Template talk:Copyvionote/en

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Teofilo, I recognized your change at Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. While I personally like keeping discussions where they started, I think file-description pages serve only for information purposes: Source, license, author and other essential information about a file. In my view, discussions should take place on the file-talk-page only for some reasons:

  1. There is no obvious place or established method for "replying" to a problem tag on file description pages, where signatures and threading are typically not expected.
  2. A copyvio tag is primarily a notification of a problem rather than the opening argument of a discussion. Unlike a discussion entry, it isn't signed. This can be compared to discussions regarding the appropriateness of {{fact disputed}} tagging, which should not take place on the file description page, but on the discussion page.
  3. Think about the disputed-tags or speedy-tags of Wikipedia: Discussion is always done on the talk-page of the Article or another special page.
  4. Also for some technical reasons, I don't like having the discussion taking place on the description-page itself.

The administrator deleting the file has to take care to read the discussion on either place. To ease it for the administrator or reader, we can:

  1. Add an existence-check for the talk-page, notifying the deleting admin to read the talk-page before or even
  2. transclude the talk-page or putting the raw wikitext into a toggle-element. (I don't like this but if it serves to achieve a compromise, it is ok for me)

Good luck in 2012. Best -- RE rillke questions? 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the response to an incorrectly speedy tagged file is to add more information in the {{information}} template. I think in most cases the uploader forgot to provide enough information saying why the file is OK. So in most cases the response consists in editing the main file page (and removing the speedy tag). Some users might not know how to deal with the information template. So I think it is OK to tell them to write what they know about the file in an informal way on the main file page. The next advanced user who comes on that page can pick up the information and put it into the information template.

The speedy procedure is intended to be temporary. Adding more information in an informal way can't be worse than what the page was like before.

I think the directions given to uploaders who are the object of a speedy tag should look more or less like what is said in Template:No source since (please edit the file page and add evidence showing that file is OK), or on Template:Copyvio/en.

I agree with Template:Copyvio/en because it says and remove this tag. So the arguments in favor of deletion are no longer put in a more prominent place (and the file does not risk a speedy deletion any longer).

Proposal : please [{{fullurl:{{urlencode:{{{1}}}}}|action=edit}} edit the description page], remove the {{tl|Copyvio}} tag, and explain why on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{1}}}}}|talk page]] . Teofilo (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in most cases, the user does not understand even the very basics: Lots of new users don't know what own work actually means... The problem is, if the copyvio tag was removed, no one will care about the file. -- RE rillke questions? 22:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
a) At least we know that the status quo (with ''please explain why on the [[:{{{1}}}|file description page]].'' ) was used for quite some time, and we have not heard that it generated too many mistakes. How about ''go to the [[:{{{1}}}|file description page]] and follow the instructions there.'' ) ?
b-1) If I agree with your Add an existence-check for the talk-page, notifying the deleting admin to read the talk-page before or even, which sounds OK as a means to make sure the deleting admin will read the uploader's statement, will you also delete and remove this tag from Template:Copyvio/en ?
b-2) If a talk page has been used, will the admin delete the talk page when the file is deleted ? Shouldn't we have a rule that this page must be kept if something is written on it ? (It might be archived later if someone uploads a different file with the same name)
c) Do we really need those speedy tags any longer ? Isn't the full-fledged deletion procedure speedy enough ? Or couldn't we have a log of speedy deletion requests on Commons:Speedy deletion requests/2012/04/16 with a similar function as Commons:Deletion requests/2012/04/16 ? This means that a speedy request talk page Commons:Speedy deletion requests/File:filename.jpg is linked to from the tag and from the uploader talk page each time a speedy tag is tagged ? We could have a rule saying that Commons:Speedy deletion requests/File:filename.jpg is left as a red link unless a user writes something on it. Perhaps the Commons:Speedy deletion requests/2012/04/16 log pages could be automatically generated by a bot ? Teofilo (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
c) is the easiest question: Yes: We have ~1500 deletions/day. You don't want all of them in a log because this would be a mess. Also, problematic files should be deleted inbetween 7 days/ as fast as possible to prevent injunctions against the hoster of these files, the WMF.
b-2) Deleting attached talk pages is common practice. Often, I also disagree with this but there might be reasons, I am not aware of.
b-1) A file tagged as copyvio should be checked by a third party and not by the uploader. Most copyvio tags are justified and those that aren't, will be converted to a regular deletion request if it isn't a hoax request.
a) I've never seen someone writing something useful on the file page after I tagged a file as coyvio. Perhaps I did a good job and only tagged really problematic files or the deletion was done before the user could react. But in all cases, the user's talk page is added to my watchlist so I see if a user complains on his/her talk page.
Recently there were some larger mistaggings with copyvio but the user is got it in-between, I think. -- RE rillke questions?

I added the existence-check for the talk-page Template:Copyvio/en (diff) & Template:Copyvio/layout (diff) and reverted to your version of Template:Copyvionote/en Template:Copyvionote/en (diff). You can have a look at what it looks like at File:Guldstaden.jpg (for example). Teofilo (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Please tell me if there are wrong deletions that could have been avoided while I don't think it happens often. -- RE rillke questions? 17:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)