Hello,
We have lots of people from lots of projects familiar with lots of different ways of organising noticeboards. Therefore I think we must brainstorm to find a better model for our poor [[Commons:Deletion requests]]. It simply creaks and groans under the weight of too many requests, it is unmanageable.
Here are some requirements: * The requests still have to be on the [[template:deletion requests]]. This is because the 'Commons-level' page is actually a 'shell' or 'wrapper' with some instructions, and these instructions can be translated, while the actual requests themselves are not. * Want to keep adding new items simple (possibly we can use tricks with an input box similar to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FPC#Nomination to keep it outwardly simple) * Want to be able to archive individual items - archiving a day at a time is not appropriate because some debates drag on interminably (sometime while we wait for more information, replies from other people etc), and the system has to allow for these.
Some other ideas: * Ability to watch certain debates only? This would require a separate template for each item. I think a lot of people would find this useful. * Break up page according to ***type of request***? An obvious split at this stage would be splitting off requests based on format conversions, such as {{supersededSVG}} (since it seems people are going to persist in requesting these for deletion, we should deal with them in a more sensible manner). What other splits would be appropriate? (Keep in mind it has to be simple for users to be able to follow it - if they don't follow it, we're right back where we started) * Ability to flag debates as requiring participants having certain skills or interests?? This would be really useful. If we could flag debates as requiring say, German speaker, someone familiar with derivative works, someone familiar with PD expiration in the US, someone familiar with personality rights, someone familiar with XYZwhatever. Then people would be able to decide what issues they're interested in and look at those specifically. So this would again require one template per debate, I imagine.
* Can we think up some extra-MW innovation and get some of our toolserver friends to implement it? For example, before the en.wp DB went kaput, en.wp had a very interesting toolserver-based thing for dealing with 'proposed deletions' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROD ).
* Need to keep track of those debates that drag on and maybe think up a better process for dealing with them.
What are some other technical improvements that people would like to see to this page, to make it more usable?
Are you aware of high-traffic noticeboards on other projects that are managed easily and well? If so, provide some links so we can check them out.
If you have ideas for improvements, I suggest implementing a model with 5 or so fake debates in a user subpage, and again share the link so we can compare it to the current model.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Addendum: subpages. subpages are enabled in the project (Commons) and user namespaces. This means when you create User:page/foo or Commons:page/foo, it will have an automatic 'parent link' to Commons:page. And you can also use Special:Prefixindex to find all the children pages of Commons:page.
Subpages have not been enabled in the template namespace. This is why template:PD-old/es doesn't contain an automatic parent link. If subpages are not enabled, then the slash is nothing special, it is just another character.
AFAIK, besides the fact that templates can take parameters, pages can be transcluded in the same way as templates, the only difference being that they need the namespace prefix. So
{{Commons:Welcome}}
is the same as
{{Welcome}} if Template:Welcome has the same information as Commons:Welcome. So if you don't need to use parameters, then using pages in the Commons namespace has the added advantage of automatic parent links.
Just wondering if we can incorporate this into a new design somehow......
cheers Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Addendum: subpages. subpages are enabled in the project (Commons) and user namespaces. This means when you create User:page/foo or Commons:page/foo, it will have an automatic 'parent link' to Commons:page. And you can also use Special:Prefixindex to find all the children pages of Commons:page.
Subpages have not been enabled in the template namespace. This is why template:PD-old/es doesn't contain an automatic parent link. If subpages are not enabled, then the slash is nothing special, it is just another character.
AFAIK, besides the fact that templates can take parameters, pages can be transcluded in the same way as templates, the only difference being that they need the namespace prefix. So
{{Commons:Welcome}}
is the same as
{{Welcome}} if Template:Welcome has the same information as Commons:Welcome. So if you don't need to use parameters, then using pages in the Commons namespace has the added advantage of automatic parent links.
Just wondering if we can incorporate this into a new design somehow......
One of the things that surprised me about the way Commons handled deletion was that subpages aren't used; they've been used on *FD at en.wp for, um, a long time...
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:13 AM
If you have ideas for improvements, I suggest implementing a model with 5 or so fake debates in a user subpage, and again share the link so we can compare it to the current model.
What about having one page per day, discussing the deletion requests on the talk page of the image and collecting them by using a template on the daily page? Just an idea: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
Regards,
Flo
On 8/16/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:13 AM
If you have ideas for improvements, I suggest implementing a model with 5 or so fake debates in a user subpage, and again share the link so we can compare it to the current model.
What about having one page per day, discussing the deletion requests on the talk page of the image and collecting them by using a template on the daily page? Just an idea: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
I'd rather skip it and go to a PROD like system. Prod is still used on enwiki without toolserver, it's just done via categories.. The toolserver support was nice but not absolutely needed.
