Wiki talk:Rejected deletion policy/Pre-voting

criteria for deletions

Resolved: Looks resolved to me --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Draft pages on request of the original author, that have not attracted discussion from other users except for relevance and deletion discussions. After a period of one year passing without significant content changes, other users might suggest deletion (using {{Delete proposal}}) and finally request deletion in case of no objections.
I propose to remove the exceptions ("except for relevance and deletion discussions"). --Dieterdreist (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I commented at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=737114#p737114, just in case you missed it. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"In case that a deletion is opposed"

Resolved: the parties basically agreed that both options are equally valid and it does not really matter --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed this in the forum previously and I think it will never work that way. Use of delete instead of delete proposal should not occur except when the page is clear spam? So this should be stressed in the beginning.

If someone uses delete instead of delete proposal and someone else objects the only clean solution is to revert and have the original delete requestant add the delete proposal.

Anything else has too much potential for confusion: say Alice adds "delete". Bob changes that into delete proposal. Alice sees that, changes her mind and thinks the pages should not be deleted after all so she removes the delete proposal or opposes it in the discussion page. Now figuring out the history is interesting .. and then flies by User:EzekielT, does something like this. RicoZ (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several technical reasons to delete a page. I do not want to hinder myself. If you check my contributions you will find several of them (just search for "deletion request" in the edit summary, I always label them this way): duplicated files, copyright issues of files, licensing issues (I usually forward them to admins), empty pages, broken files, broken templates with no use (creator writes: "sorry it is broken and useless", I sometimes contacted the people individually), pages like "Please delete..." without the template, empty and wrong translations (e.g. English version equal to Japanese version, and no page history to keep), redirects to deleted pages, automatically created pages containing a template only (I see, you could discuss in this case), content not relating to OpenStreetMap in any way (like private images, Wikipedia-like pages about general concepts like "Publishers"), multiple identical pages (usually changed to redirects), and ... lastly spam.

I mainly think that EzekielT did not fully understand what they were doing and how the undo feature works, so it does not really relate to this problem specifically. I just wanted to stop this whole business of "undoing" because it is somewhat aggressive. I mean you basically say "this was wrong!" or "you made this page worse than it was before". But, ok I will give in. My approach is probably too confusing with regards to the page history. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

-> Discussion moved to section delete template - should the page really be blanked?

I can see there's potential for things to get confused, but if you explain what you're doing in the wiki edit comment, doesn't that solve confusion to a large extent? I mean if you say something like "Downgrading User:xxx's deletion to a delete proposal while we discuss" ...it should be pretty clear that it's not you proposing the delete. Is that the main issue? (and yes I'd expect that edit to involve restoring the content).

Maybe you should add "with a clear edit comment" to your advice there Tigerfell.

Admittedly I haven't dealt with edit-warring with deletion templates very much. I saw there's been some animosity related to deleting archived proposals recently. I hope that calms down somehow (I'm trying to stay out of it to be honest)

-- Harry Wood (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have also to copy the original arguments for deleting the page. Whether it would be confusing depends whether I would be able to do all this in a single atomic edit, something which I don't like too much.

Further problem, the instructions for the delete template says all links leading to the page should be removed but for a delete proposal we want to consider the original use of the page. Who is supposed to "repair" this? RicoZ (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I wanted to set it up so that the community can do all of the discussion and get a page ready for full on deletion (including tidying incoming links) and then those with permissions have an easy time simply hitting delete. Of course if somebody jumps to this {{delete}} stage without adequate discussion/agreement, then that is always going to be a problem. If that includes deleting lots of incoming links then that's even worse.

I'm trying to think of a process change which would help here. If we could rely on admins to do delete the content and remove incoming links, then that makes for an easier process... but leaves much more work for admins to do, so not really viable.

We could tweak the naming slightly. If the template was called "delete final", then people would be more likely to understand that they should do "delete proposal" first. I'm not sure if that's solving a real problem though. Do people often jump to "delete" directly because they don't know about "delete proposal"?

We could introduce a 3rd template "delete pending", which would mean the delete proposal is regarded as settled and (while the content and links are still in place) the deletion is going to be carried out very soon. And then a rule: There should be no moving to "delete final" (and actual removal of content) without a 2 week "delete pending" period. ...but I can see this leading to more awkward process questions. e.g. replacing a page with a redirect, while kind of a less damaging move, is potentially a way of bypassing the rule.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the original idea was good: what is marked as "delete" should be an easy decision and pretty much single button action for the admin to delete. I think this is easiest achieved *if* the "delete proposal" stage is never skipped except for outright spam which will have zero linking pages anyway. I realize that we have quite a few delete proposals pending for years or decades and hence some people may easily come to the conclusion that this procedure is ineffective. I think this needs better explantion and patience somehow along:

1. don't hesitate to remind the community of cases that you think should be deleted
2. if you don't get a quick reply than it may be because users are having a hard time to make up their mind - in that case give it time to ripe and try again in some months/years
3. respect that a decision to delete is not an easy one, requires time and effort to check with very little gain if something is deleted "correctly" and a potentially big loss if something is deleted "wrongly"
4. we should probably specify voting requirements similar to proposals, at least 7 votes and qualified majority agreement

We still have a slight window for disagreement regarding outright spam but in my experience this is handled very efficiently.. even though I have been trying to help the admins from time to time by checking new pages I found they were much quicker without my help. RicoZ (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree, but I think the delay in deletions is caused by admins wanting to make sure that nothing gets deleted too fast and secondly too few people taking care of this. In addition, there are certainly difficult cases but it would be helpful to get a reply from the admins in the form of changing the template in case they deem the request premature. Two illustrative examples are Forking (which is not even a deletion request, but a request for undeletion pending since February 2014) and Kosmos bugs (deletion request along with several other pages about rendering software Kosmos, I could imagine a problem with this mass deletion, pending since June 2018).

This is turning towards a more general discussion about deleting, so maybe we want to communicate this discussion to others as well? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think ideally it would be very easy for the admins if all of the requests went through a delete proposal stage.

As a side note I really like that some people give their signature in the delete request (like the Forking example) and think this should be encouraged in all templates asking for discussion.

We should ask others for opinion, perhaps this text should be handled like a normal proposal with mailing list announce, RFC etc? Before we do that I think it would be good to refine the text and settle as many points as possible. There is probably more things that could be generalized and merged, perhaps the "avoid reverts" could be made a more general recommendation rather than a specific rule when replacing templates. Regarding wiki style, I think I would convert most of the lists to plain bullet lists, except perhaps the "Howto delete" which is a real sequence?

Regarding the Kosmos pages I seem to recall several people expressed concern so in my opinion the delete requests should certainly be changed to delete proposals and discussed properly. RicoZ (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think we already noted the point "use deletion proposals first". Signing can be helpful, I agree. The sole purpose of numbering was the ability to refer to this numbers later on (like "I think this should not be deleted according to number 3 of 'When to delete'").
How about we improve and discuss this here for one more week and then we bring this up on the mailing list? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the numbering, it seems also quite useful to have numbering temporarily for the purpose of the discussion. But once there is no need for it I think unnumbered lists would be better and it would be also fairly easy to revert back to numbering should the need arise later.

As of the time schedule, before it is announced we should somehow collect all those little improvements we were discussing (signing in templates, blanking with delete request yes/no/optional) and present them in the draft as well. RicoZ (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I added signing. Was there a result about blanking (I am neutral in this)? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We already discussed this at a different spot. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

General advice/#2

Resolved: some organisational conversation with no controversies left --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean or how is it relevant for the decision whether to delete something?

I would like to help getting this article into shape, should I fork it and work on my own copy or edit your copy? RicoZ (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

#2 intends to say that you should rather indicate that a proposal is inconsistent with current mapping styles than propose or discuss a deletion.

Please feel free to change the page or fork it, whatever you prefer. If you change this page, we can keep the history together and I currently do not intend to change the page, so there will be no conflicting edits or similar. Thanks, I appreciate it. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Before I start too boldly..do you envision the final result be one or two pages? Is it to replace the current Delete page? RicoZ (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually thought of one page (like on the flip side, but without the insertion and deletion marks). I was thinking of a community guideline or rule, meaning you could end a deletion discussion by naming a section from this guideline. If I were to write an intro about this I would write:

This page reflects a consensus among the community. It was formulated to avoid edit conflicts with regards to deleting pages and to provide a fair decision making in this matter.

Delete rather documents what happened in the past, but of course it would be mostly obsolete then (except for documenting the use of the templates and defining the terms). It was set up by singular editors, but it is not based upon a consensus. I did not thought too much about it, because I wanted to adhere to the opinions on the mailing list. I acknowledged that there were some people rather opposing strict rules, but I think it is good to have a fixed baseline. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, also think one page should be enough and in this case I would try to write it so that it can directly replace delete. I would reverse the page order, starting with the generic part (now other pages) and handling the proposals as a special case further down - hopefully this would remove plenty of duplication because most of what is valid for normal pages should be also valid for proposals which have only a few additional specific points. As of editing style, I consider the insertion/deletion marks rather confusing and of little use? RicoZ (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion and insertion marks were used to document the changes only (I copied Polarbear (on osm)'s initial draft here). That sounds good. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverting or not reverting

Resolved: discussion basically done, nobody changed the draft --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It has been mentioned several times that reverts are unfriendly and may have escalated the situation in this particular edit war. This is true - but it is also generally true that reverts are always likely to escalate any edit war. I recall many edit wars and many disagreements and a few users blocked but so far I don't think anybody suggested to disable reverts in our software which would be certainly possible.

In contrast, this is the first edit war regarding page deletes which I witness so imho "forbidding" reverts just because of this single unfortunate edit war is a little premature. It should be the rule that reverts should not be considered unfriendly with a friendly or neutral comment and I believe any kind of other edits can lead to escalation as well.

I also believe that this edit war would never have escalated if people were using delete proposal instead of the delete template, so that imho it is the use of the delete template that should be discouraged (or restricted to utterly clear cases) instead of reverts. However if someone does https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/agricultural_access&action=history than it is imho utterly clear that the use of the delete template was wrong in the first place.

Instead of forbidding reverts in this very special case I think we may have some work ahead with our wiki etiquette: Wikipedia has "assume good faith", slandering, intimidation, avoid getting personal, canvassing - all of which seem to have been violated in the course of the recent edit war. If we don't have this in our etiquette it should be added.. I could find a netiquette relating to the mailing list but nothing specific to the wiki. Also, canvassing is a little more difficult to define if there are so many communication channels available. RicoZ (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is template {{Talk}} containing such rules and also a recent discussion on its talk page. I would suggest to discuss this there or at Talk:Wiki. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

We updated {{Talk}} and it now contains "assume good faith":

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wiki:Rejected deletion policy/Pre-voting page and its related topics.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ at end of your messages. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to OpenStreetMap? Take a look at the Beginners' guide. Respect your fellow mappers. Be gentle, constructive, and assume good faith.

Is that sufficient or do we need to change the deletion policy draft? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

delete template - should the page really be blanked?

Resolved: discussion basically done, draft was updated --Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

This was previously discussed in the section In case that a deletion is opposed" - moving to separate section as this might be of more general interest RicoZ (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Your approach could be rescued if it could be agreed that when using delete the contents of the page should not be blanked because than it would be just a simple edit - adding a single word into the template instead of the unblanking and placing a new template required now. Do not know how realistic that is? RicoZ (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the blanking idea comes from this change of the delete template by Harry Wood (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.). I guess this is used to demonstrate to less advanced users what might happen to this page soon, so they do not miss the message...?

Please remember that we would need to change all translations of this template (we could delete them in the worst case, but I would rather contact the authors). I recently found out that the German version of {{Delete proposal}} was not identical to the English one, pretty bad! --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the disadvantages of this approach outweigh the possible benefit. Not only the complication when changing to delete proposal, but also the page is no longer findable by search, everyone who wants to have a quick look whether it should be deleted has to do at least 2 clicks more, not possible to improve the content while discussion is ongoing.

