Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 June 17
2009 June 19 >

18 June 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Catdesc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Far too few people commented (3, with a 2-1 majority to delete) for any conclusions to be drawn about what the community thinks about the long-term usefulness of this template. Also no reasons of any merit were given as to why it should be deleted (we have many complex templates, so complexity is clearly not a ground for deletion, and the user who claimed that the information produced by the template was "not useful" failed to respond when asked to be specific, and clearly some of the information produced is useful, so this comment can hardly be considered fully thought-out). Please relist so that more can comment and so that we can be sure that there are genuine grounds to delete it, and that we know what we want instead. (Closing admin has been requested to change decision but declined.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in particular the discussion was closed without an answer being reached to the important question now raised here - if it is to be deleted, then how much of the information in it is to be retained when it gets converted?--Kotniski (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Without trying to turn this into TFD2, I agree about the usefulness of this template, in that it makes categorizing and describing categories more difficult. Not only for use, but also when it comes to automated recategorization. Bots aren't set up to deal with this, nor is AWB that I'm aware of. The only positive I can see is that it gives categories a consistent look and feel. --Kbdank71 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun the process of extracting the categories, by adding a pseudo-category for each parameter. As the category names state, do not create! I'll let this propagate for a few hours until the site isn't so busy, and then use the pseudo-categories to build the real things on the actual pages.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain exactly what it is you plan to do? We've already had one botched attempt to clear this up - let's make sure we know what we're doing this time. (In particular I don't think a few hours is necessarily enough time for categories to propagate via a template.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is how we used to do it in years past, but the jobs queue is really slow today. It's still working on "Cities and towns in", 10+ hours later, and doesn't seem to have touched the counties and villages. Hmmm, I'll have to wait a lot longer, or think of something else. Brute force will do it, removing one {.}par[.] at each pass, but that would take 18 passes over 700+ articles. I'll think on it some more, as the categories propagate.... No rush, as long as it's finished before this review is over, and before the template is deleted.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what you tried to do at Category:Villages in Poland, I think you may be on the right track, but please take note of the .key. parameters (sort keys) that correspond to the .par. ones. Anyway, I hope you'll wait until discussion concludes before doing any mass edits. As I say, if you can wait till July 4, I can do them all very quickly with a script and save anyone else the bother.--Kotniski (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This template is potentially important and additional discussion is needed. It was unreasonable to close it until the use of a template such as this can be discussed. I don't know my own view on that -- I would like to here further view from people who work on categorization in a proper discussion. DGG (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). That discussion was far from concluded, with so few particpants, and User:Kotniski's reasonable points unanswered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as TfD nominator.
    1. Although a small sample, it was 4:1 (including closer and original request on its Talk by Piotrus).
      1. The only person wanting Keep was its author.
      2. There was posting at (2 or more) other related Talk pages.
      3. It was closed late, after 12 days (more than the usual 7 days).
      4. Therefore, had plenty of opportunity for discussion.
    2. I see no reasonable points by Kotniski: "until someone comes up with something better." – not an intelligible argument for keeping.
      1. We already had/have something better, already used on tens of thousands of categories.
      2. Specific templates, simple syntax.
      3. Undoing will usually restore the original information that Kotniski deleted.
    3. Also, speaking as relatively expert on categories, this seriously impedes CfD, finding, merging, and renaming categories.
    4. Embedding categories inside templates is a good thing for single purpose templates.
    5. Multi-purpose, multi-parameter, multi-category, monstrous templates are another thing entirely.
