Template talk:Deletion requests/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive time?

What is the situation regarding archiving this page? Commons is a lot less busy that the en.wp equivalent, but I still doubt we need more than one month worth of debates on the main page - at present nothing appears to have been archived since August! If nobody objects I will move all but the most recent calendar month's worth of entries, plus any older ones that have not been closed, to Template:Deletion requests/archive (unless it should be located elswere?) and put a suitable notice at the top of the main page. Thryduulf 01:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Old nominations are archived at Commons:Deletion requests/Old. Thuresson 15:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How long?

How long do the requests in the Deletion requests stay there, while archiving today, I noticed that unlike Wikipedia, where articles are deleted rather quickly, Commons requests are undecided for more than 3 weeks! I realize that there are far less contributors in Commons, but the page is rather messy, and obvious ones like this one should be deleted in sight. -- WB 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"There are 23,437 registered users. 90 of these (or 0.38%) are administrators." From Special:Statistics. With so few active admins around it's tough getting this stuff done. By comparison En has 771. Deco 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I avoid cleaning up deletion requests simply because I don't understand how to do it. At w:WP:IFD, it's pretty easy: you just blank a request when it's been dealt with. (Also, if an image is kept, you copy the discussion to the image talk page.) I think that would be a good system here, too. User:dbenbenn 14:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can leave it up to me. What I basically do is check whether the image was deleted and then if it was, move it to the archives attaching the "this was archived message". The ones that are not decided are harder to determine though. Is there a criterion for becoming an admin around? I'm interested. -- WB 18:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If the situation is as difficult as described above - how can I help? I noticed the long time for deleting misspelled and reuploaded images. Greetings, --Olei 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's adopt the IfD convention. With most of our people coming from En, it'll be familiar too. Deco 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Although we like EnWiki, can we not use the templates for this? It takes longer to load, etc. By the way, everyone OK with me archiving the finished requests? -- WB 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain why Thuresson added the archived ones back? -- WB 00:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was not intended, but hal unrecognized edit conflict or something? Best ask him. Conflicts in section edits seem to be buggy lately...
I prefer if you do not move requests to the archive 10 minutes after they were dealt with. If I delete an image on COM:DEL I also like to add "Deleted by Thuresson" so that people know who was responsible. Thuresson 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
On a related note - this edit you made does not seem to make sense either... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, see here. It had a red link, and I thought somebody managed to already delete in sight. There's nothing to delete with the link given at least. I'll add it back in though.-- WB 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


As you may have noticed, I'm voting on as many requests as possible. Can other contributors do this as well? Many of the requests are without any votes, thus take longer to be deleted. By adding votes quickly and then getting things over with ASAP, I think DR would be much more efficient. Here are some that should be deleted (even without any votes in my opinion)

