MediaWiki talk:Filedelete-reason-dropdown

Edit request
Since the current deletion reason for F2 is "double-barrelled", and it is obvious (to the deleting admin) which part is relevant to any particular case of F2 deletion, perhaps the current F2 entry could be replaced with the following two: — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * F2: Corrupt or empty file
 * F2: Unneeded file description page for a file on Commons
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

PUF
Per Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files, the minimum time for PUF discussions was reduced from two weeks to one in 2012. Therefore, "Listed on PUF for over two weeks" on this page should be updated to "Listed on PUF for over one week". It seems that this was overlooked back in 2012. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

PUF entry needs updating
Pinging interested editors : The message currently has an entry for "Listed on PUF for over one week". It clearly needs to be changed since PUF is no more but I wonder what to. Not all FFDs request or merit a deletion; would "Deletion request on FFD for over one week" be an acceptable alternative? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I was ironically thinking about something related to this today. I actually think that the entire entry should be removed, and then Ffd2 should be updated to include "clickable close" options like Rfd2 has; the template even has a programmable "delete" option that autogenerates a deletion summary. Steel1943  (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems as though a "delete" option is already present. I may be testing out Template:Ffd2/sandbox later to see if more options can be added. Steel1943  (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The only acceptable deletion reason for anything at FFD is "Files for discussion/2016 April 1" or similar, and the same was true for PUF when it was running. Any remarks about being listed over a week can be in the admin's closing statement. That "PUF for over a week" deletion summary crap should have been removed years ago. It's never okay to hide the fact that there is process and discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the deletion rationale should always link to the discussion venue. Users should not have to use Special:WhatLinksHere to find the discussions. Regular users will find the discussion this way, while inexperienced users won't know how to locate the discussion. Files may still be deleted at PUF if currently listed there, but I would suggest removing the rationale from this page since it is inappropriate to delete PUF files without linking to the discussion.
 * Should G1 (nonsense) be added to the list? I suspect that it will only ever apply if someone creates a file information page without a file or if a text document is uploaded, so it's an uncommon deletion rationale for files. On the other hand, I think that I have only ever tagged files as G11 (spam) when users have uploaded things like PDF files with lots of text – that rationale also seems to be very uncommon in the file namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2016
Per the above section and discussion, can the following text please be removed from this page:"" Thanks!

Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging to make them aware of this edit request being placed.  Steel1943  (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Nakon  06:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)