I see the difficulty with changing many language versions but maybe if the blanking is made optional that would help immediately many cases and allow a soft transition. RicoZ (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I tried to check, what translations of which template doc? I can see only a Greek translation and although my Greek is a little aged since Aristotle I think I could fix this little detail. Of the Delete translations only Polish has true translations and I could do that. Can't find the German version you mentioned at all? RicoZ (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the template text itself. I was specifically referring to this change of Template:Delete proposal. But the translations would need to be updated as well. Never mind, we always have this problem when changing something in this wiki. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.. completely missed the translations in the template code itself. Luckily it seems that it would be easy to remove the part saying that he page should be empty even without knowing the languages.. I do more or less understand 9 of them. At least in the beginning I would not explicitly state that it should not be blanked and just allow both variants. RicoZ (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The draft still says "To request a deletion replace the page content with {{Delete|reason + signature}} and remove all links leading to the page to be deleted." If you want to change it, please go ahead I do not mind if it is this way or the other. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the (non)-blanking should be added to the draft and RFC so more people can comment. We could mention it in the preface and add a section "Related changes"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicoZ (talk • contribs)

I changed it now. Hope that is okay. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That is ok but nobody will notice it as is, so I am adding it to the overview of the page. Should we add a rationale further down?RicoZ (talk)

Hoax proposals not marked as such and not on a user sub page

Resolved: differing opinions on jokes, but Adamant1 said they would be okay with that --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is deleting hoax and joke proposals "still controversial"? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not controversial.. we badly need some humor and not too little:) Granted, it should be be properly marked and not excessively much. So maybe we could agree on some formulation how to keep some humor without making the wiki a joke altogether? Consider the case of amenity=bikeshed. It was mentioned in the mailing list discussion (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042659.html) and got the clear vote "keep". Nevertheless the two deletist apologetics still tried to delete it, created a mess and broke every single netiquette rule that I know in the process.RicoZ (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about foot=gourmet. There was a corresponding page defining the tag as some restaurant with an exceptionally good cook. This was available in German and English, but only the German version had a small note hidden as standard text that it is a joke (in German). amenity=bikeshed is clearly marked as a joke, so I still do not get why this is controversial. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok.. perhaps we are of the same opinion but the text is a little ambiguous. I read "Hoaxes and jokes that are not a sub page of a user (= in the user's space) and not clearly marked as such" to require both conditions to be true. If you wanted to say either of the conditions needs to be true than I see no controversy.. just clarify the text. RicoZ (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I intentionally required both to avoid any misunderstanding, but I guess one is sufficient: you can change the page add the other and then you can keep the page as long as you understand the hoax in the first case.

Ok, we can change the text. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"got the clear vote "keep". Nevertheless the two deletist apologetics still tried to delete it" I didn't touch it the second time around after people on the mailing list said to keep it. I actually haven't done anything to edit pages since this discussion started, except that one time I reverted you. So don't include me in that.Otherwise, your just going to piss me off and I might go back to what I was doing. I'm currently practicing restraint and not involving myself in this because it seems to be going well without me. Don't ruin by playing the blame game or pointing fingers again though.

As far as what's been said about the guideline proposal so far, I think its fairly balanced and pretty much meets the criteria I was going for originally. So good job all around. If one of you could do me a favor and message me on my page in a week when it goes to the mailing list or a vote I'd appreciate it. In the mean time, I'll try and stay out of the way as much as possible. Id like to vote on it though when the time comes. You should inform Ezekiel about it also. I also like suggestion above about coming up with some etiquette like Wikipedia has. For instance "assume edits are good faith" etc etc. I think it would be good to create them after this is all done.

Anyway, thanks to both of you for putting the time into and effort into this. P.S. I don't have a problem with hoax proposals per say, but it should be clear they are hoaxes and it would be cool if they had a separate category from the legitimate ones so they don't pollute the well and people don't waste their time clicking on proposals they think are legitimate but turn out not to be. Which is what happened to me with the bike shed proposal. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ: @Adamant1::

RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): ”we badly need some humor and not too little:)” - you Comically Missed My Joke on your talk page, with Adamant1 saying “EzekielT, don't expect people around here to have a sense of humor or more often then not you'll be let down. I thought it was funny though.” - but now that humour qualifies as a means to keep the page... it’s very convenient for you ;).

RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): ”Nevertheless the two deletist apologetics still tried to delete it, created a mess and broke every single netiquette rule that I know in the process.” - Adamant1 only deleted it once. Then I reverted Adamant1, and actually restored the bikeshed page (I brought it back, I undeleted it). So calling me a deletist here wouldn’t make sense... And I only reverted myself (redeleting the page) because Adamant1 complained about me restoring pages they deleted. I was subsequently reverted by Smz (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), who I reverted twice among three other self-reversions before one side of me decided to self-revert again, put back the page’s contents, and move the page to the original creator’s userspace, and thus resolve the dispute. So in the end I kept the page, so I don’t agree with the deletist label, just as I wouldn’t agree to be labelled a “keepist”. — EzekielT (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

EzekielT, please stay on topic! This is about the draft on the flip side! If you want to comment on what happened in the past, please use the appropriate talk pages (this also applies to the previous comment of Adamant1). If this continues, I will redact off-topic parts of this page. Sorry about this bitterness, but I would like to move on and not constantly talk about the personal disputes that happened between everyone in the wiki. -- Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to what RicoZ said about me in this section. — EzekielT (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have made more clearly that this was referring to everyone (that was so logic to me: mentioning Adamant1 and thinking "and everyone else" in my head). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), there's a difference between making a joke, versus having a joke page. "Joke pages" are a worthless waste of space and maintenance time, funny or not, and are akin to vandalism in my opinion. Like someone trying to pass off an "ironic tag" on the side of a building as "just being funny" so does the joke proposal creator try to pass off what is essentially a fake proposal "because humor." Fake in the fact that its not actually a proposal for anything, wont be voted on, and will never be added to the map. Say someone created a proposal with the intent to make a fake one that wasn't funny and just fake, would that be OK? If not, what does the fact that the later is a "joke" have to do with anything. Remember, one person's "harmless joke" is another ones broken neck from pushed down a hill and jokes are pretty retaliative. Which I thought we were trying to avoid.

Tigerfell (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), although I agree that this should stay on topic, a better way to reach that end would be to tell the person who originally made the personal comment not to do it anymore. Not the people responding to it. Although its on both parties to be civil, the ownness is on the original poster for doing the first eye jabbing. By not calling them out for it, eyes will just continue being poked. Especially in cases where something so clearly wrong is said about someone. Where they have to chime in to correct the record. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I take particular offense to "joke proposals" because they are essentially a childish, passive aggressive way to insult other peoples tagging practices. "Well, you think we have a tag for garages huh? I'll show you and create a proposal for a bike shed. Hahahahahah." To quote from the bikeshed proposal "Special care should be taken in determining the orientation of the bikeshed : so as to correctly identify the front of the bikeshed. Sometimes this can be done by taking point counts of discarded cigarette ends in locations around the bikeshed. A botantical quadrat square is useful for this purpose. When the bikeshed is symmetrical it may be necessary to show the orientation using one or more relations." I don't see anything funny about that. It just sound condescendingly pathetic to me and like its written by someone that's to feckless to accept that people map things differently then them. So they created a fake "joke proposal" to insult the person mapping things how they didn't like, instead of just saying it to their face. There shouldn't be pages on the wiki insulting peoples tagging practices. That's the kind of crap that turns people off from contributing to the wiki and OSM in general. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have much experience mapping, wants to create a proposal for a new tag or is trying to find out how to map some random building, and finds that "proposal." How would you feel in that situation? If it were me id be like "screw these rude snobby people" and I'd go contribute to ArchGIS. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The page says: "Jokes that are not a sub page of a user and not clearly marked as such [...] can be deleted". Where is the problem, Adamant1? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tigerfell (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), there's no problem I guess. I was just clarifying my position on joke pages for RicoZ I guess and why I think they should be deleted. If the consensus is that there's nothing wrong with them though, I'm perfectly fine with that. Given the caveat that I think the wiki represents OSM to a degree and as such articles should confirm to some level of professionalism and content standards. Which would exclude anything that might be construed as being at other peoples expense, and that's how I take the "joke proposals." If other people think condescension is funny, cool. We can keep the pages. I just don't think its worth the opportunity costs to do so. That's just my opinion though. It should at least be clear they are jokes or hoaxes on the pages. Which I think we all agree with. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As you speak of the cost, I think the cost to discuss controversial deletes is higher than that of a few joke pages. However I agree that the amount of joke pages should not go unbounded, maybe we could establish a committee for OSM approved humor which would make a proposal how to make jokes. Or maybe easier, make a competition for the best joke pages and keep only the best ones. RicoZ (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Moving proposals to userspace / deletion war discussion

Disregard: parties can not agree upon moving and decided to leave this out for now. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think the non-useless old proposals should be moved to their original proposers’ userspaces. It solves the category and the search problem, thus satisfying Adamant1 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.). Maybe it’s a chance to cool down the angry mob of 9 anti-deleters (Mateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Nakaner (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Polarbear w (Polarbear on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Dieterdreist (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Tordanik (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Constantino (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), Smz (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.), and Rafmar (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.)), too. If the editor who originally created the proposal has retired from everything OSM, most likely they wouldn’t care if we moved their proposals to their userspaces. They likely do not want to have anything to do with OSM anymore and have moved on with their lives, so they almost certainly wouldn’t care what happens to their proposals, especially considering they would be kept, and besides they were the creators of them anyway. If the editor is still active on OSM and the OSM Wiki and still hasn’t replied (for maybe 2 weeks) then we should probably go along with the deletion process, especially if the proposal was created by accident or has no informative content. (Did I use that template too much?) ;). — EzekielT (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As I already pointed out numerous times, I think that moving pages is asking for trouble. If some of these people you pinged would actually want to speak up, I would be very happy, but please do not suggest something for someone else, who does not speak up. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling opponents in a discussion an "angry mob of 9 anti-deleters" is slander. In rhetoric, personal defamation is from the lowest category of tools, typically used when there are no constructive arguments available. Writing long rants around little content, instead of being brief and concise, demonstrates a lack of respect in regards of the time management of the other parties involved. --Polarbear w (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess if they did care enough about the issue, they would be participating in the discussion. So it’s probably just going to be the 4 of us. But we should tell them that they shouldn’t avoid this discussion and then start reverting again once we’ve come up with the guidelines. That’s what I think will happen, as a certain editor in particular does not want even one proposal page deleted, while another one wants the absolute opposite, and they have both repeatedly reverted each other and engaged in the deletion war. Which is why I believe in moving pages, it’s a solid compromise between everyone and a good way to avoid further edit wars in this deletion war. The anti-deleters would be happy the pages weren’t deleted, while Adamant1 would be happy the pages would no longer be in any categories and wouldn’t be visible in the search (fixing their two main concerns). I have split the sections now for you, as a response to your off-topic complaint (which means I had to split your comment into two, sorry if this annoys you). — EzekielT (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"I guess if they did care enough about the issue, they would be participating in the discussion" - it is not working this way. Just because you have time to propose deletion over and over again does not mean that all people against this have time to argue against this. There was attempt to mass delete, there was clear opposition. Why you continue attempts to hide/delete all inactive proposals? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny:: I only said that to concede to Adamant1’s belief that you do not actually care about whether pages are deleted or not because you aren’t participating much and their point about “fake outrage”, and Tigerfell’s point that you 8 aren’t speaking up. I believe you have confused me with Adamant1 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.)? I have not deleted all inactive proposals, nor do I want to. I in fact had reverted Adamant1 multiple times and restored pages, just as I had reverted you and deleted pages as well. I even reverted myself quite a few times. So I’m, as Adamant1 says, "pretty middle of the road" here. — EzekielT (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"non-useless old proposals should be moved to their original proposers’ userspaces" - "It solves the category and the search problem" - untrue, user pages are not searched by default. I am against this misleading proposal. Why you want to hide/delete all old proposals? I thought that I was aggressive with marking old proposals as inactive. For search - see for example search for service=turning_loop (it is on one of my user pages): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=service%3Dturning_loop&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=7h0yq9tosvvl92w353fxzrn02 Also, this discussion is on subpage of user talk page - so it is hard to treat results of such discussion seriously. I almost ignored ping because it looked like some discussion of Tigerfell with someone else Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): “user pages are not searched by default” - that’s the point, @Adamant1: does not want the old proposals to show up in the search or categories. — EzekielT (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am also against this. Either it is in the wiki and then you should be able to find it (because that is the point of it) or it is not in the wiki. Moving pages so they are not found does not help anyone, it is just confusing.

I think that moving pages is asking for trouble, because I feel uneasy about doing some maintenance work like categorisation on a user sub page without consent. If someone would fiddle with User:Tigerfell/Sandbox, I think I would automatically revert because they did not ask me and I did not invite them. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

We would get consent from the proposer first. If they refuse, then we would delete the pages. — EzekielT (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You said, you basically suggested this because Adamant1 "does not want the old proposals to show up". I think this whole concept is wrong. But I would like @Adamant1: to speak for themselves, if they see an issue there. No comment of this user in this section so far... --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) "Just because you have time to propose deletion over and over again does not mean that all people against this have time to argue against this. There was attempt to mass delete, there was clear opposition."

One, last time I checked this is a community website. Which goes with the assumption that anytime you do something here there's a good chance it will involve discussion with other people. If you don't have time to talk things out, don't edit things here, especially reverting people. Its pretty simple. It's like I have a lot of free time to discuss things myself, but that's life. I find it ironic (or slightly disingenuous?) that you and others seem to have plenty of time to do the reverts and send me threatening, abusive messages on my user page repeatedly, but then when it comes time to explain yourself's suddenly all of you have better things to do.

Two, ten deletion proposals or whatever it was ins't a "mass deletion" and its definitely disingenuous to say so. Also, what gives you the right to define what counts as a "mass deletion" over everyone else that didn't think it was? Your clearly think your opinions are superior and the only ones that matter. Which is why your unwilling to discuss things when your given the opportunity. Plus its why when you do discuss things you always just repeat crap over and over, instead of actually listening and considering the other person's opinion. It has nothing to do with a lack of time.

