Revision as of 18:46, 19 June 2024 editTrex32 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users979 edits →Feedback on draft of previously deleted page: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:24, 7 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,620 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to User talk:Explicit/Archive 55) (bot | ||
(800 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 55 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 5 | |minthreadstoarchive = 5 | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|} | |} | ||
== |
== ] == | ||
<s>Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article ], as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, ] (]) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hi Explicit, | |||
and</s>Happy New Year! ] (]) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. ] (]) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Prod on ] == | |||
I hope all is well! | |||
Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found ], which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (''Boston Globe'') and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, ] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I am contacting you (hopefully in the right way) to contest the deletion of my Misplaced Pages page "Can Man Dan". I'm not sure why it was deleted, but I happened to notice its removal today when I was speaking at a school and we were trying to pull up some information and relevant news stories. | |||
:{{Reply to|Espresso Addict}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser) == | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Can_Man_Dan | |||
You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~] (]) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Believe it or not, that article helps me fundraise for a variety of free community events in Alberta -- it's a nice way for people to see our (my team and I) history as do-gooders. I would love to have it back if possible? I may not be famous worldwide, but people know me up in Canada -- which I'm not sure counts lol | |||
:{{Reply to|Kvng}} This is a ]. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== File:Rafi malik.jpg == | |||
I saw that it was self-gratifying or whatever you posted, and I can tell you that I don't edit my own page lol. I barely know if this is the best way to get a hold of you to contest this deletion. | |||
Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of ]? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found ? Do you think this meets ] or should it be tagged with {{tlx|npd}}? -- ] (]) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Anyway, thank you for your consideration and God bless. | |||
:{{Reply to|Marchjuly}} Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with {{tlx|npd}}. -- ] (]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion of Akidearest article == | |||
Please let me know if you have any questions! | |||
Happy new year! | |||
"Can Man Dan" | |||
I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. ] (]) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Daniel Johnstone ] (]) 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Maehii}} Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an ] submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples: | |||
::https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/ | |||
::https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest | |||
::https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest | |||
::https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man) | |||
::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) ] (]) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Reply to|Maehii}} The content is now available at ]. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks so much! ] (]) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Also, I created this account if you need to get a hold of me! ] (]) 22:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (] was missing). I ] the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ] (]) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{Reply to|DanielJohnstone}} <!-- Begin Template:UND -->] '''Done''' – as a contested ], the article has been restored upon request.<!-- End Template:UND - prod --> ]] 03:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|WikiOriginal-9}} The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ]] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, Xplicit! You really helped a brother out -- thank you. God bless and much love. ] (]) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion review for ] == | |||
== Cover arts == | |||
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hi there. Since you extensively work in this field, I wanted to ask: is using a non-free album cover inappropriate when the topic of the article is not the album / soundtrack itself? Yes, it can be added after creating a separate article for it, but what if the album is not notable enough to have its own dedicated article and only exists as a sub-section of another? Can it be used after appending a valid rationale explicitly stating that it will be only used in a single article to illustrate the appearance of the said work? Thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} Hi, in general, it's not appropriate to use a non-free album cover on any page other than in the infobox of the article about the album itself. ]] 12:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Not that I'm bordering on the guidelines themselves, but it's just that I never gave this much thought before. Can there be exceptions to this, say, if a consensus is reached on the talk page of the said article? Contextual significance says to use it when it would increase the readers' understanding. That clearly justifies the use in an article where the album itself is the topic, but I don't understand how it does not apply to an article where the album is listed as a sub-section of another. The cover still remains very much inferior to the original and, in no way, is detrimental to the original work. