probably be deleted.
  • {{Puf log}} is used to insert text at the top of the page. AnomieBOT inserts it on top of pages if a page is missing the header, and the bot used to insert the template on new dated categories too. I suggest keeping the template as long as there are still open requests.
  • {{Puf top}} and {{puf bottom}} are added to closed discussions and must remain available until all discussions have closed. Not sure what to do with the templates after that. The templates are always to be substituted, so we can probably delete them when the last PUF discussion has closed.

Are there other templates to take care of? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Turns out that {{Pufc}} has several bad transclusions back from 2008–09. I've already fixed about 100 of them. There are still about 25 transclusions with obvious date issues. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I guess that admins who close discussions as 'keep' do not necessarily check if there is a tag which needs to be removed. A good reason for getting rid of the tags, I suppose. I think that article talk page notifications would be better than adding something to image captions, and article talk page notifications could also be automated. {{Ffdc}} and {{pufc}} tend not to be used as Twinkle doesn't add the templates automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A lot of them were actually on file links to deleted images where the link wasn't removed, so neither was the {{Pufc}} transclusion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown[edit]

A discussion on a possible entry for FFD (once PUF is wholly closed) is here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wrong license[edit]

I think Template:Wrong license might have slipped through the cracks during the clean up related to the PUF/FFD merge. If it's just a question of fixing the link/updating the text so that the target page in FFD, then I should be able to do that. However, I've never edited a "maintenance template" like this before so I'm not sure if there's more involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and Stefan2: Thank you both for taking a look and revising the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Delsort tags[edit]

Are there delsort templates specifically designed for FFD? Would it be problematic to use those designed for AFD if there are not? Right now, there are templates for the file's page, the uploader's page, image captions, but there does not seem to be anything specifically for the top of the articles where the files being discussed are being used. It does say in the FFD instructions that "consider (...) adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion", but this seems optional and probably not followed through very much (I hardly go this far). Maybe if there was some template to add to the article which was part of the ffd2 template (prehaps as |article= or something) or a delsort template which would add the discussion to a WikiProject's deletion sorting page, it might get more editors involved in the discussion and help eliminate concerns that decisions are being made by a few who do not necessarily represent the views of the community. It also might help reduce the number of "I didn't know" and "It's unfair" comments that often pop up when somebody tries to re-add a file previously removed as a result of FFD. The number of files being discussed has increased due to the recent merges of NFCR and PUF into FFD. On some days there may be only a few discussions going on, but on others there may be well over a 100. Not all of the files being discussed are being used in articles, but many are so it might help establish a consensus more quickly and reduce the backload if more people are involved. Of course, the consensus should still be based on relevant policy so maybe a guide like WP:ATA could be created which is specific to files. How to treat files not tagged with a WikiProject banner and files whose WikiProjects do not have a delsort template would also have to be figured out, but that can be done through discussion. I've linked this discussion at WT:DELSORT, but I am also interested in how regular participants, including any admins who close FFD discussions, feel about something like this. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The end result you think will happen will actually not since the files' nominations are on daily subpages and not their own dedicated subpages. These categories would throw the entire daily subpage into the category instead of the file nomination. That, and in my opinion, what we probably need here are more closing admins, especially since a lot of the backlog consists of rather quick "delete" closes. Steel1943 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying things Steel1943. I wasn't completely sure how those tags worked, but now see your point. Is there some way to tweak the ffd2 template (perhaps by adding |article= or |wikiproject= to it) so that templates can be added to articles/article talk pages or the relevant WikiProjects page. I understand notifications can be added manually, but those are optional and adding them doesn't seem to be common practice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I'm not sure about that since that would put the actual file page in a category and not a subpage of WP:FFD. I don't think that any other WP:XFD board tags categorizes the nominated pages themselves in such a way. That idea has some merit, but doing so may need to be further discussed elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Marchjuly and Steel1943, I think the better (automated) way to handle this is to tag the project's images with the WikiProject banner. Then they'll show up in the project's Wikipedia:Article alerts. No extra work czar 20:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Backlog & tools[edit]

So I'd help with the backlog if I didn't have to manually paste the templates. Does anyone have a working FfD tool? Mine's dead czar 03:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

New script for testing: User:Evad37/FFDcloser.js. See its talk page for discussions and bug reporting czar 19:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Convert to non-free[edit]

One of the commons themes I see in the backlog are discussions with a consensus to "convert to non-free", as in they need a FUR. I imagine that these are being held up because it would require the closer or someone to update the image's tags. Does this fall on the closer? Because it's holding up discussion processing. If instead we had a tag or instructions to close as "missing FUR" (read: some form of delayed speedy F6), we would get through these a lot faster. czar 20:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)