Three, as I've said repeatedly, requesting a deletion is not a deletion. You keep purposely conflating the two to be hyperbolic and I'm pretty sick of it. Also, there wasn't "clear opposition." I tired of defending myself against that also.

This is a good example of that whole personalizing thing that Tigerfell was talking about. Instead of just saying what your position is guidelines and what you agree with or don't, you spend time crapping on me repeatedly again. What I did or didn't do is irrelevant because these rules should have been in place anyway. They are pretty basic stuff that literally other community based website has. If you don't want rules because they will stop you from being able to lord around like you run the place, fine. Don't put it on me or my "bad behavior" because they are being created though. At least we want your feedback and opinion on this. That's more then I can say for 99% of the conversations I've seen you have with people. I'm perfectly willing to go revert all my deletion proposals right now if you want. Then you can go kick rocks, we will create the guidelines without your opinion, and 99% of those pages will be deleted eventually anyway. I could really care less what order its done in or how it takes. I'm just not going to be pushed around or lied about repeatedly, by you or anyone else here. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: good to hear your opinion, but I was hoping for an answer regarding page moves. Mateusz Konieczny and I oppose them, EzekielT repeatedly suggests them as a compromise. But what is your opinion? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: "At least we want your feedback and opinion on this" - Mateusz's own words speak for themselves (yes, I'm repeating the quote again):

Mateusz Konieczny (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): "I think that proposals should be never deleted - even really misguided or pointless".

So Mateusz wants 0 proposals to be deleted... probably not going to happen ;). — EzekielT (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah well, Ideally we should all be able to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle. I know that's not realistic, but I can dream. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: a ‘’compromise’’, yes, that very same compromise I’ve been formulating for a while now:

1. A proposal page is identified as old.

2. Identify if the proposal has useful content (e.g. Proposed features/Marked trail) or is nearly empty and serves no purpose (e.g. Proposed features/castle). The second case would be immediately deleted without further discussion.

3. If the proposal has useful content in it, we would reach out to the original proposer (if they are still active on OSM and OSM Wiki), asking them if we can move it to their userspace. Or even better, ask if they can do it themselves. If they do not respond for two weeks or more, or simply refuse to move them, then we’ll just go ahead with deleting them (or maybe hold a vote whether to keep them or not?). In the case that the particular user is retired from everything OSM, we should just move them to their userspace, as they will almost definitely not care about what’s going on here anymore.

4. The proposals which get moved to their respective creator’s userspaces will have all of their categories removed, and would be in only one category: “Old proposals moved to userspaces”.

And voila. No more old proposals clogging up the searches and categories (satisfying Adamant1). No more people complaining about proposals being deleted (satisfying everyone). — EzekielT (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please address the issues I mentioned in your approach, when suggesting this again and again. Otherwise, we will not move ahead. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The pages would still appear if you clicked “Everything” in the search engine. Further, you would be able to view all of them via the new “Old proposals moved to userspace” category. Also, we would seek the original proposer’s permission before moving the pages to their userspace. Or we would ask if them if they could do it themselves. — EzekielT (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we would also tell them that those pages might be altered over time. What would you do in case the user does not reply? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well then, if they don’t reply, for the ones with more useful content (e.g. Proposed features/Bioswale) we could hold a vote on whether to keep them or not. The ones that are devoid of informative content (e.g. Proposed features/employment agency, Proposed features/castle) we could skip a vote on, and simply delete.

Also, I’m thinking the ones which propose keys or tags that already have their own pages could be moved to Tag/Key:x=x/proposal (e.g. Proposed features/blowhole would become Tag:natural=blowhole/proposal). — EzekielT (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hhhhmmm, well it seems like a good compromise to me to move the proposals to the user space. Especially if they will still show up in search and have their own category. Maybe an article listing all the moved proposals could be created also and we could require the person doing the move to list it there (it could also include a short summary of the proposal). That way the moved proposals would still be more visible in a way. I think it would be good to require a comment about it on the proposal talk page first and a little time to pass before the proposal is moved. Just so people can be informed (I don't think it needs comment, but there should still be a "heads up." Maybe we could create a banner template for it or something and it could contain a "will be moved on" date). Also, if the person who created the proposal doesn't respond then it should go to a deletion proposal conversation. Moving pages should only apply to ones that don't obviously fit "no comment needed" deletion, like blank pages etc.

I think the second idea is sound to. If the proposals have already been voted on, have their own pages and are widely accepted (defacto), then there's no reason to keep them listed in the "proposal" category. Moving them to the tag space makes sense. If the proposal is moved though there should be a link to the proposal on the tags page (would there be a category for those situations also?). Like above though it shouldn't apply to pages that can obviously be deleted, like blank ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Btw, if we do go that route, it should only be an option to move pages instead of deleting, not a default. There's nothing wrong in general with doing a deletion proposal on an article, and moving them instead shouldn't be a subtle way to dissuade people from doing deletion proposals or used to circumvent discussion when it might be the better option. Although it might seem good at the time to move some pages, it could also lead to contention in certain circumstances. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:: pages like Proposed features/employment agency that are nearly or completely blank and have no informative content should be deleted without question, at least one of them was even created by accident by someone who didn’t know the tagging already existed. Also, if the original proposer wants their proposal to be deleted, so it shall be. The others would go through the moving process. — EzekielT (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Adamant1's statement about proposals with a vote "then there's no reason to keep them listed in the 'proposal' category": There is! They are still proposals. If someone searches for proposals, they would find this one. This is very helpful if you want to conduct research before proposing something yourself. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, why is a deletion proposal itself not sufficient? I think this would align better with the rest of the guideline and avoid introducing a new process for this case.

Regarding "Also, I’m thinking the ones which propose keys or tags that already have their own pages could be moved to Tag/Key:x=x/proposal": No, please don't! We used to move all approved proposals from Proposed features/xyz to Approved features/xyz (which turned out to be not such a good idea, now we use categories instead). We have the template {{Proposal Page}} which is completely adequate for that (assigning the correct categories automatically). Additionally, you can link to the proposals using the standard template {{ValueDescription}}. We currently have the advantage that you can find almost every proposal by doing a prefix search for 'Proposed features/', even if the template is not used. Your approach does not work for proposals introducing more than one tag or multiple proposals referring to one tag, this would produce more inconsistencies than before. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding number 2 (the first): This is very subjective. I would prefer if you could align the judgement with the extensive criteria we formulated already. Why is proposing a deletion not adequate here? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: what’s number 2 (the first)? You mean on the draft “Antiquated content may be kept to record OSM's tagging history, past controversies, and tag documentation backing up the wiki's documentation pages“? Or do you mean from my list of steps? — EzekielT (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK. I understand now. How about:

1. A proposal page is identified as old.

2. Identify if the proposal fits the criteria for deletion. If it does, notify the original proposer of its pending deletion (similar to how they do it at Wikipedia). If it does not, we move on to step 3.

3. If the proposal has useful content in it, we would reach out to the original proposer (if they are still active on OSM and OSM Wiki), asking them if we can move it to their userspace. Or even better, ask if they can do it themselves. We would also notify them that the pages may be altered over time. If they do not respond for two weeks or more, or simply refuse to move them, then we’ll just go ahead with deleting them (or maybe hold a vote on whether we should keep them or not?). In the case that the particular user is retired from everything OSM, we should just move them to their userspace, as they will almost definitely not care about what’s going on here anymore.

4. The proposals which get moved to their respective creator’s userspaces will have all of their categories removed, and would be in only one category: “Old proposals moved to userspaces”.

Good now? (The sentences in italics have been changed or added). — EzekielT (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Glimpsing over an ocean of opnions by Adamant1 and EzekielT: please try to stay as concise as possible in your comments. Perhaps it will be better if you make your own proposal and we can put both proposals on vote. RicoZ (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

How about we merge EzekielT's four bullet points in the section "How to delete" by appending number 3:

If there is consensus request deletion. Otherwise, you might move the page to the user space of the creator if they agree with that.

--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this gets complicated in some cases. Someone may object the deletion because he thinks the page is actually useful in which case moving it to someones userspace is not so good - the same user would also oppose the move. Also the page creator is not necessarily the main contributor, or the last significant contributor, or someone else who just happens to work on a related page/proposal and wants the old one for reference. If there is no way to reach consensus than I guess we would need formal voting criteria like proposals. RicoZ (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): "Someone may object the deletion because he thinks the page is actually useful in which case moving it to someones userspace is not so good - the same user would also oppose the move" - good point. Maybe we should make deletion, move, and keep all different votes. That way in the case you illustrated the user may be able to vote "keep" to keep the proposal page how it is (no move or deletion).

RicoZ (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.): "Also the page creator is not necessarily the main contributor, or the last significant contributor, or someone else who just happens to work on a related page/proposal and wants the old one for reference" - we would go by the user specified in the "Proposed by" field in the page's template.

@RicoZ:, I think we should create a separate template for move requests. That way, if the proposal fits the criteria for deletion, we would use Template:Delete proposal, and if it does not we should create "Template:Move proposal" and use that instead (until the original proposer replies, or if the original proposer does not reply and we're doing a vote on whether we should move it or not). — EzekielT (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A separate template would be good. The other option is a three option vote, delete, move, or leave alone. A "Move proposal" template is the better option out of the two IMHO. I think it would be obvious that if the page can't be moved it probably can't be deleted either. So it would give the person a choice between the two, instead of trying one, then trying the other when the first one fails. Although if it starts with a deletion proposal, which is rejected, then it can go to a move proposal. Wouldn't it be a "Move proposal proposal" though or would it be a "proposal to move a proposal" proposal? ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As you mention three way voting, I think a fourth important "vote option" would be "wait another year and lets talk again". That was my feeling glimpsing over many delete proposals.. they are just waiting to grow ripe or for someone with expert knowledge on the subject to touch it. However I am somewhat skeptical about introducing formal voting rules for deletions, if someone wants to have that page let them have it. Instead try to think how to improve categories, interwiki links and search engine so that (generally) useful content is easier to find. RicoZ (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

... @Adamant1:: Ouch... brain malfunction... confuzzled... ;).

Confusions aside, we have... more confusions... my brain is hurting now... but I'll try to conceptualize things...:

I'm not sure why we can't have a three option vote and a move template at the same time...? Also, does the original proposer have a veto over all decisions...?

BTW: turns out we already have Template:Move! We can use that. — EzekielT (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry EzekielT, but I do not see how you want to insert your suggestions into the current draft. Instead you propose something different including new processes (namely moving and voting). I think this will cause more friction and a more complicated draft. Due to these factors I agree with RicoZ: I think you should make your own proposal if you want. If you have specific questions, please feel free to use my talk page. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell:: OK, well I approve your suggestion:

If there is consensus request deletion. Otherwise, you might move the page to the user space of the creator if they agree with that.

That’s the only thing I would like to be added, otherwise I think I’m done here for now. I may come back, but I’m not sure. It looks like I’m giving you too much trouble or annoying you excessively, and I agree I’ve overcomplicated things. I probably don’t have the time to create an entire new proposal right now. I’ve exerted too much energy onto this particular issue, to unhealthy levels, and it would be good if I take a break. So I am leaving this page and the whole deletion topic for a while (or possibly forever). I will also not be checking for updates on this issue for an indefinite period of time. In fact, I’m going to take a long break from editing OSM Wiki altogether. Thanks for your understanding. — EzekielT (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Would you agree with EzekielT's suggestion as well? Then we could finish this point and focus on the other unsolved discussions... --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well the wording is still not acceptable to me for the reasons explained above. Maybe if you change it to "you might move the page to the user space of the creator if nobody opposes the move" but imho moving to userspace should be a last ditch kludge. However, there is a discussion at Talk:Wiki#Proposal:_new_namespace_for_tagging_proposals which might turn into something much more useful than moving the proposals to random users pages. So I would prefer to wait to see if this results in something before agreeing to this. RicoZ (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the solution to move a proposal to the user space may be useful in very exceptional cases, like keeping something that was essentially a "joke" rather than a serious proposal. It is not a general solution we should even mention. --Dieterdreist (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: I'm fine with EzekielT's final proposal on this or waiting to see what happens with the proposal on Talk:Wiki. Both seem like good ideas. Although id prefer the one proposed on Talk:Wiki over moving proposals to the user page if it gets off the ground.

New suggestion: How about we leave this out. I personally oppose waiting with this draft because we are getting close to two months of discussion and I fear that we will repeat the same discussions again, because we forget about our trade-offs.

