Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard

There is no reason to have a category for the most common type of occurrence, for analysis or otherwise. This category is like having an "Articles created using the Edit Button" category on Wikipedia. UploadWizard is the default mode of upload (notice the "Upload file" button on the left pane), we don't need such an infinitely growing category for "statistics". Yes other tools use such categories, but they are not default options. If anything breaks as a result of deleting this category, I suggest we tweak that, rather than copying this redundant category across literally millions of files.

If we really want some stats, we should be calculating the uses of all the other less common modes of upload, and obtain the UploadWizard value by deducting those from the total uploaded files. Yes it is inaccurate, but it's not like the current way is accurate either. I have seen bots and people intentionally removing this category from their uploads (I have being doing so for quite some time too).

See also: CFD from 2012, CFD from 2013, Category Talkpage. --Rehman 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree. Taivo (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'll note that this will need a simple wiki configuration change for UploadWizard to stop it from adding the category to new files, which we'll be happy to make if desired (I work for WMF's Multimedia team). We don't use the category; when we need to track files uploaded with UW for statistical purposes, we query for the "User created page with UploadWizard" edit summaries. Matma Rex (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I'd be glad to see this gone. - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It's not reliable or consistent since it can be added or removed at will. Since there's another way to find these files (as described above), a category shouldn't be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Deletion would serve no useful goal, since Mediawiki deals just find with large categories. While you don't have to browse the category as a list, it's still useful to check at the bottom of individual file pages if you want to help new users who make mistakes. Besides, category would get re-created immediately at next upload, and deleting it from all million file pages would be disruptive. – b_jonas 20:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't get recreated if the configuration change mentioned above was made. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Makes sense. INeverCry 20:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete It does seem an unused category with far too many images in it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Absolutely useless for ordinary navigation, and as noted, a category that holds the vast majority of images is pointless for statistics tracking, especially as a different kind of query (with no category needed) is used when tracking files uploaded with uploadwizard. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Useless ballast. Unless we understand it as a maintenance category which appeals to fix disorder caused standardly by UploadWizard (additional description, monument ID templates and source and licence templates outside the {{Information}} template, missing heading parameter in coordinates etc.). --ŠJů (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Nyttend. Not needed imo. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete 9 million files! Let's do this --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete but please do it slowly. If a bot is tasked to remove the categorization, it should only do it together with other fixes in the respective file. Editing millions of files just because of a superfluous cat seems a bit excessive. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Above point is very important to whoever actions this. Rehman 23:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment wizard + newbie = delete me sign. of interest only to maintaining insiders. but categories are less important, since the better tools and work are on wikidata. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, per above comments. Useddenim (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agreed, useless. Also remove the canned "Uploaded by UploadWizard" text for upload descriptions, it's equally annoying and not helpful. Sarcastically I would also prefer the basic uploader to be the default uploader too. 80.221.159.67 15:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If the file pages will be cleaned globaly, the <!--{{ImageUpload|basic}}--> tag used in 2008, 2009 should be removed also. And some other useless ballast. --ŠJů (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Is no longer a technical need to conserve it. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to delete the category

• The CFD was open for longer than a month as required by policy and additionally the CFD has been announced on multiple boards/talkpages. WMF is no longer using the Category. Consensus to delete the category exists.
• Because the category contains tons of files, we can't remove all files at this time (in a big patch, it would be a was of resources). Operators of maintenance bots, such as YaCBot, are encouraged to add the task (COM:Regex [Minor] (diff)) to they bots.
• phab:T147799 has been filed to stop UploadWizard form adding the category automatically to uploads.
• To get the number of files uploaded by UploadWizard (or to get a lot of files) the database can be used. Examples: all uploads, live files
• Users are welcome to use the talkpage for coordination

--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Bots are taking care to remove the Category. Please do NOT run cat-a-lot on this task! --Krd 13:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]