Anyways. -- WB 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted some of them. I didn't delete remain for some are lack of reason, some have none of third party's vote and others need more time to delete (I know it is under discussing now. But I think it need at least a week-sorry for POV). -Ananda (阿難陀) 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah thanks. Just trying to speed up the process as much as possible. -- WB 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This page seeks to decide, by means of discussion and consensus, whether a page or file should be deleted. It is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion. Seven days after the submission of the request, an administrator will consider the discussion and determine, based on the discussion, whether the file should be deleted. --Commons:Deletion requests
So, as I understand it, if a person has posted an item for deletion with a good reason provided, there's no need to do anything but wait for an admin to delete it. Only if there are other unmentioned reasons for deletion or if there's reason for it to be kept do you need to post something. ¦ Reisio 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw that too. But, as we already know, with that system, and the currently low active admin numbers, it's highly ineffective and slow. That's what I thought. -- WB 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What's ineffective about it? Deleted is deleted. It's not slow, either - there's merely at least a seven day delay before deletion (for those things that should be here). ¦ Reisio 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with voting, and trying to make things a bit faster? -- WB 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes; it's a royal PITA when an image is deleted that shouldn't have been. Giving people even just seven days to possibly defend an image is a small price to pay in comparison. ¦ Reisio 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey... The ones I pointed above are obvious ones with problems with copyrights/replaced by better images that rarely need any defense by anyone. For example, I wouldn't have forced anyone to delete the duck image before the discussion. -- WB 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to vote. Images are not deleted based on peoples opinions. So it is different from the AfD on Eng Wiki, which you are used to. / Fred Chess 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, used to Wikipedia. -- WB 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the images I recognize in your list up there don't belong here — they should've been dealt with by way of {{copyvio}}, Category:Redundant, or Category:Candidates for speedy deletion — so it doesn't really matter if the Commons:Deletion requests rules aren't optimal for facilitating their deletion. ¦ Reisio 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
OK then, I understand you points. Anyone oppose to my archiving though? By the way, redundant one has few hundreds that haven't been dealt with for a long time. -- WB 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
So no voting now? - 54MHz 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, keep votes are always welcomed; otherwise, delete votes are unnecessary. -- WB 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that saying "keep" along with an explanation as to why is welcome. Just saying "delete" is definitely pointless unless there was not a good explanation of why an item should be deleted, or if there is some debate, but then you should provide an explanation along with it. ¦ Reisio 23:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I was saying above. -- WB 01:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason we don't truly "vote" is that most of the times, the question of whether to keep a photo is a license issue, i.e. a purely legal issue. On legal issues, what matters is expertise (like, knowing the copyright law in the country the photo comes from, knowing the Berne Convention); personal opinions don't matter and uninformed legal opinions, for or against, can and must be ignored.

It is of course a very different matter when the question is not copyright, but appropriateness (examples of such cases: erotic/pornographic/revealing photos). David.Monniaux 12:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Purely legal, naming mistakes, wrong uploads do not need votes. -- WB 08:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What's OK and questionable

Feel free to move this to somewhere else. What's definately OK to keep and are questionable to keep? With the recent emergence of discussions regarding the photographs of copyrighted materials (e.g. action figures, book covers, cars, other designs like buildings), I think we need a more general guideline than the one we already have not so much concerned on the license of the photographs themselves, but the objects they depict.

Definitely OK

Photos of:

  • Nature (forest, sky, etc.)
  • Animals (cat, dog, etc.)
  • Insects (ants, beetle, etc.)
  • People who have given their consent
  • Yourself
  • Objects that are PD by age:
    • Buildings built by an architect who died 70+ (preferrably 100+) years ago
    • Works of art created by an artist who died 70+ (preferrably 100+) years ago
    • Books by authors who died 70+ (preferrably 100+) years ago

Questionable, may or may not be OK

  • Logos
  • Cars/automobiles
  • Products of daily use
  • Book covers
  • Buildings built by an architect who died less than 70 years ago (or is still alive)
  • Permanently installed works of art in a public place, created by an artist who died less than 70 years ago (or is still alive)
  • Interiors of private houses, homes, museums
  • Screenshots
  • Celebrities

Definitely not OK

  • Photographs, drawings, scans and other reproductions objects that are copyrighted by someone other than yourself like the following:
    • works that are not permanently installed, created by an artist who died less than 70 years ago (or is still alive)
    • action figures, statuettes, costumes and other copyrighted material
    • other copyrighted designs
  • fan art that closely resembles copyrighted msterial
  • Fair use images
  • People who have not given their consent

--WB 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the list slightly. It seems like a good starting point for some guidelines. Zanaq 10:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good start - if this is to be put on a policy page however, it should be made very clear that this applies to self made pictures only. As to the 1900 rule of thumb: this is a matter of hot debate, see Commons_talk:Licensing#Assume_PD_for_Images_older_than_100_years -- Duesentrieb(?!) 01:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have several straw polls for the questionables. -- WB 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Where do the pictures of automobiles go now...? -- WB 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Before an admin starts deleting the questionables...

Could we please have statements from one or two actual laywers? There's no rush, and we shouldn't aggrevate the Wikipedi community erroneously.

This includes image:pooh.jpg, all images of simpsons action figures, LEGO figures, other action figures, etc.