In addition, this suggestion would be quite a radical change which we would need to discuss with many people (remember Automated Edits code of conduct). And then we have to deal with the language namespaces afterwards (again with discussion). So, if we would start the whole thing today, we would need: 1 week discussion at Talk:Wiki, about 2 weeks discussion of the automated edit, about 1 week of realisation of the automated edit (configuring and running scripts, error checking), 1.5 to 2 weeks for retrieving the discussion (of this sole point), we would postpone by more than one month. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope the discussion at Talk:Wiki will result in something so I would certainly agree to leave this out. This proposal is about deletion and not moving anyway so moving could be discussed in a later proposal/discussion if there is still the need for it. However we should agree on the fate of the unfortunate bikeshed somehow. RicoZ (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with leaving this out for now. There's no reason it can't decided on after the main things are worked out and implemented. As far as poor bikeshed goes, maybe it should be considered part of the cost of the war. You win some battles and lose others. I've lost plenty myself. "bye bye dear, noble bikeshed. We hardly knew you." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests reverted

Moved to User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny#Deletion requests reverted (moved from User talk:Tigerfell/Crafting#Deletion requests reverted)--Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

Definitions

Resolved: --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth keeping the definitions of "deletion request" and "delete proposal" to aid novices? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Could be added again, should there be a glossary at the end of the section? RicoZ (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Pages that are contrary to basic principles in OSM"

Resolved: It seems to be more complicated, sometimes both "Keep" and "Delete" apply. It is not documented (from what I see) what happens in such cases Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In current form it may be used to request deletion of for example Proposed_features/historic_event and some other proposals. I would not consider it as desirable, as documentation that it is horrible idea with link to discussion (or discussion itself) is useful.

"proposing to severely violating copyright" for me falls into blatant vandalism or spam, is this rule really necessary? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, technically it is different:

• Violating copyright: copying from copyrighted sources without permission or suggesting such a behaviour in a proposal
• Vandalism: lowering the quality of the data with the clear intend to do so
• Spam: adding advertising or unrelated content

--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed_features/historic_event would definitely not be deleted, because it contains a vote. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It probably should be described what happens in case of where both "keep" and "delete" cases are matching Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I added some text in section "How to delete". Does it suffice? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be OK to me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Old imports

Resolved: everyone abstained or agreed --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Documentation of ancient imports should be kept until all traces of the imports vanished." - note that given that exports of full planet history are available edits never disappear (except in rare cases of removal of edits from history). I will amend to note that import documentation is never suitable for removal Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You got a point there. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 --Adamant1 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sole editor

Resolved: decided to keep this rule for now, might be changed by community consensus if it turns out negatively --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"You were the only editor of the page and consider the content outdated" - I would formulate it as "and others are not against removal". There are some cases of people getting their accounts hacked or leaving community with a tantrum and attempted desctruction of content that they contributed.

For example if someone would make import or bot edit that turned out to be misleadingly described they are not allowed to simply delete documentation, even if they would be sole authors Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly? Both of us know that this refers to either proposals or software as described in parentheses. Your case is "vandalism". Yes, the rules do not cover every single bit, but please do not make it overly complicated by constructing some rare cases. We are trying to set up general guidelines to avoid discussions in 99% of the cases. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the original idea is ok and the concern by Mateusz Konieczny is ok as well. In practice the conjecture "and others are not against removal" can be only tested when a delete proposal template is placed according to this guidelines and other users have a chance to comment it. Of course bypassing the "delete proposal" stage should be minimized to clear accidents, violations, spam etc and highly discouraged for pages holding any reasonable content even if it is of only historical value.

Just as we have OHM, there might be people interested in the history of OSM evolution - I certainly am. So some kind of archiving totally outdated practically useless but non-junk content should be considered instead of deleting it? RicoZ (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, it is sufficient that this is reason number 7 (so not a strong one) and "General advice" states "Except when stated differently, a deletion must always be proposed and discussed first." Since it is not stated differently (like in reasons 1 to 4), you would discuss this anyway, right?

But if you want to change it, I will not revert it ... --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am inclining towards removing or somehow changing this. The author/sole editor can always propose a deletion and his opinion has some authority but there is no reason why he should have a privileged position in the decision (unless it is in his userspace of course). So what is left? It is "you consider the content outdated".. which is normally not enough to delete. RicoZ (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about the numerous category pages at Category:Labelled for deletion (listed under "Subcategories"). Most of them were apparently created or restructured by @Władysław Komorek:. I guess you could argue that this would be some sort of cleanup action, some of them were also created by Verdy_p (meaning it looks like a mess). The "authority" of the creator helps avoiding some discussion about uncritical deletion requests. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course the authority of the creator helps a lot but I am wondering if the text "You were the only editor of the page and consider the content outdated" implies the author has some special privilege deciding? And should it be so? RicoZ (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they have control over pages they created are the only that's edited. If you take it away then it might have a chilling effect on people making draft pages or whatever just for the hell of it. I should be able to create a random page if I want, fill it with crap, then decide its not worth saving. Its my prerogative. I shouldn't have to consult other people about it or be like "hey is it cool if this page I made full of S's is deleted?" --Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It was intended to provide a reason for deletion to the author of a text that noone else cares about. I would like to remind you that General advice #4 says "Except when stated differently, a deletion must always be proposed and discussed first." It is not stated differently here, so you have to propose deletion first anyway (compare with To delete #1 - #4 where it is stated differently. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to block this point as I consider it rather harmless. RicoZ (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever you guys think is best on this one. I don't create proposals. So its not an issue I'm personally invested in anyway. If creators of proposal pages think the rule doesn't work later on they can say something about it so it can be revised if need be. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. So I will conclude by closing this for now. I case that the policy is enacted and the community figures out that it does not work out as expected, they can come back and revise this. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning"

Resolved: two replacement criteria forumulated, draft updated --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone give example of currently existing pages that would be deleted under this rule? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please check the forum. I constructed some sample cases after your last reply in discussion with Dieterdreist.

I found a case in Special:ShortPages yesterday, but of course I did not request deletion because we still debate on the rules. I think it was somewhere around the 1000th shortest page. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 18:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a couple of cases I came across a while ago. I can't remember what they were now unfortunately. I'll try to find them again though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed features/All Highway Tags

Proposed features/employment agency (which you edited, but probably didn't even read. Not surprising)

Proposed features/Access only (has "examples" but nothing really explaining it)

Proposed features/cape (has a link to Wikipedia for the definition. The conversation on the talk page is all about place=locality also)

Proposed features/Cargo (kind of has a definition but not really. Blank otherwise. Could probably be deleted)

Proposed features/Civic centre (no definition, could probably be deleted despite discussion as its mostly off topic)

Proposed features/cluster (no definition), Proposed features/Crop (no definition, lots of talk on main page but not really clear what its about)

Proposed features/Key:dafor (not really clear what it is and none sense comment about it), --Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I do completely disagree regarding the proposal for Key:dafor. It is clear what it is supposed to do and well documented. How much more documentation do you want? If that is viewed as a good example to delete than I am all against this. We have a lot to improve regarding vegetation mapping and I am currently collecting such proposals and working on something new - and it is important to learn from every idea here.

Also, deleting access only and some others on the list would be imho a very bad idea. Many of the tags are actually in use so maybe those proposals should be archived but they should be also accessible. RicoZ (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Their called examples. I never said I was 100% into deleting all of them either. But to get an idea of where people are at you need a range of things. As far as keeping things simply because the tag has usage, there's millions of "bad" tags that only have a few uses. I don't think that should qualify them for documentation on the wiki though. So there should be more of a qualifier then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well this was specifically about "Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning". I don't know if some from the above list fulfills those criteria but those that I looked don't.. can you point us to those that you consider to qualify according to this rule? Regarding the bad in-use tags, if there is a proposal for them maybe it should be properly rejected or at least documented why it was abandoned.

Regarding the "access only" proposal (even if misnamed) it is about some very important "good" tags that are in wide use and also explains the evolution of other important access tags. There is better documentation for those tags which means that those ancient proposals could perhaps be archived and linked to from the documentation of the tags but I would consider it disastrous to delete such pages. RicoZ (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Some do, some might not. Your free to discard the ones that don't from whatever you have going on in your head about it. If none of them do, that's fine also. I don't really care either way. I've spent enough time already digging through proposals to try and prove points to people that don't ultimately care one way or another though. I have a life to live. So I'm not doing it again.

As far as "access only" I'd delete it. Maybe you wouldn't. Its already clear your more into saving things then I am. I don't what else there is to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let us get back to the facts. To qualify for deletion discussion, the proposal needs to

• mention a tag that is not in use and
• not describe its meaning and
• not explain its meaning

I will go through all of them now, green favours deletion, red favours keeping, grey stands for irrelevant or N/A, and yellow is unsure.

Proposal	tag not in use	not describe its meaning (definition)	not explain its meaning (example)	final result
Proposed features/All Highway Tags	inapplicable, because proposal redefined the meaning of highway=*	Definitions are provided on the linked page User:Ben/Highways	example: M96 near Morton-in-Marsh	keep
Proposed features/employment agency		irrelevant	irrelevant	keep, undoubtedly in use
Proposed features/Access only access=access		conclusive definition missing	examples provided and even compared in the table	keep
Proposed features/cape		Based on Wikipedia: "A headland (or simply head) is a coastal landform, a point of land usually high and often with a sheer drop, that extends into a body of water. It is a type of promontory. A headland of considerable size often is called a cape."	irrelevant	keep
Proposed features/Cargo		Definition given	missing	keep
Proposed features/Civic centre amenity=civic_centre amenity=local_government		Definition missing, the term "civic centre" is used inconsistently in the English-speaking world.	Seems to be about a civic centre or a local government. Potentially multiple proposals on one page (?).	Depends on the definition of "in use"
Proposed features/cluster		Something about housing development possibly (guessing), but not explicitly stated	yes	delete
Proposed features/Crop landuse=cropland		This proposal seems vague something like landuse=farm, but excluding cattles.	Meaning was never clarified by Ojw	depends on definition of "in use"
Proposed features/Key:dafor		Definition given "DAFOR [...] is a quick way of measuring coverage or frequency of a plant taxon=* within a given area."	irrelevant	keep

I am a bit stuck with the issue of tags being "in use". I think we discussed some number qualifying a feature for being "in use" in the forum, but I can not recall that. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cool table. Maybe it can be used as a reference for when someone wants to request comment on multiple page deletions or something.

Usage wise I'd say more than zero but not less than reasonable, whatever that means. While I generally agree that articles related to tags with some usage shouldn't be deleted, it should just be one factor out of many. It shouldn't be used as a sole or defacto metric to justify keeping articles since there isn't a direct A to B connection between article (proposal) usefulness/merits and the tag count IMHO. Having it be an overriding rule set to more than 0 uses essentially kills the possibility of any articles being deleted. Since essentially every tag article or proposal will be connected to some usage. Even if its just a single use. If the number is set to a higher threshold than 1 though, essentially useless none sense articles just under it won't get deleted. Which is wrong my opinion. The important thing is article content/clarity/etc. Otherwise, why have all the other deletion rules? We could just as easily say all articles with over 1 usage can't be deleted. Then people who are against deletion can map a bunch of tags 1 time to keep the articles around just, just because they want everything to be kept. I've seen similar things before. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding civic centre and crop, it seems that it attracted some discussion so should not this be keep for reason #4?

Regarding usage numbers and quality of documentation it seems very hard to draw any useful line here. Some natural features are rare but you still want all 1 or 2 of them mapped and documented. Some tag/value combinations are almost self explaining and require very little documentation and the mere fact which user proposed this tag/value combination may be useful knowledge for someone trying to improve on that. RicoZ (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So then the standard for keeping something should be the mere fact that it was proposed then? Right. That aside, I agree that its very hard to draw a line. So there shouldn't be one. I'm sure most people have a reasonable idea of what "to many" is and that they will be called out for crossing it if they do anyway. Once there is anti harassment rules in place that should help with any potential badgering by editors with to high standards also. So I think that's enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall my understanding is that proposals should be only deleted if they are some kind of accidents without any impact to OSM, that means no meaningful discussions, no votes, no usage and no documentation. Of course nobody should harass you if you propose something for deletion but I don't think that is what happened. RicoZ (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't give two craps about your personal opinion as to how I was or wasn't treated. Especially considering it was 3 years worth of bad behavior over multiple platforms, by multiple users, zero of which you were involved in or read over. Nor did I say anywhere that my comment about harassment or the need for anti harassment rules had anything to with my personal experiences. There's always going to be bad actors and there should always be rules in place to stop them from behaving badly when there can be. If you want to be an apologist for bullies or act like its not a thing, fine. Do it somewhere else though. We are here to figure out how to make doing semi controversial things a little more civil. Part of that is based on dealing with the underlining bad behavior that comes with it. Which is largely dealt through guidelines about what constitutes bad behavior. I'm not sure why its even an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: please stay on topic! This is about a deletion policy. I think RicoZ knows now how you were treated, but insulting them is by no means better (this happened several times in this discussion already!). I would appreciate if we would discuss RicoZ's statement instead.