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::One more important thing: the ] does not say anything about this, but I wanted to ask just how many extra covers can be used in an album's infobox. I see alternative covers being used left and right; can there be a second alternative cover added if it is substantially different from the previous two present? My conscience says going over 3 would be overkill, no matter how different the covers may be, but I think it's already not so wise to speak of adding a second alternative cover. What do you think of this? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Reply to|Lunar-akaunto}} There have been several RFCs in the past about the subject, which is explained in detail at ]. Consensus has time and time again that the use of album covers anywhere outside of the album article generally do not meet the ]. | |||
:::Regarding the use of a second extra album cover, I can't say that I'm aware of any examples off the top of my head. I do vaguely remember many years ago a discussion at FFD regarding ''seven'' very different additional album covers by a European singer, and I'm pretty sure all of them were deleted because none of them were critically discussed in the article. ]] 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I understand. One last thing, since this seems to depend on the context and significance of the cover on the section, do you suggest I try proposing adding the cover to the article's talk page? {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 15:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Seven covers?! That's not something I could think of. | |||
::::Anyhow, thank you for your help. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{tpw}} Just going to add the following to what Explicit posted above. The first is that a ]; in other words, article talk page discussion can't take precendence over established community-wide policy or guidelines just because it's what those discussing on the talk page might want to do. The second one is that even though the people making templates like {{tl|extra album cover}} have really made some things easier, they sometimes either don't give much thought to or intentionally avoid going into too much detail in the template's documentation as to how policies related to image use might impact the use of the template. There are lots of templates that have an image-related parameter, but it's really the responsiblity of those wanting to use an image in a template (not the template's creator) to make sure doing so complies with relevant policies related to image use. -- ] (]) 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Yes, exactly; that's what I thought as well, which is why I asked here. Thank you for linking to the template; it was helpful. About the template creators specifying the use in the template, when i said ''the template does not say anything about this'', what i meant was not to imply that the template should mention it or question the creators' choice but just a query since it doesn't mention it. I totally understand that just because a parameter exists and is there does not mean that it should or can be used. Anyhow, my doubts regarding this are cleared now. | |||
::::::If you don't mind, see, I understand one exception to using cover art where the album itself is not the topic of the article is where adequate and properly sourced commentary is provided. Do you thin it is appropriate to add the cover art for ]? My reasoning for this is that the album is not very well known; it was never released as a standalone album and was released only bundled with the movie. To date, the album is digitally exclusive to Japan. I think it'd be helpful to readers in recognising the said album, as even the web doesn't filter many results. Not being well known, in turn, might raise concerns about piracy, but that's already countered by using a low resolution cover that is very inferior to the original. | |||
::::::One last thing: do you think there are any chances of this being approved if a consensus is appealed to the community? Is ] talk page the right place to propose it? thank you. {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 06:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'll answer your questions in reverse order since the second one is easier to answer. Proposals to change policy or general questions as to how it's applied should be made/asked at ], whereas discussion related to an individual file and how it's being used should be made a ].{{pb}} Regarding '']'', I think there's zero chance of such a non-free use being cosidered policy compliant; not only because of ] that Explicit mentioned above, but also because of ]. So, unless there's something about the cover art itself (i.e. some controversy or other reason) covered in some depth by reliable sources, none of the reasoning you posted above would (again in my opinion) rise above the level of ] non-free use. Even in that case, such content would be more appropriate for a stand-alone article about the album or perhaps a stand-alone article about the artist/creator/designer of the cover art. If you tried to add a non-free album cover to that section, the file would likely be ]ded for deletion as clear-cut violation of relevant policy. You could ] it, but I don't see a consensus being established for in favor of its inclusion at FFD. As for being {{tq|digitally exclusive to Japan}}, I'm not sure how that's even possible given today's technologies, but it might also not even be true because of , , and (assuming that's the same soundtrack). Finally, even the track list in that section probably shouldn't be there per "WP:FiLMSCORE". -- ] (]) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{reply|Marchjuly}} Mmm I see. But, well, it's fine. I just wanted a third opinion, and I can agree with what you said. It's not something major, so I'll drop the idea of adding the cover and get on the same boat as you and @{{u|Explicit}}. | |||
