On 1/29/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@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?