Commons talk:Deletion policy


I'd like to see an addition to this policy regarding deletion of categories. It happened more than once that User:A removes a CfD tag from a category page replacing it by {{speedy}} without further notice on the disc page, User:B deletes the category (AGF) and User:C closes the cfd request for the cat has been deleted. We know, there is a huge CfD backlog, but IMO a CfD should not be killed this way. Therefore I propose to add a sentence that empty categories should not be deleted if they are part of a CfD request that is still open. --Achim (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
By principle, I agree. But there is question of responsibility. I'd like to see, that not only deletion, but also nomination for speedy deletion such categories is not good. Taivo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's a bad idea to speedy-delete a category in this situation, surely it's also a bad idea to nominate it. At best it's ignorant; at worst it's intentionally trying to subvert policy. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I support your proposal. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems like consensus to me, Achim. Be bold, or if you're not feeling bold, you can propose specific wording here first. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Quick sanity check, yes, that matches. –Be..anyone 💩 17:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2Edit

As I tried to describe the (current) real situation for redundant images more precise, this was reverted. In fact this policy is crap, it is a joke to tag an image as redundant. Apart from this, a reference to a historical discussion is a no-go for a readable official policy. People believe in this policy, but they are thoroughly disappointed, that leads to lasting resentment and annoyance. The first step would be to write the resulting points (arguments) from this huge discussion Commons_talk:Superseded images policy to an user-friendly readable policy/recommendation. It is a slap in the face for every halfway reasonable people, if someone give as reason only this huge old crap link. I do see more and more what other people outside from Commons say: "Commons (has no community it) is only an group of single admins to herself administer and lots of users who look neither right nor left." (from one of the most notable admins on De-Wiki)

To be more concrete to illustrate the issue:
  • There are single notable admins which generally no redundant images delete (for years), if the superseding image is a "newer" SVG (Unfortunately the discussion was not very fruitful...)
  • On the other side there are admins which ask user personally why he don't tag the superseded (PNG) image with the duplicate-tag (with SVG)!![1]

So this is not intended to be an admin critic, this is a policy critic!! Thanks for attention (and sorry for google-translate) User: Perhelion 21:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the current situation does not exactly appear to be perfect, I just think it's better to have a policy that leaves room for interpretation than one stating that things are done on a "random" basis.    FDMS  4    21:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Too much room for interpretation can look arbitrary, and it can certainly frustrating to those subject to seemingly arbitrary actions. I don't Perhelion's edits were helpful, but we might consider removing a policy altogether if it lacks clarity/consensus. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The summary at the top of Commons talk:Superseded images policy should be on a project page, here or there. –Be..anyone 💩 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Deletion policy".