Fred Chess 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should contact juriwiki-l, though I have heard that that mailing list is quite inactive. -- WB 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We definitely need real lawyers weighing in. We just need to find some. Maybe search user pages on En? Deco 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
en:user:BDAbramson is an IP lawyer that is usually consulted on en. --grmwnr 13:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Why is this in the template: namespace and not the commons: namespace? Dunc| 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at Commons:Deletion requests - this setup was supposed to help with internationalization, I guess. But all the discussions are in english, so this is pretty pointles. It could be merged back. Or not. I don't really care ;) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
All discussions are not in English... recently we've had at least Polish and German, too, so...ya. ¦ Reisio 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the internationalization bar to the top of the tempalte a few weeks ago so that the Commons:namespace could easily be re-acquired, if desired. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new deletion guidelines

Please comment at Commons:Village_pump/Policy_proposal:No_deletion_of_improved_versions_of_images#Let.27s_try_this:_new_stricter_deletion_guidelines. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

the anchor links don't work on the template page, only the Commons page

Has anyone else noticed that? If they click an anchor link ("-->") that should "jump" to the specific debate, they don't work. They only work on COM:DEL. But if you put that on your watchlist, you aren't notified when this actual template is updated. Can we fix this? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What's an example of a specific link that doesn't work? User:dbenbenn 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The arrows that get linked on your watchlist, I should have said. They work fine at the top of this template, if you click from there. But usually if I have this
Template:Deletion requests; 00:44 . . AndreasPraefcke (Talk | block) (→:Image:Obcine smartno.png)
clicking on the "→" will jump to that section, from my watchlist page. But not with this template. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah. See bugzilla:2831. The problem is simply the links in the section headers. User:dbenbenn 14:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Was, der Language, multi bene, basta?!

IMO people should be able to use their native languages here. But of course admins who don't speak the language won't understand. But that's why I hope that we can have trustworthy admins (all admins should be trustworthy or not be admins) who should decide these matters and delete or keep as appropriate. Just less work for us who don't speak French or Italian.

Those who wish, can translate from other languages into English. Of course, we should recommend people to speak English because more people can understand.

I do however argue that people should only use one of the major ten (or so) languages of the world; we can't be expected to have language support for every language of the world, and as someone said, we should promote that kind of laziness. I think everyone should be required to learn at least one of the worlds largest languages.

I know that people of France and Spain have traditionally been very reluctant to learn English (and Germany too. Also consider that most eastern European states prefered to educate people in Russian because that was the lingua franca). I don't think we should punish them for their contries poor education system.

Fred Chess 14:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a really European centric policy. How about the people of Africa and Asia? Defining the "major" languages of the world is inherently POV. Is Indonesian a major language? Filipino?
I also think it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and may never exist. Think: if we have someone here wanting to speak in a language which we have no regular users who speak... you have to ask, how did they get here?? Either we have users who also speak that language and have made translations, then we can ask them, or else the user also understands a language which we already have translations in, then they can use that. I don't see anyone demanding to converse in Alemmanisch when they can also speak German or English. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess what is a major language to us is pretty easily determined by looking at Category:User... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That might just reinforce the existing languages which are already well supported here (by translations, admins and number of users). Surely we want to support the smaller wikis as much as possible. If it exists as a Wikipedia, then I think we should support it. (Although I disagree with constructed languages and Latin. Hm...) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict. To Brianne) I don't understand your point. But I'll try to comment.
Someone said in many African countries, people have to learn French as a second language, and not English. But because you claim I am Europe centered, I looked this statement up....
  • Spanish is spoken in most of Central America, large parts of South America. It is official language in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, New Mexico (USA), Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Spain, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
  • Portugese is official language in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, European Union, Guinea Bissau, Macao S.A.R. of China, Mozambique, Portugal, São Tomé and Príncipe. It is the largest language in South America (186 million, over 51% of the population). It is also a major lingua franca in Africa.
  • French is 5th in terms of daily speakers, and an official language in 29 countries -- Belgium; Switzerland; Luxembourg; Monaco; Morocco; Algeria; the Ivory Coast, Republic of the Congo, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia; Haiti; Mauritius; some Asian countries such as Laos and Vietnam; etc.
A map of where French is spoken. Blue: administrative language -- Light blue: secondary or non-official language
* In the Philippines, English is official language. Don't have to be so vane to let them speak Philippine then when they can speak English?
(All this info comes from Wikipedia articles)
Fred Chess 09:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Let the people speak whatever language they want. If somebody wants to argue about a deletion request in Alemannic although he also could do it in German or English, he punishes himself, because most won't understand him. But if a person really does not speak any of the "major" languages, should his voice be dismissed? If the rare case should arise, that nobody on commons can read a comment by an "minor" language monolingual, then you can make a translation request on the Wikipedia in that language, there for sure will be someone able to translate into a "major" language. And the case that there is no Wikipedia in that language is too unlikely, how should then a monolingual discover Commons ;-) So I see no problem.
The comments about being reluctant to learn English or countries' poor education systems, when not educating English, are near to arrogance or ignorance. English has no special status in the world. It is only the language of the economically most powerful country in the world and therefore able to dominate over other languages. But Commons language policy hasn't to be profitable like in economy, it has to be culture and language neutral, because Commons isn't an English project with translations, it is an international intercultural project. --::Slomox:: >< 11:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is this policy necessary? It seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. It's not necessary to make a policy for a non-life-threatening situation which might never happen. If you don't like some "minor language" translation then you can just ignore it. ACK Slomox's comments too. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, people can use their own languages if they like. But we have to make sure that communication is possible regarding deletion requests, policy discussions, etc. The question is: who's responsible for finding a translator? IMHO, it whould be whoever is requesting something. So, if someone speaking only Hindi wants to comment on a deletion request, he should find someone at his local wiki for translating. If I want to tell him something on his talk page, I am responsible for finding a translator (in case someone only speaks a "minor" language, perhaps it would be a good idea to point to a translator on the discussion page, btw).