Overall my understanding is that proposals should be only deleted if they are some kind of accidents without any impact to OSM, that means no meaningful discussions, no votes, no usage and no documentation

@RicoZ: So you think that Proposed features/employment agency can be deleted? The tag is undoubtedly in use, but there were no meaningful discussion, no votes, and no documentation on the proposal page. It looks to me as if they simply saw the tag was already in use and then they abandoned the proposal draft. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is already discussed somewhere else, sorry. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

I'm not sure what your chiding me about. I was staying on topic. He went off topic by bringing up how I was treated when it didn't have anything to do with what I was saying. I have every right to correct him and say I don't care about his personal feelings. Staying away from personal feelings on things is exactly staying on things. Its completely useless to rehash old things every other message. Which RicoZ has done repeatedly, along with taken pointless swipes at both me an Ezelkiel for no reason, when neither one of us was saying thing to anything him. Not once did you call him out on it when he did it either. I'm not just going to go along with this one sided BS where I keep getting called out for things I'm not doing when everyone else does and says whatever they feel like. I've been plenty respectful and on topic. Don't treat me otherwise. If he's going to keep taking useless swipes at me though or continue saying dumb, disingenuous crap I'm going to call him out on it. Its my prerogative. I 100% much rather stay on topic, I'm just not going to when he's not. So if you have a problem with how the discussion is going or things being off topic, take it up with him since he's the instigator and the one that keeps continuing it, not me. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Will answer on your user page. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

@RicoZ: The whole analysis was solely based upon "Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning". I think the whole civic centre proposal is pretty tricky, because there were votes in the old discussion which were removed from the page and the proposal's scope changed. The removed discussion also contained a link to amenity=arts_centre proposal, however I can not really see a comparison. Someone just suggested to use the other one instead and then there were some comments about naming. I guess it really depends on what you consider comparing, right? In case of "Crop" I would say it is linked to Proposed features/agricultural Field and its proposition seems to be based upon problems with landuse=farm, so there is a comparison and you could probably extract some definition from Ben's comment "field is the area in wich crops grow, or animals are kept", even though someone else proposed this tag in the first place. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

For me those would be enough to keep the proposals. Aside of that, I think that at least the civic centre proposal should be "improved" by adding some conclusion and links to current tagging documentation. RicoZ (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: wrote "there isn't a direct A to B connection between article (proposal) usefulness/merits and the tag count IMHO". This is not the intention. We wanted to avoid that the sole documentation for a tag "in use" is deleted. We also stated that "What can be improved should be improved instead of deleted." from which you can extract the preference to enhance an unclear proposal over deleting it. You can see that the case of Proposed features/cluster is pretty clear. I guess lots of comparable proposals are deleted already, so over time you will find less of those. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: my thinking on this is that if the proposal has a few uses but no useful content there's no reason the page can't be deleted and then someone can create a new proposal with actual content in the future if need be. In the meantime though we shouldn't not delete things that would otherwise be deletable based on some magical unicorn that might come along in the future to add to the page. Especially in cases of proposals that have been siting there for years with only superficial edits.

One of the problems I have with the line of thinking that proposals that even small content shouldn't be deleted, due to having maybe having "useful" information, is that it seems to come from the perspective that users are dumb and won't might be able to figure the same things out again in the future if need be. 99% of this stuff is pretty obvious as to why the tags are bad and shouldn't be used, or if not it would only take minimal thought to re-figure it out. The whole "tag count" thing seems the same way. Its pretty easy to create a proposal page. I'm pretty sure people can figure it out with basic research if they don't know how. So there doesn't need to be a bunch of empty pages around acting as "just in case" templates, just because there might be a few uses of the tag on the map. I also don't subscribe to the idea that the wiki should be a dump for everything under the sun. For instance, I don't think Tag:brand=Harley-Davidson should have a page. It has zero relevance to OSM, outside of just being a random tag someone used. Or I'll map a bunch of crap randomly, like my_parents=house or where_the_neighbors_dog=uses_the_bathroom_in_my_yard and then throw a fit when someone requests the pages be deleted, "but, but, but, I mapped some and there's a proposal." You have to draw the line somewhere. I don't think its unreasonable that the line should be drawn on content, not on tag count. The wiki is a place for information about tags and using OSM. Not a place to note down every possible thing on the planet related to it that could be noted, just because, or a tag usage table whatever. There's nothing inherently special about proposals that make them the divine word of god, like the 10 commandments, that shouldn't be messed with by mortals after their initial creation. They should follow the same standards as normal pages in 99% of cases. Which means tag count doesn't mean squat, content, relevance to OSM, and usefulness does. At least that's my opinion. Usage numbers also aren't static. They can go up and down pretty frequently.

I've seen plenty of tags go from a good number of use down to zero and back up again in short periods of time. Often tagging is seemingly random to. Just because there is a proposal for something and usage of the tag on the map doesn't mean they are connected. Often times people tagging similar features will tag things the same. So it shouldn't be used as a metric just based on those things alone. Because some person in Europe created a proposal that he subsequently ditched, then some dude in the middle of Afghanistan happen to use the same tag a few times without knowing or caring about the proposal, doesn't mean the proposal should be kept. There's zero correlation between the two. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we change this to "Proposals that only mention a tag without describing/explaining its meaning, but the tag is not in use or there is a feature page that defines the tag." This change would enable Proposed features/employment agency for deletion discussion as well. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally I would not want to delete proposals because there is a feature page describing them. Regarding employment agency I would consider the creation of that proposal an accident because it was created when description page was already present and it could be deleted imho. In other cases when the description is created after the proposal it is my understanding that the proposal should be archived? I think that should be clarified and regarding employment agency the general criteria could be changed from "You created the page by accident ..." into "The page was created by accident" but in that case a delete proposal instead of request would be required. RicoZ (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you want to know if a page was created by accident? I imagine that first, the proposal was made on some mailing list, then nobody opposed, then the people used it, then someone else created the page at Tag:office=employment_agency in line with other pages, then a third person thought the proposal was missing in the wiki and created the "fake proposal", and lastly, we talked about the discussion.

I can imagine there are more similar proposals, so formulating a rule would be good, I guess. My suggestion intends to provide a second option, in case the tag is neither described, nor explained in the proposal and there is a feature page. It does not solely depend upon the existence of a feature page.

Archiving pages is a huge topic by itself. Just to give a glimpse of a problem here, when you archive a page, you also "delink" the images, so it appears that these images are not used in the wiki any more. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

proposal process is already mentioned in the proposal section and in principle I would think that pages that appear to violate the conventions of the proposal process and are of no use could be proposed for deletion. However, I do not dare to suggest this because I am increasingly skeptical about the good faith of some users. RicoZ (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware about the image thing with proposal archiving. That's an issue. I wonder if there's a way to fix it on the software side somewhere so that doesn't happen. Otherwise, it kind of takes the air out of archiving things a little.

"I do not dare to suggest this because I am increasingly skeptical about the good faith of some users." Btw Tigerfell, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I mention subtle undermining and jab taking when its completely inappropriate and off topic that isn't called out by anyone. Constantly questioning another person's motives for no reason is both rude and completely not productive. Does anyone say anything about it when RicoZ does it though (which is quit often)? of course not. If it was me doing it I'm sure id hear about it though. Also, RicoZ your the that beat the drum before about not "personalizing" things. So its pretty ironic, to put it nicely, that your constantly hemming and hawing about other peoples motivations. I guess to you its only a problem when other people make things personal (which know one's done except you repeatedly btw), but its perfectly cool when your the one doing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That is why I stopped archiving pages (at least the way it is done with proposals currently). A bot could fix that. There is possibly a solution within MediaWiki as well, have not checked that. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth looking into more before the draft gets wider attention. Since I can fer-see people asking why things aren't just being archived instead of deleted. So it would be good if there was a response about it and that we could say its being worked on or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to bring this discussion to an end soon actually. If anyone has an example or wants to propose a specific formulation, please go ahead, but I do not see any advantage in waiting. I agree that people might ask, but first we can point them here and secondly they could have dropped a note in the talk mailing list or here at least. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Go ahead and conclude it. I don't have a good solution to the problem anyway, and I don't think it will be easy to solve. So there's no reason to let it hang things up. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. Just suggest a text change and then we discuss it.

Not trusting other users is pretty pointless in a wiki. To give an example, everyone could request my user page for deletion at any moment. If you do not assume good faith, it does not work. I would also appreciate if you would either name problems and discuss them with the users in question or you keep them for yourself. The comment above is just destructive IMHO. Let us talk about the draft instead. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I find it even more ridiculous because nothing I have suggested has gone into the draft so far at all from what I can tell and I haven't even edited the thing myself. So whatever my motivation's are, not that they are bad, it's had zero effect on anything. Whereas, most things RicoZ has suggested has gone in it and he's edited multiple times himself. So whatever bad intent he has, not that I'm saying he has any, will definitely affect things. Also, the whole point in creating the guidelines is so know one can act unilaterally based on their personal opinions anymore.

Anyway more on topic, I guess the only way to know if a page was created by accident is if the person that created says so in the article somewhere. It might also clearly be an accident if its a duplicate of another page, like in the instance of office=employment_agency, but I don't feel like that's as clear cut as it could be. So personally, I'm not to sure where to draw the line on this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ: I suggest to replace "Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning" with "Proposals that neither define nor provide examples for their usage" and (subsequent bullet point) "Proposals which violate the significance conventions of the proposal process and are not in use" (changed "of no use" (subjective) to "not in use" (somewhat objective to measure)). Both cases would still require discussion on an individual basis. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As long as it "still requires discussion on an individual basis" I'm fine with that. Maybe put something to that effect as a side point if its not already. The rephrase helps a lot though. So I say its resolved for now (unless people are unwilling to discussion it later, which can be dealt with when it happens), at least for me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

More pages that could probably be deleted and other complaints

Disregard: irrelevant for this draft --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:WikiProject_Cleanup#Pages_that_could_probably_be_deleted. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk)

Mailing list requirement

Resolved: mailing list requirement dropped in favour of a centralised discussion page --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a requirement that people have to contact the mailing list to do things. Its adds an extra step that just over complicates things unnecessary. A lot of people don't use the mailing list either, including myself, and I don't think its fair to none "elite" editors or newbies to force them to use it. Especially since it requires subscribing and providing private information they might want to share and shouldn't have to. Plus, what to do on the wiki with articles should mainly fall on people who are editors of the wiki.

In the case of "wait a long time, ask the mailing list for opinions, consider contacting the author or editors known to be editing related content." I think waiting a long time and (or) contacting the authors is enough. The Wiki has been around for ten years now and that has been perfectly sufficient. It took about zero time for people jump on me about my deletion proposals. So if people don't comment after a while and the page gets deleted, then its on them for not checking the deletion requests frequently. The guidelines already bend over backward's enough in the favor of the anti-deletion crowd in my opinion. There shouldn't also be obstacles to doing a deletion proposal along with it. Which requiring people to sign up to and navigate the mailing list in order to delete something would be.

The same goes for "mass" deletions. Which probably won't happen if 99% of them have to be discussed first or can just be moved. But if it does, I think commenting on the Wiki Cleanup Project talk page about what your doing and getting feedback there is enough. Again, people should have to sign up for and figure out how to use a whole separate site to do something here. Also, creating an article for it just creates more unnecessary articles. Which then have to go through the process themselves once the person is done. "more than a few pages" is vague anyway. There shouldn't be a numerical limit (that can always be argued). It should depend on page content. Otherwise, someone wouldn't be able to delete 5 (if that's the chosen number) blank pages, or ones that are inappropriate, unless they go through a convoluted process first, just because its "more then a few pages." Id prefer bad content, like spam articles or ones with personal information, just be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, I agree that we shouldn’t have to contact the mailing list to do things, especially considering OSM Wiki its own website and we already have Template:Ping to notify other users to come into conversations. Furthermore, I think the discussions about the OSM Wiki in the mailing list should be limited to prevent talking behind other wiki users’ backs. We already have more than enough channels for OSM and repeatedly scanning this conversation over the OSM Wiki, OSM Forum, and OSM mailing list to see what’s happening about one conflict is pretty convoluted... and tiring... Zzz... — EzekielT (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that bigger deletion actions should be communicated well and especially also to users who are not regularly active in the wiki. While I agree that the number of channels and switching back and forth between them is hard to follow, I am still in favour of putting at least an announcement in the mailing list and discuss the rest in the wiki. It is not like we have a bigger deletion wave every month. The required announcements should be proportional to the size of the change and Automated Edits code of conduct in some way. Pinging just reaches people that regularly sign in.

@RicoZ: What were your motives when writing this? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Common sense, analogy to mass/automated edits in the database and the lessons from the edit war which started this discussion. In particular I believe such measure would have prevented this edit war. Further if there are mass deletions it would be typically of related pages and in such cases it would be very helpful if they were discussed in a coordinated way in one place. Exactly for this reason you would create the page describing the deletions and the talk page could be used for discussions. It was not my intention to require mailing list announce for every single page delete but for the wiki cleanup that has triggered this edit war certainly yes. Deleting pages requires care so if someone wants to delete many pages than setting up a short page in your userpsace explaining what you are doing should not be a noticeable burden. RicoZ (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with using my particular case as an example is that it wasn't a consorted mass clean up on my part. I requested a few pages be deleted 2 years ago, which where, then I requested, which weren't and created controversy. The controversy started after the first deletion request happened though and had nothing to do with the volume. It was only used as excuse for the initial harassment later on. The deletion requests where spread over a two year period also. I just wasn't aware that Lyx had stopped deleting them until this recent thing came up, because I had gotten the go ahead by an admin and others to it long before that and I didn't feel to check the deletion request page repeatedly like someone with OCD and a fear of backlash. There was also two separate things, the Proposal deletion requests and the Kosmos deletion requests, which were clumped together as one incident when they shouldn't have been. As above in a message that was moved, I only requested like 6 proposals be deleted. The rest Kosmos pages, but the proposals were what got the blunt of the outrage as if they were every deletion request. They were still a small minority of both deletion requests and proposals though (like .03% or something). None of it was pre-planned either. I just had some free days here and there, and I was tired of mapping.

