| Revision as of 13:25, 23 December 2024 editDMacks (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators186,663 edits →Template-deletion: complete the thought← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:51, 15 January 2025 edit undoMarchjuly (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users111,879 edits →File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg: Added ty. | ||
| (101 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == |
== ffdc template bot == | ||
| Hello. I am currently working on Fatily's task, to remove ffdc templates which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD (]). I came across some cases where your input would be appreciated. eg, ] where the template is incomplete: <code><nowiki>{{ffdc|log=2019 May 3|date=September 2019}}</nowiki></code> (no file name), and ] <code><nowiki>{{FFDC|file_name.ext|log=2024 December 28 |date=December 2024}}</nowiki></code> (incorrect file name). Currently, I have programmed the bot to skip such instances (). What should be done? skip it (no action), or to remove these templates? Courtesy ping to {{ping|CX Zoom|Marchjuly}}, as they were involved in the original bot request/BRFA. —usernamekiran ] 04:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I just removed the ffdc templates and associated captions from ]. I don't think it was a case of the template being incomplete or otherwise used incorrectly; it's just that everybody forgot to remove it and its associated caption from the article after the FFD related to the relevant file was closed as "Delete". It seems like something a bot should be able to do, but removing the templates is actually something mentioned in point 7.2 of ] as post of the post close cleanup; there are, however, so few admins working at FFD these days that it's probably something that slips through the cracks every now and then. FWIW, I try to go back and check for these templates when I notice the file they're related to has been deleted and will remove them myself, but I probably miss some too. I'm not sure whether there are enough of these cases to warrant tasking the job to a bot, but I'm also not sure how to otherwise find them, except perhpaps digging through the results of a "What links here" search for the template. The problem with the template used in ] seems to be a combination of two user errors, and I've fixed that as well: the person who nominated the file for discussion just forgot to add the template, and the person who subsequently added the template just forgot to add the file's name. I don't know whether those types of errors can be resolved entirely by a bot, and probably some type of human review is also necessary for such cases. However, even when there's no file name provided, the malformed template should still link to the correct date of the FFD discussion; so, its use still sort of works as intended. -- ] (]) 09:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|usernamekiran}} Why did KiranBOt remove ]? The relevant FFD discussion is still ongoing. Is a syntax issue? A false positive? Are you going around checking on KiranBot's removal of these template to make sure it hasn't prematurely removed any of them? -- ] (]) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Marchjuly}} I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to ]? It is transcluded on ] to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran ] 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps {{u|JJMC89}} might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can code the bot any way that you'd like. I mean, dont think about technicalities, I want opinion from you guys about what the bot should remove/update/keep as it is. —usernamekiran ] 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My apologies {{u|usernamekiran}} for not responding sooner. I personally don't use bots or scripts when editing, but I think the most important thing for any bot tasked to remove ffdc templates is going to be to minimize mistakes as much as possible. This means the bot is going to somehow need to know when an FFD about a particular file has been closed. The bot is then going to somehow need to figure out which articles the file that was discussed was/is being used and check those articles for ffdc templates. I'm not sure how a bot can do this, particularly when a file ends being deleted, but if it can create a page like {{u|JJMC89}} has done with ], then perhaps a human editor could review the page and check on the bot. According to the "What links here" for ], there are where the template is being transcluded, and I don't know whether that's a little or a lot. Some these pages seem to be articles in which the file in question is being discussed at FFD, but others like ] are archived pages where the relevant file has long been deleted but template wasn't removed. In these other cases, perhaps the template was left for reference purposes (even though it probably should've been removed), but I don't know how a bot can determine that. So, perhaps the bot should only remove ffdc template for files kept per FFD because these might have little value to readers since there is going to be at least a link to the FFD found on the file's talk page. -- ] (]) 06:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|Marchjuly}} no need to apologise {{p}} I have added function so that bot would know if an FFD about a particular file has been closed, or ongoing (thats what I was referring to by "eligibility criteria" in previous comment). The bot goes through the list of transclusions, ]. Out of 80, only 20 are in article space. That answers your second doubt. I ran the bot a few minutes ago, it removed template from two articles: ], and ] (there were 22 before the run). The bot created ] with fourteen entries (three templates on single page), I guess rest of the discussions are ongoing. Kindly let me know if this is okay. —usernamekiran ] 11:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Sankranthiki Vasthunnam Release Date(2).jpg == | |||