I do belive english should be the "hub" language for discussions about deletion, about policy, etc. This does not mean we should exclude people who don't speak english - we should install a process for "speedy translation" instead. Perhaps this could be a template that can be dropped into the discussion and makes it show up in a category or something. Translators would look through that cat and translate as needed, removing the template. How about it? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, when has this ever been a problem? Is this ever likely to be a problem? You have to ask how did a Hindi speaker get to the Commons, when the only page we have translated into Hindi is the main page and it's like a paragraph long. Is there a crisis where we're constantly needing translators? No! Even if a random Hindi speaker did turn up here and made a comment, I have faith in the friendly nature of the Commons admins that someone would hunt one down eventually anyway.
Translation is a problem that needs a bigger solution than a template, IMO. I'm not sure what, though. :/ I think we need to work more closely with meta: who have a translation system pretty well set up. And maybe we need our own community of regular translators. (Also probably this should all be on commons talk:language policy.) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that we have currently even problems translating static help pages I am really suprised by this "problem". Those of you that didn't do it already: Please join Commons:Help page maintenance now. There is plenty of translation work for static pages to do. If we have done that we can talk about other multilingual communication problems. But please don't let us do the second step at first - we wouldn't get far. Arnomane 13:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not conclude this encyclopedia is Europe centered. The most widely spread mother tongue in Europe is German. We don't speak a lot of German here, do we? I am very much convinced that the use of English here, is just an indication for the linguistic lazyness and lack of education from which most people suffer. In English speaking countries hardly a serious number of people is interested in other languages. In at least European countries international orientation is no longer seen as positive and necessary - instead the orientation is becoming more and more onedimensional, i.e. exclusive use of English. So where Fred Chess here above says "I know that people of France and Spain have traditionally been very reluctant to learn English" it must be stressed that the British and Americans are truely much more reluctant, than blaimed French and Spanish have ever been. I can only agree with Slomox above. I use English not very often on commons and will continue to so. I just feel sorry for the monolinguals here. Besednjak 17:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