::::::::Okay, so I didn't originally add the listing here; it existed long before, but considering it is a good article, the reviewer or others probably considered it, right? i don't ever recall reading ]. This is the first time someone's pointed me to it. Though i must admit this doesn't excuse me from adding listings, I have done it very often. So, I'm genuinely confused now. Is it walking the thin line when adding the listing themselves? I mean, we're not streaming the audio, and we have already omitted the cover where possible, so how is it detrimental to the original work? | |||
::::::::About the release, what you listed in 3 of the links is {{nihongo|''Kotonoha''|言ノ葉}} by Motohiro Hata, who sang the theme song for the film (it is not the official soundttrack to the film but a single by Hata, which too was exclusive to Japan until recently; it only received a global release last year). What I was talking about was {{nihongo|''The Garden of Words Original Soundtrack''|言の葉の庭 サウンドトラック}}. To date, it is exclusive to Japan, for whatever reason the label knows. It is one of my favourites, but it's a shame the label never went for global release. (the 4th link is unofficial and was uploaded by some random user, but it still remains that sources like that are what allowed me to listen to the soundtrack in the first place, but it's fine because the profits still go to the label). {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}}/] 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== In a case like this... == | |||
== ] == | |||
] was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. ] (]) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Hello Explicit, could you please explain to me how the former logo of NI Railways (Northern Irelands State Owned Railway company was not fair use). It was in the public domain. I am not saying you're wrong to remove it. It's just NI Railways had three logos throughout its life the original one on the page as we speak, the one you deleted that was used until 2021, and the current one presently used. If this version of the logo cannot be replaced, could you suggest another way to incorporate into the Wiki page "NI Railways". Many Thanks | |||
:{{Reply to|BusterD}} When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ]] 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
] 13:47, 15 June 2024 (IST) | |||
::Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... ] (]) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|RooneyDonal21}} Hi, the file you linked was tagged as fair use; only the current infobox image is tagged as being in the public domain. ]] 14:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{Reply to|BusterD}} I usually use short-term protection if a page is recreated three times in quick succession, like in a month, as I suspect the person loses interest if they are unable to create a page three to six months down the line. You're correct that EC editors can recreate a page if protection is set that way. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ffdc template bot == | |||
:O right, is there any way to get the image back in a different copyright or it is gone for good ] (]) 14:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
== Deleted article IPSOS == | |||
== CfD nomination at {{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}} == | |||
Hi! Could you please userify this at ]? I've been intending to write an article on the book from which this word was sourced. Kinda weird there was an article on the word but not the book, since there are way more sources on the latter than the former. As I am likely to include some portion of the content of the deleted article, I'd like to make sure the edit history is preserved for that content, unless you think it would be better to restore the article and make it a redirect for that purpose... ] (]) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (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 '''{{Section link|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 15#X by ethnic or national origin}}''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd mass notify--> Thank you. –] (]]) 22:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Skyerise}} Hi, I've userfied the page as requested. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks muchly! ] (]) 00:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Softly deleted article == | |||
== File:Sankranthiki Vasthunnam Release Date(2).jpg == | |||
Hi Explicit, The article I created was Softly deleted at ] by you. The article was deleted as per only one editor suggestion and I were not around to object for his nomination. The subject of the article is notable not only his political involvement but also he is business man and lots of media coverages which I can provide. ] (]) 06:39, 18 June 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) | |||
== Koimoi == | |||
:{{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) | |||
Hi Team, | |||
== File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg == | |||
I have reviewed your comments regarding the deletion of Koimoi's Misplaced Pages page (]) and would like to share my observations and findings. | |||
Hi, you deleted ] as "F8: Media file available on Commons" but the version on commons was deleted hours later as "CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus)". Can the file be undeleted as it is causing errors on a large number fo pages ( more than 100, closer to 700+). Cheers ] (]) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