| Hi - I'm contacting you because you are the admin who speedy deleted the redirect created when a user ]ed an article I created with no notification to me, and what I think is an explanation at odds with what are described as valid reasons in DRAFTIFY; I just want to make sure I didn't miss anything. I do like to create stubs on things which seem to have enough sources, but I don't have the expertise (language or knowledge-base) to really interpret. Thanks! ] (]) 17:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Tduk}} Hi, per ], you are free to move it back into mainspace if you object to the draftification of the article. You may also want to contact the user who moved the page to better understand and perhaps address their concerns. ]] 23:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The file does not show for me. When I click on the file image or thumbnail image, I get {{tpq|File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.a8/a/a8/Sankranthiki_Vasthunnam_Release_Date%282%29.jpg}}. Do yuou know what would cause this? -- ] (]) 15:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Nicolás Atanes un-protection == | |||
| :{{Reply to|Whpq}} The image displays normally for me when I click on the file and thumbnail image. Does the error message persist even now? ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I am still getting this error. I have tried it on my desktop and tablet which are both on my home network. I tried it from my phone after disconnecting from my home network and it still shows as an error. All of these are from some form of Chrome browser with me logged in. I tried from my desktop while logged out and it still has the error. I tried using an online web-based emulator emulating Opera under Win10. It still does not show. -- ] (]) 01:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''' - Datbot also when trying to resize it. The image now shows for me. Some weird backend glitch I guess has resolved itself. -- ] (]) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Heya @], I just accepted ] via AfC, I think it passes notability - would you mind unprotecting the talk page so I can correctly move it? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 21:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deleted articles== | |||
| == Restoration of article == | |||
| Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I please see the deleted articles ] and ]. ] (]) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} and . ]] 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I please see the deleted articles ], ], and ]. ] (]) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} and . ] was just a redirect to ]. ]] 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == CfD nomination at ] == | |||
| Hello, I would like to ask if there is still a chance to restore the articles. @] They had real sources and were really well done and didn't break Misplaced Pages rules. Thank you in advance for your answer @] ] (]) 17:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notice--> Thank you. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] ] (]) 07:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Reply to|Historyk.ok}} Hi, I do not restore pages created by banned users per ]. I can provide the sources as an alternative solution. ]] 12:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Totally unhelpful. ] (]) 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==DYK for Yoon Do-young== | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| |image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
| |imagesize=40px | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that ''']''' ''(pictured)'' scored his debut goal for ] 50 seconds into a match against ]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> — ] (]) 00:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == XfD request == | |||
| You closed the prior AfD as delete. Please will you take a look at the deleted article to make a determination about CSD eligibility? 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've listed a redirect for discussion per ], the redirect in question is "]" and its up on the ]. ] (]) 10:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Please also consider whether the editor pushing the new version ({{noping|FrancisMathew2255}}) is {{Noping|ArifVlog782}} evading a block 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Quick note regarding AN discussion on AfD closures that you may be interested in == | |||
| == Question and advice regarding Moe's Southwest Grill logo == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding the timing of AfD closures. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--> — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Explict. I recently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons a new logo of Moe's Southwest Grill (File:Moes Southwest Grill logo.png). On 21 November 2023, an IP user made an edit that removed that logo from the article. The edit summary, in part, stated, "Removed outdated logo." After I had uploaded the new logo, I noticed that you had deleted the Misplaced Pages-stored image of ] on 10 February 2024, with the rationale "F5: Unused non-free media file". Although I am unable to view it due to its deletion, the evidence above suggests that this was the previous logo of Moe's Southwest Grill. To me, the new logo does not qualify for copyright protection as it does not appear to meet the originality threshold required for copyright. The new logo appears to merely consist of text and geometric symbols (a