On 1/29/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Perhaps all we need is more admins deleting
namespace crud. I delete
on sight 99% of anything that is only text. Even if it's in another
language. A lot of them look like misplaced articles or promo bios.
Guilty as charged (the not-deleting part, not the promo-bio part). I
guess I just assumed nobody was creating nonsense pages, silly me. How
many are we talking about?
Proper galleries have at least one image, and not a whole lot of text in
any single language. Seems like you could have a bot detect excessive
text and mark those for further review, and have a manually-added "yes
this gallery has a good reason for large amounts of text". Seems like
you'd want this no matter the namespaces, people are always going to be
tempted to use commons to park text that has been rejected from other
projects.
There are a tone of species pages without any images... there are also
a lot of locality (cities, etc) pages which appear to be pre-created
and still without images.
If it were possibly to just mindlessly delete these pages (some 900 or
so in total), I would set my bot on them and they'd be gone with the
hour. ... but with our current practices, it's not possible to do so.
So I must check them by hand. Yuck.
In any case, I'm not so sure that it's "park text which is reject" but
more that people end up on commons accidently by following links and
then start writing here. We don't see anywhere near so much of this in
other namespace. Perhaps we could limit anon page creation to talk
pages? That too would help, thoughts?