From your comments, I understand that you were unable to find authoritative sources citing Koimoi, which is why there were concerns regarding the authenticity of their information. I did a little bit of digging on the web and found some information you might find interesting. | |||
:{{Reply to|KylieTastic}} {{Done}}, file restored. The relevant discussion is ]. Based on the admin's closing rationale, the licensing of the image may still have unresolved issues. ]] 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks ] (]) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== A WAM Barnstar for you! == | |||
Here are a few of the major publishers that refer to Koimoi: | |||
* https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/photo-features/happy-new-year-box-office-report/photostory/45042696.cms | |||
* https://finance.yahoo.com/news/insight-bollywood-broken-movie-moguls-003005441.html | |||
* https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/photos/bollywoods-500-crore-club-113503404/ | |||
* https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lokesh-kanagaraj-salary-rajinikanth-coolie-095406107.html | |||
* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3726205/THE-PULP-PIT-Khiladi-s-twist-machismo.html | |||
* https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/south/kantara-2-did-rishab-shetty-hike-the-budget-to-681-percent-after-first-part-1238097 | |||
* https://www.news18.com/news/movies/better-written-roles-today-genelia-deshmukh-on-another-age-group-roles-6896563.html | |||
* https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/dream-girl-2-advance-booking-ayushmann-khurrana-film-sells-26550-tickets-rs-9-10-cr-101692862619737.html | |||
Basis the above links, I believe a re-evaluation of the Koimoi Wiki page is in order. Please do let me know if the above sources suffice or if there are any other concerns. | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
Thanks! | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024 contest''' | |||
] (]) 04:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | '''Explicit''' Thank you for your additions in ].{{#if:5|5 of your articles have been accepted.}} Warm Regards, ] ] 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
==Deleted article== | |||
] (]) 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Please can I see the deleted article ]. ] (]) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Reply to|Davidgoodheart}} . ]] 13:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== CfD nomination at ] == | |||
== Accidentally Suckpupeted Someone == | |||
<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) | |||
that is not the Banned one ] (]) 17:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Feedback on draft of previously deleted page == | |||
Totally unhelpful. ] (]) 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
HI Explicit, | |||
A page was previously deleted. I attached a revised draft for your feedback addressing the editorial comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Anand_Reddi This subject matter expert is important given the role in protecting HIV funds for treatment scale-up as well as the body of research assembled to show the broader health system investments. The subject matter expert has also made other important contributions in global health. Would love your feedback if this current draft addresses your concerns. Also planning to reach out to the other editors as well for their feedback. Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. ] (]) 18:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:24, 7 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. |
|
Bathwala
Deleted PROD - please could you let me have the text of the deleted article here, as I think I have sources to warrant keeping it? Thanks, Ingratis (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
andHappy New Year! Ingratis (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't trouble - the same text, such as it is, is on the Punjabi Wiki. Ingratis (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Prod on Wordhunt
Hi Explicit -- Liz suggested that I look at recently deleted prods because there was a bulge in numbers and we were worried that they might have received reduced attention over the holidays. I found Wordhunt, which you deleted and which I think might be notable -- there's a respectable source in the deleted article (Boston Globe) and multiple hits in Proquest, many of which look reliable. Do you mind if I undelete it? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Removing link(s) undefined (XFDcloser)
You're leaving a lot of edits with this summary. Perhaps there's a problem with the XFDcloser tool. ~Kvng (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kvng: This is a known issue. Unfortunately, it has gone unaddressed for several years. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
File:Rafi malik.jpg
Hi Explicit and Happy New Year! What's your take on the licensing of File:Rafi malik.jpg? The file has EXIF data, but it says the image was generated in 2014. I can't find the full image anywhere online, but there's a crop from 2016 found here? Do you think this meets WP:F9 or should it be tagged with {{npd}}
? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Hi, I don't think this is a case that requires outright deletion as F9. Tagging it for lacking evidence of permission is the better way to go. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
{{npd}}
. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this. I've tagged the file with
Deletion of Akidearest article
Happy new year! I saw you deleted the article for YouTuber Akidearest last month and wanted to ask if there is any way to gain access to the article, since I would like to re-write it and reference the old article. I would of course revamp the sources so it doesn't get taken down again. Maehii (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: Hi, I can restore it as a draft where you can work on it. Then, you can submit it as an Articles for creation submission. Would you happen to have any new sources available now? ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, that would be wonderful. Yes, I collected some new sources so the article will align with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Here are some examples:
- https://metropolisjapan.com/beyond-the-view-counter/
- https://www.tokyocreative.jp/en/influencer-47-akidearest
- https://youtube.fandom.com/Akidearest
- https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/h9y57-4dc32/The-Anime-Show-with-Joey--AkiDearest-Podcast (podcast with The Anime Man)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-y5RjZOLw (collaboration video with Netflix and CDawgVA) Maehii (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: The content is now available at Draft:Akidearest. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks so much! Maehii (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Maehii: The content is now available at Draft:Akidearest. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Template:Colorado Crush starting quarterback navbox
Would you be willing to undelete this? It was deleted for having two links but it should have had three (Bobby Pesavento was missing). I asked the nominator (who is also an admin) if he would be willing to undelete it but he suggested deletion review, which I'm not sure is necessary or not since there was nothing wrong with the delete outcome at the time. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @WikiOriginal-9: The general rule of thumb is that navigational templates require five blue links. This would not survive TFD if only one additional link was added. ✗plicit 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Category:Fulbright Scholars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Fulbright Scholars. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RubyEmpress (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
In a case like this...
Tafajjal Hossain was a G4 which you originally deleted, and I did again today. I'm inclined to salt something like this, but wonder what a more experienced hand has to say. I'm deleting several dozen at once this afternoon (by the same sock) so while I might make some of my own choices, I'd like your opinion: what's the sweet spot on salting? Twice G4'ed seems slam dunk to me. I've also been experimenting with some short term salting, to discourage multiple attempts for now. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD: When I became an admin, the general practice seemed to be that salting was done when a page was deleted three times. That's what I continue to do, kind of like a "three strikes and you're out" rule. It does differ from person to person, though. I think it's ultimately a personal decision. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BusterD: I usually use short-term protection if a page is recreated three times in quick succession, like in a month, as I suspect the person loses interest if they are unable to create a page three to six months down the line. You're correct that EC editors can recreate a page if protection is set that way. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sage advice, such as it is. I noticed the policy suggests shorter term salting (as I have been trying) in some cases. Three strikes makes perfect sense to me. I've been spending some time every morning on the speedy list. (I'm now #35 among current admin deleters; a dubious distinction but surprising to me.) For clarification, technically any EC editor could potentially (and under policy) recreate a salted title, right? It's not a form of full protection. I'm not sure this is fully understood by the trolling community... BusterD (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Deleted article IPSOS
Hi! Could you please userify this at User:Skyerise/sandbox/Liber Pennae Praenumbra? I've been intending to write an article on the book from which this word was sourced. Kinda weird there was an article on the word but not the book, since there are way more sources on the latter than the former. As I am likely to include some portion of the content of the deleted article, I'd like to make sure the edit history is preserved for that content, unless you think it would be better to restore the article and make it a redirect for that purpose... Skyerise (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Skyerise: Hi, I've userfied the page as requested. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly! Skyerise (talk) 00:54, 5 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)
- @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)
File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg
Hi, you deleted File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg as "F8: Media file available on Commons" but the version on commons was deleted hours later as "CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus)". Can the file be undeleted as it is causing errors on a large number fo pages ( more than 100, closer to 700+). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @KylieTastic: Done, file restored. The relevant discussion is c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg. Based on the admin's closing rationale, the licensing of the image may still have unresolved issues. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks KylieTastic (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
A WAM Barnstar for you!
Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024 contest | |
Explicit Thank you for your additions in Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2024.5 of your articles have been accepted. Warm Regards, ZI Jony 18:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC) |
Deleted article
Please can I see the deleted article List of missing people from Nepal. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 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)