While I agree that if someone is going to make a planned out, consorted, effort to clean up a certain category of articles, that they should do a good job of alerting the community first. The number to qualify for the alert should be extremely high though, like 30 or more, and it shouldn't be applied retroactively by angry users because someone did a bunch of deletion requests over a two year period, that just look pre-planned because they weren't deleted in a timely manor. It shouldn't apply to pages where its clear they can be deleted either. And it shouldn't apply in cases where some requests something like 3 proposal pages be deleted and 10 spam pages be deleted, but its a "mass" edit that deserve alerting the community because three of them were proposals. Again also, pages that clearly violate policy shouldn't be kept around for a protracted amount of time just because. In some cases, like copyright right violations or sharing of personal information, speedy deletion without discussing it is the proper way to go.

Honestly though, I don't really see an instance where it would even happen if all none clear deletion cases have to go to a conversation by default. I don't see anything wrong with proposing deletion on a bunch of pages either. If its done by a single user or not. If the guidelines are written well enough there shouldn't be any ambiguous cases where pages that shouldn't have gotten deleted, accidentally do. So to me, its a none issue. Unless anyone can come up with a clear case where it might be one. There's no instance where its appropriate to require users to sign up for another site, in this case the mailing list, to do something on this one either IMHO. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The mailing list requirement refers to deletion requests of more than a few pages.

There is nothing wrong with proposing page deletion systematically. The draft just says that you have to contact the mailing list and document your efforts to give others a chance to get to know that. Since mailing lists are an official means of communication and you can use any throw-away email address you like I do not see the problem there. No one is forced request deletion systematically, but if they want to do it, the additional burden of communicating this seems a fair balance of interests to me. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: the deletion of all Kosmos related pages is imho a good example of something that should be announced in the mailing list. Did you ever use that software? Also, please assume good faith on all sides. You can't be surprised when some users have problems with your edits if you do things like requesting Proposed_features/agricultural_access for deletion. RicoZ (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

More thinking.. we could somewhat relax the mailing list requirement as long as no delete requests are involved. However in practice this won't do much difference because without asking the mailing list for opinions the delete proposals would likely stay catching dust for months and years to come. But if someone starts with a few pages and it becomes clear only some time later that more pages would be affected I think it would be okay to add delete proposals to pages and notify the list later when perhaps 15 proposals accumulated. I also think it would be great if someone looked at the pages listed as proposed for deletion and posted a summary to the mailing list from time to time so it gets some attention. RicoZ (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to bring up a new point: "How to delete" states as number 3 "ask the mailing list for opinions". This implies for me, that you would always need to consult the mailing list, but was that actually our intention? I surely did not intend such a guideline. If we would drop this, we would actually limit the mailing list requirement to "Wiki cleanups and deleting more than a few pages". --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This should be optional if there were enough users who did express their opinions (more than only Adamant1 and EzekielT). However, if there were no opinions I would disagree to proceed to point 5 without previously asking the mailing list as a last ditch effort to get opinions - and in practice I think this situation would be quite common.

I do like your idea about something like "Wikipedia's Articles for deletion" so if that happens perhaps it could replace the mailing list requirement for normal deletes. RicoZ (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What difference does it make if its only two people that oppose having to contact the mailing list? Its only two people, you and Tigerfell, that suggested it. I didn't say I oppose contacting the mailing list anyway. I said I oppose it when it comes to having to do it every time someone wants to delete something. I'm totally for notifying the mailing list when it comes doing "mass deletions" though. Which I made clear. Those are two different things. Get it right before you say what I'm against or not next time.

Number 3 should be changed or deleted, because 1. Its not the consensus that the mailing list should be contacted in the first place 2. It doesn't apply to every situation. People shouldn't have to contact the mailing list just to do a deletion proposal on a single page or in cases where the article clearly fits the deletion criteria (which we are all in agreement on). Its misleading to state otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Replied at Centralised discussion page for the discussion page.

I guess then changing the draft accordingly, we can resolve this point as well (no mailing list requirement for single page deletions, central page for all delete proposals) --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I updated the draft now, there is no mailing list requirement for discussing and subsequently requesting deletion for singular pages anymore. The requirement remained for wiki cleanups and deleting more than a few pages. @Adamant1: @RicoZ: Is this done or do we need to set an exact number to define "more than a few pages"? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that is ok, don't think we need an exact number. The wikicleanups should of course also be announced at "OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions" (not only mailing list) and perhaps only the relevant cleanup/discussion page be linked there instead of listing every single deletion request in two places? RicoZ (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I think its the fair way to go. I'm not sure about setting an exact number to qualify as more than a few pages, because setting one might negate some needed leeway. Maybe there could just be a note that the type of deletion of proposals being done and the length of time they have been up should factor into the judgement as to if its to many. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 draft updated --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Pages should "qualify" for deletion

Resolved: text was updated accordingly, no further discussion --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add before number 1 of "How to delete" the following section:

Please verify that the content qualifies for at least one of the points mentioned in the sections "To delete". Name this reason in the following discussion.

I think it is necessary to name the reason, because then someone else can argue about it or you find out that it does not match the criteria beforehand. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

For me it looks like two ideas at once:

1. verify that it qualifies for at least one of the points mentioned in the sections "To delete"
2. document the reasons why you think it qualifies for deletion

To Nr.1. I would suggest to amend - also verify that it doesn't contradict any of the reasons in the sections "To keep"

Seems fine to me.RicoZ (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding number 2: I want to give an opponent the option of arguing about the reason why this page qualifies for deletion, so the people discuss about reasons, not about something else (like why they dislike each other or similar). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine for me, what about the "verify that it doesn't contradict any of the reasons in the sections "To keep"" part? RicoZ (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I combined both suggestions from above, but I had to exempt redirects because they are currently listed under "To keep" and "To delete". --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal process

Resolved: proposal process not really clear, suggestions welcome, but we already reached a conclusion --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What are plans to turn this proposal from draft into official documentation? Ask admins whatever they consider this page as a good idea? Reuse tagging proposal process with vote and its requirements? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps both? Admins should have an important word here but at least a call for RFC on the mailing list would be also appropriate - at the very least more people would notice this page exists. RicoZ (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a draft for the RFC mail (not really sure when to sent it out):

[Wiki] RFC - Deletion policy
Dear fellow mappers,
We would like to invite you to participate in the drafting of a deletion policy for wiki pages. As you might have noticed, there were conflicts based on requests to delete wiki pages and especially drafts of proposals. One of the arguments in favour of deletion was avoiding confusion and clutter. The other side argued basically that they wanted to keep everything as all of the fragments ensemble OpenStreetMap's history. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of one and a half months.
Even though it is not absolutely complete yet, we would appreciate your feedback.
Kind regards,

Okay? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems OK, though I would advice moving this page from usespace to some other location before RfC to make it less confusing Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to do that once this is somewhat approved, because it seems rather confusing to me to move the page during discussion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we vote on this draft for two weeks after we settled on a draft. I would suggest a similar approach as compared to Talk:Relation:associatedStreet#Deprecation of associatedStreet in Germany. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What would be criteria for passing it? I think that the same as for tagging proposals would be OK Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. The proposal process states "A rule of thumb for 'enough support' is 8 unanimous approval votes or at least 10 votes with more than 74 % approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). All suggestions should be taken into account before a proposal is approved or rejected." I do not see "special factors" in this case.

Regarding the current progression, I estimate that we will be able to start voting by 29 March, but I can not know what will come up in the discussion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging active admins about draft for deletion handling proposal

Resolved: Minh Nguyen responded, no objections --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I will ping Lyx as quite relevant person - as a sole person currently using ability to press "delete" button.

@Lyx: What is your opinion about this draft? Is there anything here that you would propose to change/improve here? I am asking at I you are sole active admin, at least as far as processing deletion requests go and discouraging you would have disastrous consequences (starting from making moot discussing how things should be deleted).

If you have any ideas about this proposal and comments please let us know! No matter is it single specific comment, "this is a wonderful idea" or "this is a horrible idea, please stop" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is wrong: Reneman also deleted pages recently. I would consider Yurik active as well. He just limits his actions to Data items.

Harry Wood stated at some point in this discussion that he would prefer to stay out of this discussion. I would like to hear something from the admin candidate Minh Nguyen. More generally, I would be interested in all admins' opinions. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tigerfell: Thanks for drafting this proposal. After reading the forum discussion, I'm proposing that we at least address the issue with proposals cluttering up search results by moving tagging proposal pages to a real namespace. That doesn't address Adamant1's concerns about other outdated content, such as how-tos and software listings, but it should make Mateusz Konieczny's inclusionist approach more sustainable. I've been active in cleaning up software pages, but I've only once taken the step of getting one deleted, when I realized I'd been duped into installing an application that was using an OSM map as a front to sneak onto the App Store. Grr. SomeoneElse pointed out to me before that the software pages could be seen as an endorsement by the OSM community, so we should make sure not to present the pages that way.

In my opinion, there should be minimum content guidelines for a page to be included in this wiki in the first place (based on common sense), but that should be separate from the deletion policy. The deletion policy should say that pages that obviously fall well short of the guidelines, containing no useful content, can be speedily deleted by an administrator, and that borderline cases should be discussed first. Proposal pages should have a lower standard for inclusion than other pages. They're basically discussion pages. We keep even the very oldest talk page discussions around forever, but we make sure they aren't as discoverable as the wiki's main content.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the namespace issue separately if you do not mind.

Having content guidelines would be desirable, but I think we actually draft them now and I do not want to start the "deletion policy" discussion all over again. I hope we can derive them from the deletion policy afterwards. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"Sorry, but that is wrong: Reneman also deleted pages recently." Great, in that case I edit section title and I will ping him: @Reneman: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW to ping someone, you just need to link to their user page which I already did. There is no need to use the template. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Title of section " Additional criteria for proposals"

Resolved: discussion done --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As it stands in the text it could be interpreted like the criteria in this subsection should be somehow combined with those in " General criteria what to keep or delete". I think a title like "Specific criteria for proposals" would be better because it gives a clear precedence to the more specific criteria? RicoZ (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but this was also intended. AFAIK we moved every bullet point which applies to deletions in general up in the general section and left in "Additional criteria for proposals" the specific additional content only. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this would greatly change the meaning as it is now, most points in "General criteria" are valid for proposals as well. However "Delete/7 and Delete/10" could be interpreted too broadly and conflict with the more specific criteria for proposals, hence it would be good to say that the later ones have precedence. Also something may get amended to either lists sometimes in the future so it I think there is less risk for confusion if there is a clear precedence. RicoZ (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, then you would need to copy reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, possibly 7, 8, and 9 from "General criteria to delete" as well as additional reasons from "To keep". Not copying #9 would be quite a change in the rules. But merging proposals is a bit ridiculous, I agree. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess the only possible problem is with General/delete/7, which is also discussed in the other section. Maybe we should name the section "Criteria for proposals", and state in the preamble "most criteria from the section about general criteria apply for this section as well but some may be overridden by more specific criteria listed bellow."? RicoZ (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Where is this discussion for page deletion to take place and in what format?

Resolved: Discussion finished, new template for linking to not deleted deletion discussions needs to be created --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Where this discussion of page deletion is to take place? The 'venue' needs to retain the comments so as to document the activity. Warin61 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If the discussion is to take place in a non-specific forum there needs to be an agreed subject/title format that alerts people as to the content. Similar to the RFC title requirements for new tag proposals. Warin61 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In this talk page and potentially on OSM mailing lists? I noticed RFC announcement on one of mailing lists Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we leave this talk page for discussion about the draft and create a new page. I imagine something like OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussion. Then we have all discussions in one place. Currently, we use the talk page of the page, but this hides the discussion after deletion.

