Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
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...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
"Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Gregory Maxwell
On 8/16/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Flominator
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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 :)



--


Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
On 17/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:47:33 +1000  "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:51:19 +1000 "Brianna Laugher"
> <[hidden email]> 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
--


Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher schrieb:

> On 17/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> 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


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Alexandre NOUVEL
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Hi list,

---Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> 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,
--
[hidden email]
|-> http://www.alnoprods.net
|-> La copie privée et l'auto-diffusion menacées : http://eucd.info
\ I hate spam. I kill spammers. Non mais.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Hi List,

 "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
"Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Flominator
On 18/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> 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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
 "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> wrote on Friday, August 18,
2006 6:26 AM:

> On 18/08/06, Florian Straub <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Platonides
In reply to this post by Flominator

"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



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
From: "Platonides" <[hidden email]> 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

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
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
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rethinking [[COM:DEL]]

Flominator
Hi Brianna,

"Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]> 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
--


Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
12