box, three triangles, and a generic pepper symbol), although it appears certainly eligible for trademark protection. There seems to be some level of consensus that the pepper symbol (see the commons entry to File:Chili's Logo.svg) is not copyrightable. I could understand an argument the elements are combined in a way that would make it copyrightable, but for the reasons mentioned above, I don't find it particularly persuasive. Since you are the deleting administrator on the original logo and are an admin on Commons, I will defer to your judgment over whether the current logo is copyrightable or not. If you feel it does meet copyright protection and delete it from commons, I would like to upload the new logo to Misplaced Pages under fair use rational, unless you have any objections. Thanks! ] (]) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of "Unlock It" artwork == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, I've seen that you decided to delete the "]" artwork yesterday. I wasn't present in the discussion since I was on vacations and didn't look at my talk page frequently. I saw that a sockpuppet answered with reasons I share about why the file should've been kept. However, I don't know the user and I think its unfair that because of them, my upload had to be deleted. I understand that the user has done things not permitted here but I should've been taken into account also since I'm the one that uploaded the artwork. I've already began a discussion with @] but nobody else participated. Now that the issue was taken to Files for discussion, I could've been tagged to share my input (I would've look at the alert and share my opinion too). I have nothing against none of you (I understand you're doing your work) but I disagree with the abrupt ending of the discussion and prefer to start the discussion again. I'm new with these type of discussions so if you can give me some guidance about what I can do now, I would gladly accept it. ] (]) 04:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|GiankM. M}} Hi, this file was actually deleted by {{U|Pppery}}. Perhaps he is willing to reconsider his closure given this comment. ]] 11:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe that to be the song's official cover art (it was using the Pop 2 cover almost immediately after). Nor the one at ] actually. See the Unlock It file's talk page.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, ok. Thank you for clarifying it. ] (]) 14:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I deleted that because (ignoring a comment by a sock) the nomination argument was uncontested for a month. Deletion discussions have no minimum participation. If you still want the discussion reopened and relisted I would be willing to oblige, but it looks like that is no longer needed. ] ] 16:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Oh, I got it. Thank you for explaining. But can I upload the file again or we need to do the discussion first? ] (]) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I have undeleted the file and reopened the discussion. ] ] 02:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you so much! ] (]) 04:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| When deleting files per ], please ensure that Commons has the high-resolution copy of the file, not just the bot-reduced ] version. --] (]) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Help me, please == | |||
| :{{Reply to|Stefan2}} I have uploaded the higher resolution. ]] 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Hello, dear Explicit! Please, tell me how You can create Your own draft in the Enwiki (''for writing future articles'')?.. Otherwise, I must admit, here I am, for now, a complete loser... Thanks. ] (]) 12:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** Oh, that's it, hang up! It seems that it has already happened... 🤗🙄🙌 ] (]) 13:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg == | |||
| == Season's Greetings == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ] | |||
| Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at ]? I think it's a reupload of the same file you deleted back in November. The licensing is almost certainly incorrect and the file's not being used anywhere; so, I don't see a way to convert it to non-free (at least not at the moment). I tagged the file with "npd" per F11, but this probably meets to criteria for F9. -- ] (]) 11:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size: larger; text-align: center">Hello there! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>)</span> wishes you & yours ]!<br /><br />Whether you celebrate ], ], ], ],<br />] (for the rest of us!) or even the ],<br />here's hoping your holiday time is wonderful and<br />- '''especially''' -<br /> | |||
| :{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, it is indeed the same image. The use of {{tl|npd}} works in this case. ]] 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| that the New Year will be an improvement on the old.<br />CHEERS!<br /> | |||
| ::Thanks for checking. -- ] (]) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 12:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)<br /></div> | |||
| {{clear}}</div> <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>)</span> 12:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I wanted to know how to add an edit notice like you have... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#50B849;">'''''Vestrian24Bio'''''</span> (<small>]</small>)</span> 12:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply to|Vestrian24Bio}} You can create your edit notice at ]. ]] 14:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bhutabali deletion == | |||