English should be the lingua franca of commons. On the central talk pages like village pump or deletions IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to talk other languages than English. It should be explicitely forbidden to cite laws in languages other than English without English translation. All other solutions of the language problem are pure nonsense. Be free to talk on the national forums in your own language but NOT HERE --Historiograf 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should that be the case? Rewarding linguistic lazyness and lack of education is not the way to promote international cooperation, which is still a main goal of wikimedia projects. English is only a lingua franca for the ignorant. This is not a place to promote onedimensional language use. You can open an English only website for that. We have a lot of quality within our projects and there are always translators available to make contributions understandable to all contrbutors. So no need to introduce your elimination policy. Besednjak 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Historiograf likes to shout out his sagacious opinion and likes to call other meanings nonsense, but he does not like to enlighten others why so ;-) Also his comment seems to be a bit contradicting to his post at Commons_talk:Licensing#Which_copyright_law_applies.3F. I agree, that there is no reasonable way other than to have English as a lingua franca, but lingua franca doesn't mean one and only, but primus inter pares, the language with the widest range of understanding. You can't install a "Nicht-Englischsprechende müssen draußen bleiben" warning shield at the top of the deletion requests. --::Slomox:: ><
Servus Historiograf! Du hast unheimlich viel Glück, dass du die englische Sprache gut beherrscht. Du bist aber gerade dabei, einem beträchtlichen Teil der potentiellen Commons-Mitarbeiter die Teilnahme an zentralen Diskussionen zu verbieten. Jeder hat halt in seiner Schulzeit nicht die Möglichkeit gehabt, Englisch zu erlernen - auch in Deutschland - die können dann vielleicht recht gut Russisch und ich bewundere sie dafür. Was Gesetze betrifft, Geltung hat jedenfalls der Wortlaut in der Originalsprache und nicht eine möglicherweise sehr tolpatschige Übersetzung. Wenn ich einen japanischen oder russischen Gesetzestext nicht verstehe, dann muss ich halt das Feld jemandem überlassen, der das sehr wohl kann. Grüße --Franz Xaver 19:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes Historiograf, why??? If we're discussing German laws, it makes far more sense to discuss them in German than in English!! I (and the other non-German speaking admins) will be content with a summary translation at the conclusion! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is remarkable, that such language topics attract so much attention. Probably this mainly comes from emotional reasons, as it has to do with the feeling of being dominated by another language and/or culture. Actually for many users - me included - it is more difficult to express own arguments in English than in the own mother tongue. This holds for most people, who can contribute in English (as a second language) very well. The problem is even bigger for people, who only have very little knowledge of English - or none. The problem is not so much about (hypothetical) monolingual users of Hindi, Tagalog, Suaheli, there is an even bigger problem IMO with speakers of German, Spanish, French, Japanese etc., who are shy to contribute, as they feel they are supposed to do this in English exclusively. Whatever the reasons are, there are many, who are handicapped by too little knowlegde of English. It was said, that whoever wants to be understood himself has the responsibility to look for a translator. This will not help a lot, as the natural reaction will be to avoid situations, where a translator is needed. Probably there is no easy solution, however. IMO everybody should be encouraged to contribute in the language he has the best command of. Admins could use translation tools like this to understand the arguments. Probably, if there will be increasing usage of languages other than English e.g. on Template:Deletion requests, we will see that communication abilities of many regular contributors are bigger than expected. And I am sure, that commons will not suffer damage. Anyway, there is a big difference between the attitude, that it is my problem that I cannot understand the language of another person, and the attitude that it is his problem, that he is not able to contribute in a language I can understand. This makes the difference, if users can feel comfortable at commons or not. Nevertheless, I see a lack of active commons admins coming from major wikipedias like ja.wiki or zh.wiki and others. What is the reason that some wikipedias are weaker represented at commons, than is to be expected from the size of their wikipedias? --Franz Xaver 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


When I am going to rewrite a part of text, what was written altogether has disappeared. I want you to return someone.10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea:only allow essential (copyvio) nominations until backlog is reduced.

This page is kinda ridiculous. It's just overwhelming and not enough admins keep an eye on it. (It's hardly fun, so no surprise.) At the moment there are 35 days listed. It's supposed to be a 7-day debate! Sure there are some tough cases that hang around for ages but lots are: requests in the wrong place and requests for "redundant" images to be deleted. It's 216 kb long!!