For us the toolserver support could be even more useful because it could automagically detect usage, and offer filtered lists (whats up for deletion that is used on my wiki). But we could get a prod like system running without that support.
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What about having one page per day, discussing the deletion requests on the talk page of the image and collecting them by using a template on the daily page? Just an idea: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk page? That's a little odd.
Also it wouldn't work for mass or multiple deletion requsts.
There are some interesting points made on [[COM:VP]] as well. I like the idea of splitting by reason - Nilfanion suggested reasons such as "problem user" and "mass request" (for category/template request).
To Gregory Maxwell - you mentioned the toolserver supplies "filtered links" to show what is up for deletion on "your wiki" - can you provide a link?
cheers Brianna
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk page? That's a little odd.
An alternative would be "subst:"ing the discussion page into the deletion discussion when deleting an image. What would be the problem in keeping the discussion at all?
Also it wouldn't work for mass or multiple deletion requests.
You could still write them into the daily deletion discussion page ...
Another idea would be to discuss the deletion request right within the image and to automatically categorize them by day.
Regards,
Flo
@Avatar: I used Outlook Express and it still worked at the list archives :)
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk page? That's a little odd.
An alternative would be "subst:"ing the discussion page into the deletion discussion when deleting an image. What would be the problem in keeping the discussion at all?
Do you mean *not* keeping the discussion? It's necessary to keep the discussion to refer to similar discussions, multiple requests (if an earlier one is keep, or if an image is uploaded multiple times), so that people from other wikis can come and find out why their favourite picture has been deleted, as can uploaders who only visit every 6 months.
Keeping orphan talk pages around would be weird. I don't really like that idea.
Another idea would be to discuss the deletion request right within the image and to automatically categorize them by day.
What do you mean, "within the image"?
cheers, Brianna
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:47:33 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher"
brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk page? That's a little odd.
An alternative would be "subst:"ing the discussion page into the
deletion discussion when deleting an image. What would be the problem in keeping the discussion at all?
Do you mean *not* keeping the discussion?
No, i didn't. I meant keeping them at the talk page.
Keeping orphan talk pages around would be weird. I don't really like that idea.
They wouldn't be orphans, since there used withing the daily pages ;)
Another idea would be to discuss the deletion request right within the
image and to automatically categorize them by day.
What do you mean, "within the image"?
Discussing the matter withing the image description. The problem would be the missing documentation when the picture is deleted.
What about simple daily pages like we use at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LKB?
Regards,
Flo
What do you mean, "within the image"?
Discussing the matter withing the image description. The problem would be the missing documentation when the picture is deleted.
I would prefer to discuss on the talk page, it should be separated so that if the result is 'keep' the debate is still around without diving into the history.
What about simple daily pages like we use at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LKB?
There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach... except there are currently 48 days listed on [[COM:DEL]].... instead of the 7-10 you might expect. I don't know that making those ancient debates (back to June 25, what is that, 7 weeks?) less visible is going to make them more likely to be resolved.
Brianna
Hi List,
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:00 AM:
What about simple daily pages like we use at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LKB?
There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach... except there are currently 48 days listed on [[COM:DEL]].... instead of the 7-10 you might expect. I don't know that making those ancient debates (back to June 25, what is that, 7 weeks?) less visible is going to make them more likely to be resolved.
Since we have the chance to restore deleted images where should be the problem in deleting everything that isn't clear after 7 or 14 days?
Regards,
Flo
On 18/08/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach... except there are currently 48 days listed on [[COM:DEL]].... instead of the 7-10 you might expect. I don't know that making those ancient debates (back to June 25, what is that, 7 weeks?) less visible is going to make them more likely to be resolved.
Since we have the chance to restore deleted images where should be the problem in deleting everything that isn't clear after 7 or 14 days?
That would create a lot of badwill. Articles have always been undeletable, but there's a good reason WP's never had a "delete first, discuss later" policy. For one thing, it's often hard to discuss an item if you can't see what it is.
Brianna
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Friday, August 18, 2006 6:26 AM:
On 18/08/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Since we have the chance to restore deleted images where should be the problem in deleting everything that isn't clear after 7 or 14 days?
That would create a lot of badwill. Articles have always been undeletable, but there's a good reason WP's never had a "delete first, discuss later" policy. For one thing, it's often hard to discuss an item if you can't see what it is.
I've talking about copyvios and these should be deleted asap. Imagine someone promises to get a permission and it takes 2 months. That's a lot of administration overload that will just slow down the progress in solving the del requests, because we can't close a complete day because of one slow person or process ...
Regards,
Flo
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:00 AM:
What do you mean, "within the image"?
Discussing the matter withing the image description. The problem would be the missing documentation when the picture is deleted.
I would prefer to discuss on the talk page, it should be separated so that if the result is 'keep' the debate is still around without diving into the history.
What about collecting the talk pages of deleted images in a category afterwards?