  • --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – clearly a useful template; and why is the apparent Polishness of the creator relevant? I do agree with WAS that parent categories should not be added by template as bots, AWB and hotcat cannot cope with this, but this is just a matter of editing the template. (I was not aware that comments not made in a tfd could be counted as part of the tfd.) Occuli (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only assume it's because m:poles are evil. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing the template will only remove categorization from the categories the template is used on. In order to replace the categorization, someone will need to edit each templated category manually. That needs to happen now, regardless of the outcome of this DRV, becasue if it's kept, and it looks like it's going to be, the use of this template as it currently stands is going to cause major problems at CFD. --Kbdank71 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the problems will be as major as you think (it's not like this is the first template to transclude categories), but as I've already said somewhere else, once a decision is taken, I can convert all these template instances into normal wikitext (i.e. with the category declarations explicit, and preserving whatever other information we decide to keep). I'll be away for a bit, but when I come back around July 4 (assuming there's an actionable decision by then) I'll get onto it.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occuli,
    1. What exactly is "useful"? We've already established that its main text is already covered by other templates, and its inclusion of categories is undesirable. Can you point to some examples of actual usefulness?
    2. Why are you referring to Polishness? I see no such comments here.
    3. You agree that the template has to remove the categories, and Kotinski claims this will have to be done by hand.
  • (Yes, persons that ask for a template to be removed – but we have to help with the process – are certainly counted as supporting deletion. Do you deny they were supporting deletion?)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tfd nom (by WAS) explicitly brings in Polishness; I was merely being diligent and informing myself on the topic. Opinions expressed outside a cfd (even in previous cfds) have never been counted as far as I know; perhaps tfds are different and we have to scour wikipedia for related opinions. I am not aware of templates which cover the same area and none has been cited. I agree that the categories will have to be replaced - this could be done by bot just as easily as deletion (1. undo addition of catdesc; 2. add catdesc2). Occuli (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nuvola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD discussion was relisted on 13 May. It was closed by a non-admin on 15 May with the comment "The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) 10 days is enough. Weighing the arguments, I don't think a consensus has been reached". I believe the closure was procedurally incorrect (it should have run for the full seven days after relisting and have been closed by an admin since it wasn't an unambiguous result). I reverted the closure and informed the editor, who was offline, that I had done this. Since I had voted in the AfD, this was reverted by another editor (see pointlessly long discussion here). I ask that this be relisted (or closed as a delete based on the lack of referencing and lack of policy-based arguments in the keep !votes, but I'm not out to re-run the AfD here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Since I'm the one that non-admin closed this uncontroversial article, I'll just point out that I believe this DR nom is in bad faith. Delicious carbuncle didn't seem to have an issue anymore with the Afd until I pointed it out in an unrelated matter at this AN/I thread. Now, a month later, he suddenly wants it reviewed? The Afd ran for a total of 9 days - May 6 through May 14. Delicious carbuncle !voted delete in the discussion. I closed it the next day as no consensus. Delicious carbuncle undid my close, even though he had !voted in the discussion. Another user, an admin in fact, undid Delicious carbuncle's undo and closed it back. If there were anything wrong with my closure, I would think that admin would have acknowledged that. The admin in fact noted in his edit summary, "No Consensus is an acceptable closure here." - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be perfectly honest, I had forgotten about it until you brought it up. I actually said on my talk page "I'll take it to DRV when I have a chance" so your accusation of bad faith is entirely misplaced. Please don't assume my actions are based on any kind of malice towards you, in spite of the fact that we have had recent disagreements. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allstarecho's history seems quite above board to me. Any user in good standing can revert a non-admin closure; after all, WP:NAC is clearly for non-controversial closures, and the act of reverting the closure establishes that the discussion was controversial—hence automatically invalidating the NAC. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for an admin to close a controversial discussion. (And I say that as someone who's had his own non-admin closures reverted in the past.)