I sent an RfC to talk yesterday. Discussing every page deletion on a mailing list would be too much (see section Mailing list requirement). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is to be on a wiki page, singular, then I think that too will get over loaded. Possibly a wiki page that lists what pages are up for deletion (latest first, oldest last to save scrolling to the end of a possibly long list) and then discussion takes place on the relevant wiki features 'discussion' page. This could be a good thing - one page to subscribe too if interested in what pages are proposed for deletion, and if your not subscribed to that page then, if you are concerned with a page that is up for deletion, you should get a notification from the change to its discussion page. Warin61 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking about a wiki page like Wikipedia's Articles for deletion. I suggest a general page you can watch and then moving the closed cases to subpages like OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussion/March 2019. We could change {{Delete proposal}} to link to the correct version automatically. I do not know what you mean by "relevant wiki features 'discussion' page". In this case, you would get a notification when someone places the template on the page. Then you follow the link and subscribe to the discussion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea of a page that I could watch. In practice I could imagine it will be often so that people will express an opinion such as "this is a good candidate but not quite ripe yet", should those stay as open in the page? Or be temporarily closed and revisited later? RicoZ (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would close and archive them, but note that they might pop up later. You could use the new template as suggested below to link to the archived discussion. When pulling this up, you would link the current discussion to the previous one. That sounds reasonable? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What are we talking here about: discussions about this draft/proposal, or discussion about deletion of some pages? Regarding this draft I think once the draft is settled it should be moved elsewhere and start with a fresh discussion page. RicoZ (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal. The proposal sates that a deletion proposal shall be discussed, but does not say where, what format etc. Warin61 (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Warin61 is talking about where to discuss page deletions. It is not said in the draft. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be good if there was a thing like Wikipedia has when a page gets a deletion proposal but doesn't get deleted, where there's a template that says "This page was discussed for deletion on #$@#" and then a link to the discussion page. I don't want article discussion pages to get littered with the deletion discussion to the point where it makes it hard for people to then post on topic discussions. As some deletion discussions can get extremely long winded and go off topic. So I don't feel the main discussion page for the article is a good place for it (maybe a subpage in the article space or whatever, but that seem's convoluted. A separate page just for deletion discussions seems better), but it should be clear that's where the discussion takes place. So it doesn't get spread out between the two discussion pages. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

So essentially, you agree but you want a template for linking to unsuccessful deletion discussions? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote an outline for the centralised discussion page in section Centralised discussion page. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)‎

Categories

Disregard: templates and categories will be excluded from this policy --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we want to discuss deleting categories here or does that fall under wiki cleanups? --Andrew (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to refer to "wiki pages" in the draft to include all content (like "To delete" has some bullet points about files). But I guess you would need to address the issues with empty, inconsistent, and redirected categories separately, right? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the topic of deleting categories is worth exploring, there's similar issues with doing that then there is here, but it would probably be better wait until this is done and figure it out after. Then we could use what's implemented here as an outline. There's a few other things, like a code of conduct and what should qualify for an article in the first place, that are already being deferred. It would be good if there was a "to do later" list for things like this and other idea's that might come up in the meantime. That way nothing will get lost in the melee. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to finish it all in one policy, but you got a point. Do you mind starting a to-do list? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We can go ahead and figure it out here. It might be worth combining them into one set of rules. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to find reasons why a category should be deleted which is not covered by the general "To delete" cases. I do not see why you should delete empty categories apart from the general rules (esp. translations). I would suggest to use {{Category redirect}} for inconsistent or untranslated category names. Wikipedia has a long list of issues with overcategorisation, but I can not recall that we have had similar problems here. In contrast, Commons has a rather short explanation. The current categories with deletion requests are mostly empty translations or redirects after category moves. That is why I would avoid category moves, but I can not see how this can be part of a deletion policy.

Do you know what you had in mind, @Wynndale:?

Maybe @Władysław Komorek: can help us here as well, because he requested a lot of category pages to be removed? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I would not like to come back to the discussion why some categories I have reported for removal. I wrote about it earlier, and reported to DWG.

Before we begin to consider the legitimacy of maintaining, individual translated, categories, we should consider:

1. First of all, we should somehow define what a category is, why we create it, what we need it for, and rules for grouping articles.

2. Make a list of categories in English and pre-determine their validity.

3. Take into account that not always, the translated name of the category into another language, makes sense or will be useful or necessary. (not all articles are or will be translated at any time)

4. {{Category redirect}} can not always be used, because there will be a mess, when several, unneeded, created categories, will be redirected to one, in native language, category.

5. Currently, the creation of categories, in all languages, is very subjective. How to solve it? --Władysław Komorek (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. There needs to be a good definition of what a category is and how they are supposed to be used. They definitely shouldn't be created arbitrarily or based on a judgement about the need for them in the future by people who don't plan to put anything in the category themselves. Like Verdy_P did. Instead, There should be something to put in the at the time of its creation and the person creating it should be responsible for putting those things in it. I also don't think categories should be created for extremely niche, obscure things that only have a pages associated it and that know one will visit. Like, "male armadillo attendees of amazon forest mapaton party 1976" or whatever. I actually saw a category like that once (as a side, the same should go for templates IMHO). --Adamant1 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My reply

1. Categories group pages based on their content. They are used for providing an overview of a well-defined aspect of the documentation. Categories must contain a statement about which pages are included in them. Categories follow the same naming conventions as pages.
2. Special:Categories lists about 36'000 categories. If you subtract the categories with non-latin script and language prefixes, you end up by about 20'700 categories.
3. Can you name an example here?
4. Well, okay...
5. We could formulate guidelines and then say that all pages not meeting them can be deleted, but I guess we should keep this separate for the sake of limiting the discussion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

-> 3. I do not remember exactly which categories. But keep in mind that one word in English can have two or more equivalents in another language and vice versa. Similar cases occur on Wikipedia. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I know Verdy_P made a bunch of junk ones going back years that were never used and probably never will be. If I remember correctly when I counted them a while back it was some ridiculously high number like 1800 or something. From my understanding he created lot of them preemptively to categorise things at some future time that meteralized. From what I thought, the purpose of categorise is to group similar things in. Not to sit empty with nothing in them. SO I think categorizes that have remained for a certain time should be deleted. Again, I go back to what I said above, things shouldn't be created or kept because of waiting for a magical unicorn user that might someday find the thing useful, but probably won't. I also think the same comment above applies here that its not like these things can't be recreated when or if there is actually a need for them. People are smart, future people are even future smart. I'm sure them and their unicorns will be able to create categories of they need to. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of Verdy_p's edits in the category namespace, quite a lot is about places like "Users in ___" or "Villages in ___". They seem to be populated in case of France and Brazil (but in case of the latter, you just have some template pages). How do you want to figure out which category was empty for a certain amount of time with a reasonable amount of work?

Suggestions for "To delete": empty translations, empty categories about places

Suggestions for "To keep": maintenance categories

The rest would be equal to the general rules. Since categories often effect more than one page (even if just one category is deleted), I propose a delete proposal in most cases (exception, see below). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I can agree with your "To delete" suggestions. My main issue is with empty categories about places. Which I think were the vast majority of the "junk" categories Verdy_P created. Empty translations also. I'm not sure how much time should pass, but like I said above there should be an assumption before someone creates a category that there are going to put things in it after its created. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of having the category in the first place. So my inclination is to say a small amount of time. If the category doesn't get something put in it almost immediately, its probably never going to. Its 100% on the creator if it doesn't and gets deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How about we really leave this out for now. I completely underestimated the number of "junk" categories we have because I usually neither create nor delete them. I propose to write this in the draft as well. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Special process deleting for templates and categories

Disregard: templates and categories will be excluded from this policy --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The deletion of templates and categories often affects more than one page. I think the general process is still suitable for most cases, but we need to make sure that the delinking and replacement by other templates happens after the discussion.

I would like to propose a special deletion procedure for empty categories and unused templates (no need for unlinking, but still possibly affect multiple pages due to delays in Special:WhatLinksHere a.k.a. the category queue):

1. Place the special template {{Cat tem delete}} on the page (in the transcluded section of the template).
2. In case of templates, drop a note at OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions.
3. In case someone wants to object to deletion, they should change the template to {{Delete proposal}} and start the discussion at OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions. The general deletion process will be used in this case.
4. If the template is still unused/the category is still empty after seven days and there was no deletion discussion or edits in the previous step, an administrator can delete the template or category without further notice.

--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit more tricky than I though. Propose to explicitly exclude templates and categories for now. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would divide the proposal to delete new templates and new categories.

IMHO New templates should be saved in some new category for a longer time.

Why? It takes time for the Wiki users to be familiar with the new template and rethink its use. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW I noticed that we have a lot of templates without categories or the right type of category. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Centralised discussion page

Resolved: --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC))

Since it came up in multiple discussions, I suggest to set up a central discussion page like OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions. All deletion discussions would happen on this page with a topic for each page. The content will be archived regularly to OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions/<month> <year> when the discussion has ended. After archiving, the templates will be changed to {{Deletion|<link to archived discussion>}}. In case the deletion discussion ended with keeping the page, we will create some other template for that (see separate discussion). To implement this, I suggest the following list in the section "How to delete" that replaces the current one:

"In more detail

1. Please verify that the content qualifies for at least one of the points mentioned in the sections "To delete" and does not contradict with any of the reasons in section "To keep" (except if it is a redirect).
2. place the template {{Delete proposal|reason + signature}} on the page, create a section named as the page title on OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions to discuss the deletion on the talk page. Do not forget to sign within the template.
3. wait a long time, discuss your proposition at OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions ask the mailing list for opinions, consider contacting the author or editors known to be editing related content.
4. If there is consensus and the discussion has ended, move the discussion text to OpenStreetMap:Deletion discussions/<month> <year> and request deletion.
5. If you do not get any opinions you can either try again in a few months or if you think there is some urgent reason to delete the page try a delete request anyway."

Okay? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Y Updated --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Usage of "deletion proposal" ins't clear and other things

Resolved: multiple separate potential issues named; in the end, undiscussed changes were undone --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the draft it seems like the guidelines are pretty clear on what should and shouldn't be deleted. It seems like it essentially covers everything that might qualify as for a deletion proposal in the "to keep" and considerations headings. Especially considering the whole "things that can be improved should be" and "don't delete anything with usage" parts. There isn't any mention of what to do with blank pages or any other "grey areas" either. So at this point it just seems like this is a handwavey way to ban all none critical deletions, like spam or rule violations, but make it seem like there's an option to do deletion proposals when there isn't. I.E. We technically allow it, but the standard is so high know one will do it" type of thing. Which doesn't address the original purpose or cause of this whole thing.

A few of the rules are conflict with each other also. For example, "Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning or purpose" could just be negated by with "What can be improved should be improved instead of deleted." Along with any other deletion proposal. So could "Hoaxes and jokes that are not a sub page of a user (= in the user's space) or not clearly marked as such. (It is still fiercely debated if and how much humor OSM can survive)" by just adding something on the page that says its a hoax. Which defects the purpose of even having it as something that can be deleted. The only thing that leaves in the "delete" section is draft pages that are requested for deletion by the original author. Which essentially means no proposal pages can be deleted and makes this whole thing a waste of time. So what exactly can be proposed for deletion that isn't covered there and can't just be easily put into the "don't delete" section through a minor edit, that might not even improve the proposal in anyway even if it does make it so it can't be deleted?

Things like "improve things if they can be" are completely arbitrary and shouldn't be included. There's a big difference between "can" and "should." Just because a proposal/article could be improve, doesn't mean it should be. Sometimes (lots of times even) its a lot better to just get rid of something instead of trying to squeeze orange juice out of a lemon.

Also the necessary content threshold for keeping a proposal should be above just a description. A description ultimately doesn't mean anything to if a proposal should be saved or not IMHO. For instance, Its completely useless to keep a proposal page for a tag of a common thing that everyone knows the definition of, just because it has a definition. To me its another case of assuming editors are stupid and can't come up with the same, or a similar, definition again if someone proposes a similar tag in the future (like they couldn't just Google it anyway). As I said above in a another section, a lot of this stuff is pretty obvious and can be easily thought up again if need be. So there's no reason not to delete pages even if they have a definition.

I'd also change "used" to "widely used." it shouldn't be relevant to keeping the article or not if someone tested a tag before hand by mapping it a few times. The map/geodatabase and the wiki are separate systems and should have different standards. There's also TagInfo to see how much usage there is for obscure tags. Ultimately, proposals serve a specific purpose, to "propose" something. If a proposal page is blank, but the tag has a few mapping instances, the proposal should be deleted. Since its not technically a "proposal." Otherwise proposal pages can just be used as dumps for whatever anyone wants. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding

So at this point it just seems like this is a handwavey way to ban all none critical deletions, like spam or rule violations, but make it seem like there's an option to do deletion proposals when there isn't.

General to delete -> No. 1 Spam (pretty clear case), but of course you are free to discuss such a deletion if you want. Please define "rule violations".

We did not cover empty pages specifically, but I would check the history and then revert to an older version, if I believe this would be an accident. In case there is no other version, I do not see what hinders you do propose deletion and finally delete (please assume good faith!).

A few of the rules are conflict with each other also.

I do not see a problem there: The deletion policy names the conflicting opinions of parts of the community which in turn let you extract the possible conflicts. In the deletion discussion, you basically conclude what is more important in this point. A clear case would be if you just have one version of a proposal which is unclear and no activity for years and the tags are not "in use". I guess, the opposition against deletion would be pretty low.

So could "Hoaxes and jokes that are not a sub page of a user (= in the user's space) or not clearly marked as such. (It is still fiercely debated if and how much humor OSM can survive)" by just adding something on the page that says its a hoax.