| While the delete vote looks unanimous, reading the actual arguments instead of the bolded votes shows a clearer consensus for redirection from multiple participants. Could you redirect it instead? Thanks. ] (]) 13:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|PARAKANYAA}} {{Done}}, closure adjusted. ]] 14:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasonal greetings:) == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Explicit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| — Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| |}<span id="Benison:1734891120337:User_talkFTTCLNExplicit" class="FTTCmt">— Benison <small>(] · ])</small> 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Appeal of deletion of "List of controversial elections" == | |||
| I would like to appeal the decision to delete the article ], because the article has been on WP for 12 years, with dozens of editors contributing to it, yet it was removed in the midst of a controversial election in the US with only one week of discussion. Also, no opportunity was given to allow content from the article to be moved to other articles prior to deletion. <b>] (]•])</b> 19:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Sparkie82}} There was resounding consensus to delete the article. ] is not a valid argument to keep it. A week of discussion is the standard and is only extended if consensus is unclear, which was not the case here. There was no support to move the content anywhere else. ]] 03:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey, might need a quick page protection here! ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Already done! No need to worry yourself here. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} {{Reply to|YesI'mOnFire}} I blocked four accounts as obvious sockpuppets of each other. I didn't see the need to protect it after that, but oh well. ]] 03:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seeing that he tried using multiple account, I doubt he was going to stop anytime soon. So imo a page protection was necessary. Anyway thanks. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Template-deletion == | |||
| Regarding ], I don't doubt the nomination and lack of use at that time, but the {{tl|Chembox DrugClass}} template is in support of a feature that was (and still is) implemented and documented. The {{tl|Chembox}} suite is possibly some of the spaghettiest spaghetti we have:( So since then, at least one article invoked {{tl|chembox}} in a way that triggered that template and therefore gave broken output. Is this sufficient basis to un-delete it? ] (]) 13:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|DMacks}} Yes, the template can be undeleted if it is put to use. The nominator does a lot of cleanup with unused templates and nominates them for that reason, as to not keep hundreds of templates laying around for no one to maintain them. ]] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] uses it. I definitely have no objection to that sort of cleanup. In this particular case, it would have been easily noticed by the chemistry folks if a note had been posted to the template talkpage. It's a redirect, where the target has decent visibility but the template itself is not, so I'm not surprised nobody noticed that the template itself was tagged. ] (]) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:51, 15 January 2025
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
ffdc template bot
Hello. I am currently working on Fatily's task, to remove ffdc templates which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD (BRFA). I came across some cases where your input would be appreciated. eg, Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) where the template is incomplete: {{ffdc|log=2019 May 3|date=September 2019}} (no file name), and The Computer Programme {{FFDC|file_name.ext|log=2024 December 28 |date=December 2024}} (incorrect file name). Currently, I have programmed the bot to skip such instances (sample edits). What should be done? skip it (no action), or to remove these templates? Courtesy ping to @CX Zoom and Marchjuly:, as they were involved in the original bot request/BRFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just removed the ffdc templates and associated captions from Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. I don't think it was a case of the template being incomplete or otherwise used incorrectly; it's just that everybody forgot to remove it and its associated caption from the article after the FFD related to the relevant file was closed as "Delete". It seems like something a bot should be able to do, but removing the templates is actually something mentioned in point 7.2 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines as post of the post close cleanup; there are, however, so few admins working at FFD these days that it's probably something that slips through the cracks every now and then. FWIW, I try to go back and check for these templates when I notice the file they're related to has been deleted and will remove them myself, but I probably miss some too. I'm not sure whether there are enough of these cases to warrant tasking the job to a bot, but I'm also not sure how to otherwise find them, except perhpaps digging through the results of a "What links here" search for the template. The problem with the template used in The Computer Programme#Book seems to be a combination of two user errors, and I've fixed that as well: the person who nominated the file for discussion just forgot to add the template, and the person who subsequently added the template just forgot to add the file's name. I don't know whether those types of errors can be resolved entirely by a bot, and probably some type of human review is also necessary for such cases. However, even when there's no file name provided, the malformed template should still link to the correct date of the FFD discussion; so, its use still sort of works as intended. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: Why did KiranBOt remove this ffdc template? The relevant FFD discussion is still ongoing. Is a syntax issue? A false positive? Are you going around checking on KiranBot's removal of these template to make sure it hasn't prematurely removed any of them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to User:KiranBOT/List of mismatched QID? It is transcluded on Category talk:Infobox person Wikidata using qid to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps JJMC89 might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can code the bot any way that you'd like. I mean, dont think about technicalities, I want opinion from you guys about what the bot should remove/update/keep as it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- My apologies usernamekiran for not responding sooner. I personally don't use bots or scripts when editing, but I think the most important thing for any bot tasked to remove ffdc templates is going to be to minimize mistakes as much as possible. This means the bot is going to somehow need to know when an FFD about a particular file has been closed. The bot is then going to somehow need to figure out which articles the file that was discussed was/is being used and check those articles for ffdc templates. I'm not sure how a bot can do this, particularly when a file ends being deleted, but if it can create a page like JJMC89 has done with User:JJMC89 bot/report/NFCC violations, then perhaps a human editor could review the page and check on the bot. According to the "What links here" for Template:ffdc, there are currently 83 pages where the template is being transcluded, and I don't know whether that's a little or a lot. Some these pages seem to be articles in which the file in question is being discussed at FFD, but others like Talk:German language/Archive 1#Image removal are archived pages where the relevant file has long been deleted but template wasn't removed. In these other cases, perhaps the template was left for reference purposes (even though it probably should've been removed), but I don't know how a bot can determine that. So, perhaps the bot should only remove ffdc template for files kept per FFD because these might have little value to readers since there is going to be at least a link to the FFD found on the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: no need to apologise
I have added function so that bot would know if an FFD about a particular file has been closed, or ongoing (thats what I was referring to by "eligibility criteria" in previous comment). The bot goes through the list of transclusions, similar to this]. Out of 80, only 20 are in article space. That answers your second doubt. I ran the bot a few minutes ago, it removed template from two articles: special:diff/1267934090, and special:diff/1267934114 (there were 22 before the run). The bot created User:KiranBOT/reports/List of malformed FFDC template with fourteen entries (three templates on single page), I guess rest of the discussions are ongoing. Kindly let me know if this is okay. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: no need to apologise
- My apologies usernamekiran for not responding sooner. I personally don't use bots or scripts when editing, but I think the most important thing for any bot tasked to remove ffdc templates is going to be to minimize mistakes as much as possible. This means the bot is going to somehow need to know when an FFD about a particular file has been closed. The bot is then going to somehow need to figure out which articles the file that was discussed was/is being used and check those articles for ffdc templates. I'm not sure how a bot can do this, particularly when a file ends being deleted, but if it can create a page like JJMC89 has done with User:JJMC89 bot/report/NFCC violations, then perhaps a human editor could review the page and check on the bot. According to the "What links here" for Template:ffdc, there are currently 83 pages where the template is being transcluded, and I don't know whether that's a little or a lot. Some these pages seem to be articles in which the file in question is being discussed at FFD, but others like Talk:German language/Archive 1#Image removal are archived pages where the relevant file has long been deleted but template wasn't removed. In these other cases, perhaps the template was left for reference purposes (even though it probably should've been removed), but I don't know how a bot can determine that. So, perhaps the bot should only remove ffdc template for files kept per FFD because these might have little value to readers since there is going to be at least a link to the FFD found on the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can code the bot any way that you'd like. I mean, dont think about technicalities, I want opinion from you guys about what the bot should remove/update/keep as it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't much about how bots work from a coding standpoint; so, I'm not really a good person to ask about that. Perhaps JJMC89 might be a good person to ask since they run various bots for checking on images, and they also have some corresponding userspace pages for "reports" for checking up on their bots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I had checked some of them, by actually going through the deletion page, and rest of the edits only by viewing the diff. I have added some new code/eligibility criteria for removal of the template, so such instances would not happen. But I would check every edit manually for a few runs. For the low-confidence occurrences, similar to examples provided above, would it be a good idea to create a list somewhere? similar to User:KiranBOT/List of mismatched QID? It is transcluded on Category talk:Infobox person Wikidata using qid to be handled by humans. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Sankranthiki Vasthunnam Release Date(2).jpg