    The policy basis for reverting a non-admin closure is, of course, WP:BRD.

    An admin then re-closed the discussion. I don't see any issues, or any bad faith, in that sequence of events.

    Even though I've said all that in Delicious carbuncle's defence, I still think he's in the wrong about the closure. I view "no consensus" as a perfectly reasonable outcome, since there was clearly no consensus in the debate.

    Therefore, I endorse this closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus outcome, but disagree with most everything else. Relistings may be closed at any time if a consensus forms, but closing no consensus despite recent comments should be avoided. I think that only admins should reopen AfDs, including NACs, but there isn't a strong consensus on this point (WT:AFD discussions from April: 1, 2). Somewhat paradoxically, I also think that it is too difficult to reopen marginal NACs (either in procedure or decision) in a timely manner. Flatscan (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No further action. I expressly do not endorse the closure. Non-admins should not ever make a no consensus closure, because non-admins should only be closing unambiguous debates, and a no-consensus decision cannot result from an unambiguous debate. No problems with the closure of a relist after a few days; WP:RELIST expressly allows this.
    However, there is nothing to be gained from relisting this, as I don't see a consensus forming either way. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but allow a speedy renomination if someone wishes to do so. I was going to punch "keep" on this one after 7 but noticed that nobody was discussing the complete lack of sourcing so I relisted it instead. On the issue of "no consensus" NACs, they should be discouraged but not outright prohibited. On the issue of BOLD reopenings, I disagree with S Marshal on this point. Anybody who would be precluded from closing an XFD discussion also should not be reopening it unless it's an obvious bad faith/disruptive close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No surprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you. Closing and re-opening are not equivalent. Closing ends editor participation where re-opening does not. An editor has nothing to gain by re-opening a prematurely closed debate since they cannot predict how future votes will go. Incidentally, I won't be renominating this article because I no longer participate in AfD discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak sustain We don't really have a rule on how long to run a relisting. My own feeling is that it should normally run another 7 days that, so people know how long they have to respond and so an exchange of opinion can take place, & I think RELIST should be changed to say so. I certainly very much object when it's closed in favor of the immediate next opinion that appears. But in practice, I don't think that closing this one as no-consensus this way did any real harm, & I think the lack of consensus was fair enough. It can always be nominated again in a month or two -- it is more likely that consensus will form then, than if we list it now. DGG (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). Obviously a no consensus. But please, can we stop with early closes, especially by non-admins. Relist next year and do somehting productive in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the relisting guidelines as they are currently written at WP:DELPRO, closing a relisted debate can never be called an "early close". A relisted debate can be closed any time a closer determines that consensus has been reached and though it doesn't state it, presumably when the closer determines that a consensus is unlikely to be reached. If one feels that this should be changed, then the proper thing to do is discuss it at WT:DELPRO. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ther's nothing to change - WP:RELIST, which is part of WP:DELPRO, expressly allows early closure "once consensus can be determined". That necessarily preludes an early "no consensus" closure. During the discussions about extending AfD runs to 7 days, it seemed widely agreed that early closures should be very exceptional rather than routine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sandrammerbaseblock.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was entirely unreasonable. The same has been the case for last three-four images uploaded by me. I have asked the admin to refrain from speedy deletion and inform in advance if he wishes to do so after a mutual discussion. I had also posted a hang on on the page still the file is missing. Seems like no image I post is valid enough for other users to see. Vertical.limit (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, recreation possible. Deletion is borderline within criterion F9: "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use, nor does it include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." Vertical.limit claimed the image as "own work"; however, it was located on a commercial website displaying a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. This meets the obviously-not-the-case portion of the definition. The uploader did not claim a free license, however. Nonetheless, the burden is on the uploader to either 1) demonstrate that he does own the image and is releasing it under a free license or 2) to provide fair-use rationale under the non-free image guidelines. If he does so, then either a re-uploaded version should be allowed to stand or the image should be restored. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with liberty to reupload if a proper verified license is obtained, exactly per C.Fred. Worth noting that speedy deletions do not require notification of, discussion with, approval of, or waiting for the page creator, although the first is encouraged. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if multiple files that a user is uploading get speedy deleted, it is usually something procedural that should best be addressed by discussion with the deleting admin, so they can be reuploaded in a fixed form. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse All speedys certainly should require notification of the page creator, who may have a perfectly good defense. (or, if its downright vandalism, should have a warning). But at present they do not; I regard it as an indication of institutionalized BITE, and the preference some feel for being arbitrary rather than polite. I rarely work with images because people bite more strongly there, and arbitrary is routine. But I myself would have considered this a valid F9 on the face of it. DGG (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demonstration possible Hi, I can demonstrate that, I own both the things 1. the image & 2. the domain, I can make the image vanish from the domain required but of course not for a long time since it needs to be there for the people to see it.

Please let me know if the need be to do so. Vertical.limit (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this isn't the best way to demonstrate ownership of the image and domain since it's for such a short time nor is it clear why the image is disappearing. Why don't you make a special page on the website where you clearly and specifically release whatever images you wish to release under a free license. Alternatively, a specific release from your company via WP:OTRS would probably be fine (see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials) Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have applied to license out the images on CC-BY-SA lets hope it goes through. Thanks your advice has helped. -- Vertical.limit (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_18&oldid=1089914188"