In my POV, this is fully intended. This is not a shoot-out where everyone tries to get more pages deleted then everyone else. If someone marks its jokes, this is fully acceptable for me. Otherwise, I there is no problem with deletion.

The only thing that leaves in the "delete" section is draft pages that are requested for deletion by the original author. Which essentially means no proposal pages can be deleted and makes this whole thing a waste of time.

This is wrong. No. 3 is a strong one for deleting proposals (please discuss in the other section).

Things like "improve things if they can be" are completely arbitrary and shouldn't be included. There's a big difference between "can" and "should." Just because a proposal/article could be improve, doesn't mean it should be. Sometimes (lots of times even) its a lot better to just get rid of something instead of trying to squeeze orange juice out of a lemon.

I guess you should discuss this with @Mateusz Konieczny: who formulated this rule.

Regarding the rest, I will not discuss this in this section, because we already discuss it in other sections and I do not want to duplicate it. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(please assume good faith!)

I agree good faith should be the standard. Know one follows it though and there is no guideline saying they should. Until there is and people respect it, I don't a see a point in using it as a metric.

In my POV, this is fully intended. This is not a shoot-out where everyone tries to get more pages deleted then everyone else.

I'm saying it is. My point was that there is no real hierarchy of importance in the guidelines to denote if a page that would otherwise qualify for deletion suddenly doesn't anymore if a "joke" tag is added to it. In other words, what's more important, that the page is a joke or that its spam/empty/whatever? It should be stated in the guidelines.

I guess you should discuss this with @Mateusz Konieczny: who formulated this rule.

Because he formulated it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on it, or say if it might overrule other things, does it? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I was under the impression that whatever is put into the draft comes from discussion here first. Otherwise, what's the point in the discussion and what stops anyone from putting whatever they want in it? There's suppose to be consensus on this stuff. Given that, I don't see anywhere in this discussion where @Mateusz Konieczny started a topic to see if there was support for adding the line about improving things if they can into the draft. Is there some reason he gets a special pass to put whatever he wants into it? No matter what it is or even if it is something that might seem to be obvious and supported, there should still discussion about it. Especially since he one of the people that originally instigated this thing in the first place and is clearly slanted toward a position.

If he is going to have any say in this, he should have to go through the same process the rest of have. I've been more then accommodating during this whole thing myself and haven't interjected any of my own ideas into the draft, largely in good faith that everyone will work it out, but also because I don't want it to be slanted toward my opinions. It should be fair for everyone. He should abide by the same principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess you got a point there. I will remove his addition, initiate the discussion, and finally update the draft if necessary.

I will not reply to the other topics in this section, because it is cluttered with different potential issues that not necessarily relate to each other. If you want to discuss the topics, please start individual sections. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I left the increased rank of privacy violations as I considered it minor and the ordering does not cause major consequences. I also prefer not to remove the addition of "or purpose" to "Proposals that only mention a tag that is not in use without describing/explaining its meaning" as we already discussed this in another section extensively and used it as a starting point for the discussion. Please feel free to suggest its removal in the other section. Most interestingly, I was proven wrong and the disputed text was added by RicoZ when the text was refactored. Since the refactoring was discussed AFAIK, I did not remove that either, but we can discuss about it. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 00:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I did rephrase some statements and moved them around at that point but wasn't aware that I significantly changed the meaning. Previously there was "# The article has some issues. Edit the article instead!" and "# The content is outdated. Update it if it would be relevant!" which I changed into "Where pages can be improved this should be done instead of deleting them." I would not mind if the previous version is restored and don't see a big difference there.. just seemed easier to read for me while meaning pretty much the same. Otherwise don't see any big difference that my edit made? Regarding this I don't think I introduced it and don't consider it problematic in any way. RicoZ (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the sentiment when it comes to improving things if they can be that's problematic. Its the fact that it was added to the proposal draft without discussion. Which to me is an issue and goes against the point in doing this, if it's something I agree with or not. Although, I do think its questionable what qualifies as "improvement" and I think the term is to relative to be useful, but that's just me.

As far as reverting pages to a previous version goes, I don't necessarily have a problem a problem with that in practice. Although it's with the caveat that there might be a good reason the page was edited to the way it is that will be reverted, which someone just looking it over might not be privy to. Maybe the old content was deleted, edited, or removed for a good reason. That's where I think the whole "good faith" thing should come in. It shouldn't be assumed that because a page had more content previously that it was necessarily "better" then or that the person who edited it didn't know what they were doing. So I'm not really into reverting for that reason. Plus it risks becoming another one of those "catch all" rules where anything that someone proposes a deletion on can just be reverted to another edit. Things should be based on the current state of the article. It doesn't really matter how useful or relevant the article was 15 years ago and 300 edits back. It matters how it is now. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the previous version was more exact, so I would appreciate the previous version. For the rest, I will comment in the other section. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ I undid all undiscussed changes by Mateusz Konieczny. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I undid the previously discussed merge of two bullet points. Can we close this now? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and close it. I feel like its resolved at least on my end. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Empty pages

Resolved: draft updated --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Adamant1 mentioned empty pages. I think they can be requested for deletion if there is only one revision (the empty page) or proposed for deletion otherwise. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

IMHO If the page/Tag has been used less than 10 times, the author should be asked to rethink and find an alternative tag with more use. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good, but I thought of empty pages (no text on them) like Key:car:electrical. There is a list of them at Special:ShortPages and sometimes people want to delete or redirect pages, but they do not find a delete button, so they just remove all of the text. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ten sounds like a fair number. As far as empty pages goes, you bring up a good point. I'm not sure what to with empty pages in those cases, maybe they shouldn't be deleted because they were emptied by an "ignorant" editor, but then if whatever was on them is restored that might not be so good either. Since its kind of rude to the person and there was probably a good reason they emptied the page in the first place. So I don't know. It probably isn't that easy to tell the legitimate ones apart from the none legitimate ones in rare cases, but I don't think that should mean don't allow empty pages to be deleted. Its just a matter of saying in guideline that people should look through the article history or something in cases of empty pages before doing a deletion request, or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

I suggest we create a sub-category under Cleanup. If the author does not respond to the question/suggestion, after some time, the page is automatically transferred to this subcategory. The duration of stay in this subcategory can be limited and then the removal will take place. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for the draft: inserting "A page which is empty or contains white space characters only might be proposed for deletion after the proposer has ruled out vandalism. The previous editor must be contacted first. After a consensus for deletion, there is a period of one month before the deletion can be requested finally." behind current number 8. The length of the grace period is just a guess. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your link to Special:ShortPages contains a list of pages, for example Barrier examples which exists in two language versions and appears anything but empty to me as it includes a template - would you suggest this for deletion? That would be probably for a different discussion. You mention two conditions - rule out vandalism and contact the last editor - which imho would be worth to consider for all pages where deletion is considered. Why should empty pages get a special treatment in this respect? RicoZ (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Because empty pages might still be in the process of being improved by the original person that created them? Especially in the case of proposals. Whereas, things like spam, copyright violations, or sharing of private information it doesn't really matter. We don't need a month grace period for a page that shares private information to see if the person who created it shares more. Also, in general for blank pages that have been around for years and haven't been edited in as long, it can probably correctly be assumed that they are abandoned. Its pointless to wait a month for someone to respond about a page that they haven't edited in six years and didn't add any content to. They clearly don't care about it at that point. So I think the grace period should only apply to recently created/edited pages. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have no idea what you are talking about. This is not about spam at all. How can an empty page contain personal information? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess the link is confusing. Of course you have to check for the number of Bytes first. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I formulated this special treatment, because I wanted to avoid page deletions right after their creations and deletion discussions about pages blanked by vandals. I rephrase it "A page which is empty or contains white space characters only for more than one month might be proposed for deletion after the proposer has ruled out vandalism." --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. On the spam or personal information thing, I was thinking about cases where the page was blanked because it contained those things as a way to remove them. So reverting the page to the previous state instead of deleting it wouldn't be an option. I could have been clearer about it though and I doubt it happens enough to matter anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

--Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Userpages duplicating other pages

Resolved: --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 22:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I currently struggle with Mawi2002 who writes some sort of documentation in German which might be useful for the wiki, but they do it in their userspace and duplicate some existing pages and after some years they are outdated...

We also have some user pages (probably drafts) in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. I want to avoid them being in these maintenance categories because they hide the actual problem pages.

Is adding them to "To delete" (but with discussion) adequate? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "struggle with Mawi2002".. is there a discussion somewhere? Regarding the expensive templates.. I would ask the user if those could be deactivated in his pages and if the user is unreachable for some months do it. Otoh I am thinking your problem should have a better solution, like getting sorted accumulated stats of parsing time per page.

As of deleting user pages that is a big problem imo. Most of them cause little trouble and deciding if and which ones to delete could be a lot of effort if the author doesn't cooperate or is unreachable. My strategy would be to try to minimize the problem before it gets too large to solve - for example by having a bot that would remind users about their userpages that haven't been edited or viewed in many months. RicoZ (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not save my answer apparently. Here it comes again:

Yes, there is a discussion at User talk:Mawi2002, but I did not name the issue of duplicated content, because the user never replied to one of my previous comments.

Regarding the pages with expensive parser function warnings: Following your suggestion, I will probably just contact the three relevant users and if they do not react, I will comment out the wikitext. Unfortunately, I do not know any way of producing statistics for all pages apart from checking every page individually (which provide statistic data regarding themselves). --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someday we will need to discuss how to delete user pages but I would leave it out of this proposal process for now. RicoZ (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, okay... --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing pages and therefore avoiding deletion by reverting to a previous version

Resolved: re-added statement with slight change in meaning --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Mateusz Konieczny once added the bullet point "Page may be fixed by reverting it to an old version" which was undiscussed and subsequently challenged by Adamant1. I would like to discuss now, it we want to include it into the draft nor not. I guess this refers to vandalised pages, but the final handling of these incidences is up to the administrators anyway. What were your intentions, @Mateusz Konieczny:? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 01:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's my comment from above. It didn't seem like what Mateusz Konieczny wrote about it was confined to vandalized pages, maybe it was originally though and it just didn't seem like it after RicoZ's edit. So my comments are more general, but I think they still hold. I don't remember any deletion proposals fitting the definition of pages that were vandalized either. So it might be a none existent problem in the first place. It seems obvious that in cases of vandalism, said vandalism would just be reverted. Know one insinuated otherwise. So it almost seems like a straw man if that is reason he brought it up. Although it's good cover all the bases anyway just in case. So more power to him.

As far as reverting pages to a previous version goes, I don't necessarily have a problem a problem with that in practice. Although it's with the caveat that there might be a good reason the page was edited to the way it is that will be reverted, which someone just looking it over might not be privy to. Maybe the old content was deleted, edited, or removed for a good reason. That's where I think the whole "good faith" thing should come in. It shouldn't be assumed that because a page had more content previously that it was necessarily "better" then or that the person who edited it didn't know what they were doing. So I'm not really into reverting for that reason. Plus it risks becoming another one of those "catch all" rules where anything that someone proposes a deletion on can just be reverted to another edit. Things should be based on the current state of the article. It doesn't really matter how useful or relevant the article was 15 years ago and 300 edits back. It matters how it is now. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How about we slightly rephrase this to "The page can be fixed by reverting to a previous version". Then, it will be more clear that there has to exist a better previous version for this argument to stop the discussion. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine to me. It can be revisited and phrased better later if need be. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Page moves

Resolved: pages moved --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 10:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we move the draft page to OpenStreetMap:Deletion policy before we start voting, so that the people will see that this is not a sole user page.

Additionally, I would move this discussion page to OpenStreetMap talk:Deletion policy/Pre-voting and mark it as archived. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 15:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Most of the things here have been resolved anyway. Plus, I'm not sure if the things that haven't been worked out by now will be. So it would be good to get a fresh start on the discussions that can involve other opinions. As there be things we aren't thinking of that still need to be worked out before this is finalized. I suggest you at least wait until RicoZ responds to the three threads where he hasn't yet. So at least those are dealt with. If it takes a few days for him to respond though, just move it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete requests for duplicate content

Resolved: draft changed --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 19:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe a delete request should be permitted for duplicate content, i.e. images copied from Commons, duplicate files, and duplicate pages. The cleanup of Commons duplicates, in particular, has been going on for years (ever since direct inclusion became supported by the wiki software, making re-uploading files on our wiki unnecessary). So it's pretty much established practice at this point and should usually not cause much disagreement. --Tordanik 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

How would you deal with a case like Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Graz-2008-05-17.jpg? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The filenames suggest that the goal may have been to capture the state of the map on a particular date, in which case the lack of a change between these dates might be significant information in itself. But a much stronger signal for caution is that one of the files has a different previous version! So I would probably just leave them alone because de-duplicating them doesn't seem worth the research effort and the risk of breaking things. If I really wanted to investigate the issue for some reason, I would start a discussion on the image's talk page and/or reach out to the uploader to hopefully learn more. --Tordanik 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

+1 --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 11:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)