21 Mar

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

‎Proposal for a Commons 'Proposed deletion' (PROD) process: c
← Older revision
Revision as of 21:47, 21 March 2013
Line 173:
Line 173:

Is there any particular reason for making this proposal here? [[Commons:Requests for comment/scope]] seems rather relevant, or [[COM:VPR]] or [[COM:VP]] would be more usual routes. In addition, I wonder if a longer-term solution isn't to take up an idea someone mentioned recently to have new uploads go to a "staging server", and only moved to the main Commons database when either (a) they're reviewed and approved by someone other than the uploader as being educationally useful and OK copyright-wise or (b) are in use on a Wikimedia project. A staging server can behave differently in a number of ways, eg files could be permanently ''deleted'' from there, and files could also be (at user's request) excluded from Commons searches, etc. At least for mobile uploads, I think this approach makes a lot of sense! This is a lot more ambitious, of course, but setting up a PROD process is also a fair amount of work. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for making this proposal here? [[Commons:Requests for comment/scope]] seems rather relevant, or [[COM:VPR]] or [[COM:VP]] would be more usual routes. In addition, I wonder if a longer-term solution isn't to take up an idea someone mentioned recently to have new uploads go to a "staging server", and only moved to the main Commons database when either (a) they're reviewed and approved by someone other than the uploader as being educationally useful and OK copyright-wise or (b) are in use on a Wikimedia project. A staging server can behave differently in a number of ways, eg files could be permanently ''deleted'' from there, and files could also be (at user's request) excluded from Commons searches, etc. At least for mobile uploads, I think this approach makes a lot of sense! This is a lot more ambitious, of course, but setting up a PROD process is also a fair amount of work. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 19:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

*{{o}} I find that the regualar DR queue operates quickly and efficiently enough for scope issues. Usually nobody even bothers to object, and the image is summarily deleted after 7 days. --[[User:99of9|99of9]] ([[User talk:99of9|talk]]) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

*{{o}} I find that the regualar DR queue operates quickly and efficiently enough for scope issues. Usually nobody even bothers to object, and the image is summarily deleted after 7 days. --[[User:99of9|99of9]] ([[User talk:99of9|talk]]) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

+
:Yes, if that's not a burden, a fair approach. However the PROD process as described, means that this is equivalent to a DR but we skip the part where we have to write out a DR rationale. One could imagine a PROD with a standard tick-box for certain types. Now, imagine how easy it would be to do 100 of those tick-box actions on 100 different users in one day, and how much of a hassle it is to create 100 DRs for 100 different users. Oh, and the deleting admin would not have to "read" a DR nomination, they would only glance at the image. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== strange up load behavior ==

== strange up load behavior ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=93047063&oldid=93044927