Regards,
Flo
"Florian Straub" wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:47:33 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" wrote:
Do you mean *not* keeping the discussion?
No, i didn't. I meant keeping them at the talk page.
Keeping orphan talk pages around would be weird. I don't really like that idea.
They wouldn't be orphans, since there used withing the daily pages ;)
Easy. Make discussion on the image talk: and if deleted, move to COM:DEL/deleted/Image *A template would probably be needed to header the image talk (if you're not brwosing from COM:DEL) *How to open a deletion request when the image talk: is already used? Probably <noinclude>ing the other content, but it's not too friendly
From: "Platonides" Platonides@gmail.com wrote on Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:24 PM:
"Florian Straub" wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:47:33 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" wrote:
Do you mean *not* keeping the discussion?
No, i didn't. I meant keeping them at the talk page.
Keeping orphan talk pages around would be weird. I don't really like that idea.
They wouldn't be orphans, since there used withing the daily pages ;)
Easy. Make discussion on the image talk: and if deleted, move to COM:DEL/deleted/Image
Nice idea!
*A template would probably be needed to header the image talk (if you're not brwosing from COM:DEL) *How to open a deletion request when the image talk: is already used? Probably <noinclude>ing the other content, but it's not too friendly
Maybe you could combine the template and the noinclude-tags to one and enter the rest of the discussion page withing the }} brackets.
Best regards,
Flo
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What about having one page per day, discussing the deletion requests on the talk page of the image and collecting them by using a template on the daily page? Just an idea: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Flominator/Deletion_proposal
That's quite nice. Having the discussion on the image talk page is good because at the moment discussions are very separated from the images. However when we delete the image, would we then keep the talk page? That's a little odd.
Also it wouldn't work for mass or multiple deletion requsts.
There are some interesting points made on [[COM:VP]] as well. I like the idea of splitting by reason - Nilfanion suggested reasons such as "problem user" and "mass request" (for category/template request).
To Gregory Maxwell - you mentioned the toolserver supplies "filtered links" to show what is up for deletion on "your wiki" - can you provide a link?
You all know about my "tasks" extension, do you? Where each task (e.g., a deletion request) gets automatically assigned a task talk page, besides tons of other goodies? ;-)
Magnus
Hi list,
---Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
requirements:
- The requests still have to be on the [[template:deletion
requests]]. This is because the 'Commons-level' page is actually a 'shell' or 'wrapper' with some instructions, and these instructions can be translated, while the actual requests themselves are not.
Actually this can also be done by including a sub page of [[COM:DEL]] that would contain the request list. Each item of this list may also be a sub page of the list page itself.
- Want to keep adding new items simple (possibly we can use tricks
with an input box similar to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FPC#Nomination to keep it outwardly simple)
- Want to be able to archive individual items - archiving a day at a
time is not appropriate because some debates drag on interminably (sometime while we wait for more information, replies from other people etc), and the system has to allow for these.
(...)
I've started some tests on my user page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alno
Best regards from France, -- Alexandre.NOUVEL@alnoprods.net |-> http://www.alnoprods.net |-> La copie privée et l'auto-diffusion menacées : http://eucd.info \ I hate spam. I kill spammers. Non mais.
Woot, I have a prototype! Please have a look and try it out:
http://www.brunsbug.dreamhosters.com/testing/index.php?title=COM:DR
It utilises these features: * user-centred: based on what the user wants to do, rather than the technicalities of how we actually do it * template-per-request approach * use of DynamicPageLists to generate on-the-fly lists of open requests of different types * super-easy processes for archiving, looking up and reopening debates.
Good for new users because they don't need to know anything about Commons, they just need to follow the step-by-step instructions.
Good for admins because archiving means changing a category from 'open' to 'closed'.
Good for casual users with CommonsTickers because they will be able to find deletion debates in one step.
Good for COM:DEL regulars because they can build a personal page to show them only the debates they're interested in.
Please have a play around with it (you're welcome to create an account or edit anonymously - it's my test wiki) and let me know what you think.
cheers Brianna
Hi Brianna,
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:28:16 +1000:
Please have a play around with it (you're welcome to create an account or edit anonymously - it's my test wiki) and let me know what you think.
that thing is great. I tried to extend it a little, so you don't have to copy the stuff into the edit field.
Just an idea ...
Flo
On 25/08/06, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Brianna,
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:28:16 +1000:
Please have a play around with it (you're welcome to create an account or edit anonymously - it's my test wiki) and let me know what you think.
that thing is great. I tried to extend it a little, so you don't have to copy the stuff into the edit field.
Just an idea ...
Flo
You will notice that it has now subst'ed your sig into the template, rather undesirably. The ***only way*** to solve the sig problem is to use the editintro stuff the way I have. I have tried dozens of other methods involving nowiki and nested templates and the like, and nothing else works.
Brianna