I think if you made it so it deleted the image but not the image
description page, would be much preferable then deleting both. For
example, currently if something shows up as gone at commonsticker, its
a real hunt to find out what was wrong with the image. Sometimes you
get a good deletion summary, but most of the time you get something
like /speedy delete/ or /against policy/. Just based on that, I have
no details on what went wrong (besides that something did go wrong in
the upload). if you used a bot, the situation would get worse. However
if you deleted the image, and undeleted the page with a little
template that says something along the lines of, the image that used
to be here is gone because {{{1}}}. Info here no longer applies to
anything but is still kept. That way, its much more easy for me to try
to find the information for that picture needed, or fix it in sme
other way. ~~~
-bawolff
On 11/15/06, Barcex <lv.cabc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Magnus,
First let me say that I'm a big fan of the Bad Old Ones toy, and an
everyday user of it.
My concern about the automated deletion of "bad old ones" is that
sometimes I find that the nsd/nld templates were not well added to the
image; i.e. there are no reasons to use that templates, the image can be
saved with a simple edit completing the missing info, or the uploader has
not been notified.
I wonder if an automated deletion based just on the existence of a
template that anyone can add will delete valid pictures. Of course,
deletions can be undone, but the error has to be detected, and will be
difficult to know where was the image used at the time of deletion.
I think that the "burden of proof" on source and license is on the
uploader, so it is valid pushing him to specify without ambiguity that data.
But deleting images without at least a simple human review could not be
convenient. Perhaps we can find an intermediate solution: reviewing with Bad
Old Ones and when clicking "delete" on that tool having a bot delinking the
image also.
Barcex
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>om>:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for
deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1]
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2]
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_rob…
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l