The file does not show for me. When I click on the file image or thumbnail image, I get File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.a8/a/a8/Sankranthiki_Vasthunnam_Release_Date%282%29.jpg
. Do yuou know what would cause this? -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Whpq: The image displays normally for me when I click on the file and thumbnail image. Does the error message persist even now? ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I am still getting this error. I have tried it on my desktop and tablet which are both on my home network. I tried it from my phone after disconnecting from my home network and it still shows as an error. All of these are from some form of Chrome browser with me logged in. I tried from my desktop while logged out and it still has the error. I tried using an online web-based emulator emulating Opera under Win10. It still does not show. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Update - Datbot also gagged on the file when trying to resize it. The image now shows for me. Some weird backend glitch I guess has resolved itself. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted articles
Please can I see the deleted article List of missing people from Nepal. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Here it is. ✗plicit 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). ✗plicit 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Bennett Taylor, Daisy Taylor, and Peter Taylor (composer). Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Daisy Taylor and Peter Taylor (composer). Bennett Taylor was just a redirect to Prey (2022 film)#Cast. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please can I see the deleted article Gold (2015 film). Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Daisy Taylor and Peter Taylor (composer). Bennett Taylor was just a redirect to Prey (2022 film)#Cast. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Bennett Taylor, Daisy Taylor, and Peter Taylor (composer). Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Davidgoodheart: Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). ✗plicit 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I please see the deleted articles Domonique Ramirez and Gordon Campbell (journalist). Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
CfD nomination at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. harrz 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Draft:EMD GT42CU AC
Totally unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cubes Entertainments (2nd nomination)
You closed the prior AfD as delete. Please will you take a look at the deleted article to make a determination about CSD eligibility? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please also consider whether the editor pushing the new version (FrancisMathew2255) is ArifVlog782 evading a block 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Question and advice regarding Moe's Southwest Grill logo
Hi Explict. I recently uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons a new logo of Moe's Southwest Grill (File:Moes Southwest Grill logo.png). On 21 November 2023, an IP user made an edit that removed that logo from the article. The edit summary, in part, stated, "Removed outdated logo." After I had uploaded the new logo, I noticed that you had deleted the Misplaced Pages-stored image of File:Moes logo.png on 10 February 2024, with the rationale "F5: Unused non-free media file". Although I am unable to view it due to its deletion, the evidence above suggests that this was the previous logo of Moe's Southwest Grill. To me, the new logo does not qualify for copyright protection as it does not appear to meet the originality threshold required for copyright. The new logo appears to merely consist of text and geometric symbols (a box, three triangles, and a generic pepper symbol), although it appears certainly eligible for trademark protection. There seems to be some level of consensus that the pepper symbol (see the commons entry to File:Chili's Logo.svg) is not copyrightable. I could understand an argument the elements are combined in a way that would make it copyrightable, but for the reasons mentioned above, I don't find it particularly persuasive. Since you are the deleting administrator on the original logo and are an admin on Commons, I will defer to your judgment over whether the current logo is copyrightable or not. If you feel it does meet copyright protection and delete it from commons, I would like to upload the new logo to Misplaced Pages under fair use rational, unless you have any objections. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Dumbdora3729.jpg
When deleting files per WP:F8, please ensure that Commons has the high-resolution copy of the file, not just the bot-reduced WP:NFCC#3b version. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: I have uploaded the higher resolution. ✗plicit 12:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg
Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:La malédiction de l'escargot, 2020.jpg? I think it's a reupload of the same file you deleted back in November. The licensing is almost certainly incorrect and the file's not being used anywhere; so, I don't see a way to convert it to non-free (at least not at the moment). I tagged the file with "npd" per F11, but this probably meets to criteria for F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, it is indeed the same image. The use of {{npd}} works in this case. ✗plicit 11:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)