Even if we disallowed "non-essential" nominations probably people will still put them here. So I don't know a solution. :( --pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no question that the administrators do a good job, but it seems pretty clear that we need more of them. Valentinian (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, we have an awful lot of administrators (second to only en.wp I think), but very, very few of them help out here. Maybe 10 even on a semi-regular basis. So it's not just sheer numbers but also participation rate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if an image needs to be deleted then it should be listed. Perhaps the page could even be subdivided into multiple deletion pages, depending on the request. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Many of the items listed here can be handled by templates and speedy methods. CatScan shows Category:Against policy (speedy category for obvious copyvios) has 999 members. (Probably it just stopped at 1000.) Category:Duplicate has 531 members ("should" be deleted, but don't "need" to be). CatScan aborted on 1000 entries again under subcategories of Category:Unknown (ie, no source/no license cases). These all "need" to be deleted. OK so we need more admins doing more deletion more of the time, but we also just need more people to read this page - assuming it has only the "requires discussion" cases. These cases can be important and set precedents. They shouldn't be allowed to be ignored because this page is getting crowded with stuff that should properly be dealt with by a different method. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could ask the help of non-admins you trust? You could propose them to help moving the debated pages to lists like "Delete asap, copyvio", "don't delete, it's ok", "doubtfull, check it out carefully", "redundant/non redundant" and "the rest". However, be sure you only let this do by people you trust. It should cost you less work, and people who have little time, can do already some of the easy work. Effeietsanders 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know this is a great idea. This page is for tricky cases. Admins often get tricked too (we are only human). Sometimes you find out about a law you didn't realise existed. But I encourage everyone, not just admins, to help keep this page tidier. If there is an image listed here when it should properly be tagged {{nsd}} or {{copyvio}} or {{duplicate}}, feel free to go ahead and retag it and remove it from this page (and, you know, explain to the person who put it there why you did this). That doesn't require any admin skill at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and today I see 43 "superseded by SVG" nominations. Ridiculous!!!! We don't have the resources to cope with this at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is little reason to nominate "superseded by SVG" images for deletion. However, if the originals are so utterly horrible (which is seldom the case), then they should be speedied with {{speedy}}. Citing the Snowball Principle, in fact, a lot more things could be speedied, or we'll, as ptctdayelise hinted, run out of manpower soon. —UED77 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I just did some calculations and I think we are way past running out of manpower. Are you on the mailing list? See [1]. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
But it's not really urgent? I mean, the images don't hurt anyone. / Fred Chess 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider it urgent in the sense that some impending doom is going to come from all of this, but such a major backlog doesn't really speak well of how the system works here. --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It depends if we really care about providing a truly free media database or not, and whether or not we care about reliability. 12,000 is about 2% of our total images. And let's face it, we know there's a hell of a lot there still unchecked. That could make the total as high as 5 or 10%. What do you think the reaction would be if 5-10% of (English, Swedish, whatever) Wikipedia was copyvios? I don't think anyone would take that lightly. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for help from administrators

If there is a backlog, why not ask admins to help out? I have only recently started to clear the backlog, because I didn't realise there was one. If someone had sent me a message saying "Hey, you look like an inactive admin. How about lending a hand at Commons:Deletion requests?", I would have been more than happy to start helping earlier. — Erin (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list discussion - appoint a legal adviser?

Hello. I recently suggested that the Commons should ask the Wikimedia Legal department to appoint a "Commons liaison officer" (CLO) to help us solve the more difficult copyright debates that frequently recur. Because it is very hard when most of us know next to nothing about copyright, and yet we are trying to make these difficult decisions that are not easy even for copyright lawyers. So I think we should ask for some permanent professional help.

First I want to check if the Commons community thinks this is a good idea or not. So please reply either on the mailing list or to this topic. (For long comments please use the mailing list, NOT the village pump or this page.)

Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It would make sense for a professional or group of professionals who have spent years studying this to come forward and assist. However, whether or not a permanent position can be established would depend on the amount of time any person is willing to donate. It is certainly a good idea, but whether or not it is feasible is another question. --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
definately a positive step, I'm suprised that wikimedia doesnt already have someone to refer to as they are potentially exposed to any adverse findings. In reality common sense should always be applied to every image, that if there is any doubt then the image should be deleted. It would be better to not have 500, 5000, or even 5000000 good images than to not have Commons. Gnangarra 05:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Site reform

Hello folks, what about splitting this site up just like the candidates for deletion in Wikipedia? My suggestion is to have an own page for every single day. I see the following advantages:

  • Site will not take forever to load anymore
  • Discussions can stay where they are without archiving
  • You can link to an old discussion, referring to other discussions will become easier
  • Managing the site will be easier

and so on. Any suggestions? I'll need some help with the technical side; I guess we can use the design on Wikipedia, but we'll need a metastructure for internationalization, at least for the title page. --Fb78 06:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would support a system similar to the RFA process that uses a template for each day. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How do we keep longer discussions on this page? We can never guarantee to finish any discussion in 7 days (or even 14 days). pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one disadvantage: you don't have it on your watchlist anymore. Maybe we could have one page for every day of the month? (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 31) That way you have enough time to take care of everything, and on the other side you can put all those apges as a template in a big total page. People have only once to put all those 31 pages on their watchlist, and can then use it forever. Effeietsanders 11:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Could there be a page for each week rather than each day? --Astrokey44 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, i was meaning that for each day there would be a template, and that template would be included in a huger page, so you have overview. When you do that smart, you only have to click on the section-editbutton, to edit the smaller template. Effeietsanders 16:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Splitting by issue

Instead of splitting the deletion request page chronologically, I think it might help to split it by issue. That is to say, there could be Commons:Possible copyright violations for copyvios not clear-cut enough to be speedied; Commons:Superseded files for deletion for bitmaps replaced by vector images and other such cases; Commons:Quality control for requests to delete stuff that is lo-res, blurry, vanity-based or just completely useless.

We already do this with speedy deletion (see Category:Against policy, Category:Duplicate, Category:Incorrectly named, and Category:Other speedy deletions). Why not with normal deletion? — Erin (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible abuse of admin privileges

I am shocked with the decision that was reached regarding my deletion request of image Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Rs_lokacija.PNG. After only a single vote and 1 minute after that the discussion was closed and the image was kept. The user who voted to keep the image did not even present a proof for his/her arguement and I am very suspicious that his arguement is valid. I am not the only one who finds this disturbing see [2] . Could someone respond and clarify this rather serious issue. Thank you --Dado 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to with admin "privileges". There is no reason to delete the pic simply - it's well drawn, shows the location as it is in reality, the licence is ok, the caption is right. Shaqspeare 11:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
And see this: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Shaqspeare 11:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Also see my reply on the village pump [3] -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Admin privileges are only required to delete images. Since anyone can remove a deletion listing, it cannot be seen as an abuse of privilege. But was it a violation of procedure? I'd say probably yes. The listing was completely baseless, but it probably should have been left at least a few hours to allow people to have some sort of chance to express an opinion. 1 minute is rather abrupt. — Erin (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
with the image I think it should be reverted to the previous version where the border between Republika Srpska and the rest of bosnia is not shown with the white line --Astrokey44 06:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Architecture and public art

This debate is continued from the template page.

I think that in cases like this, where the photographs themselves are not copyvios (they are mostly taken by Wikipedians) but there is some doubt about their right to photograph some public object, the solution to delete them from Commons just to be safe, but not before uploading a local copy to the English Wikipedia (and any others that require the image) under fair use.

The fact that the photograph itself is under a free licence makes for a very strong fair-use rationale that no architect is likely to ever challenge.

I think that this solution combines caution with a desire to avoid copyright paranoia and conserve valuable images.

If people agree, I'll create a template that facilitates this. — Erin (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting making it the Commons admin's responsibility to transfer fair use images, I completely disagree. If users of the images wish to transfer them they are more than welcome to. For a start admins here don't even necessarily have an account on en.wp. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:36, 25 July 2
Why cant we just make a public object paranoia template that addresses this situation where the photographer has released the image under GFDL/cc-by-2.5 but specifies that the architect/builder have the right to exercise copyright over the subject matter. Also these images are first published in the US doesnt that count for something in relation to copyright laws. Gnangarra 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Because the photograph is a derivative work the photographer is in no position to release it under any license without the permission of the copyright holder of the original work. Therefore they are copyvios. There is no freedom of panorama for art works in the US, and this can only be altered by legislative changes. The use of a free license in these cases is bogus. William Avery 07:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
INSERT SERIOUS CAVEAT ABOUT CHECKING LOCAL LAWS. Such images are explicitly not copyright violations in Australia, for example. Blanket statements are not accurate. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I was specifically trying to reply to the suggestion by user Gnangarra that when there is no panorama freedom one could release the image under GFDL/cc-by-2.5 with a tag to say that "the architect/builder have the right to exercise copyright over the subject matter". Anyway it is true that it has to be done country by country. And architecture and public art are treated differently in the US. William Avery 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right. You are correct. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Two facts:

  • In countries with panorama freedom pictures of public buldings are FREE.
  • Each creator can choose the country he like to sue uploaders or the foundation (Forum shopping). A French creator can sue at a French court if his bulding in Poland is made available at the German Wikipedia. It helps nothing to go after the place. Hundertwasser heirs have won a court litigation in Germany concerning the Hundertwasser house in Vienna (Austra) made by an Austrian creator (Hundertwasser). It is a case of probability and risk not a legal question.

Two suggestions

  • Make a difference between the photo and the subject of the photo. I can release a photo legally under GFDL if it shows a non-free object. But for us such a photo is not allowed (no fair use and unfree photos).
  • Make a request at the legal department of WMF to find a solution e.g. accepting panorama freedom at commons. We can discuss this point hundred times with legal incompetent admins like pfct... we will not get a solution. --Historiograf 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You dont need to single out one editor I think it applies to all of us. I agree that this needs a definitive answer from the foundation. That answer becomes absolute policy. Gnangarra 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As helpful as ever, Historiograf. Make a request at the legal department of WMF to find a solution - guess what? I have been trying to do that for weeks! I raised many common copyright questions on the foundation-l mailing list - the very first point being paranorama freedom! - and I said "please give us official legal advice". Guess what? I got zero response from the WMF lawyers and instead comments like: "WMF would probably do best to distance itself from these issues. It has too much to lose from a wrong decision." and "I can sympathize with your position. The answer to your question is clearly "Yes." [WMF should help the projects] But that help should not extend to making the decisions that each project should be making for itself." So good luck with that. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in doubt if it is a good idea to use our mailing list to clear such isses. I would recommend to contact the board in personal mails --Historiograf 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well please, you go ahead and do that. Since I (and any other admin who ever disagrees with you) are such "incompetents" I would be pleased to see if you can get any result on this issue. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I daresay that won't help either. After many people had expressed a desire for a professional opinion on Template:PD-Soviet (in the RFC against me on the English Wikipedia), I have tried for weeks now to get the foundation lawyers to move. I've exhausted my possibilities. Soufron did help along in private e-mail, but that's it; and it's not good enough to convince the people who oppose a deprecation and correction of that template. I've tried the juriwiki mailing list, tried the board mailing list, and contacted Brad Patrick directly. None of the professionals seems to be willing to stick his or her neck out. I think we'll be seeing the same on this "panorama freedom" issue again. We'll also see it again if we ever try to get an official answer to the the question whether it's ok to host images here that are PD in the country of origin, but not in the U.S. (Such as "panorama freedom" images of statues from Germany, or non-U.S. images published 1923 or later of authors who died more than 70 years ago, some of which may well be copyrighted in the U.S. What's our position on those?)
The problem is that apart from that closed and not very responsive juriwiki mailing list, there's no official body people can turn to when they need help figuring out complex copyright issues. Absent dearly needed professional help, it's all left to consensus; but—at the risk of repeating myself—consenus amongst amateur volunteers is an extremely poor way to decide legal issues. Lupo 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In Finland all public spaces, buildings and arwork can be photographed freely and the copyright of the photo belongs to photographer alone. I hope that anybody deleting material from Commons is sure that photos in question are illegal in the country in question. Vr
I'm not sure who has copyright to what but as described in Commons:Derivative works, Finnish art in public spaces can't be used freely (including commercial use):
Taideteoksen kuvaaminen on muutoinkin sallittua, milloin teos on pysyvästi sijoitettu julkiselle paikalle tai sen välittömään läheisyyteen. Jos taideteos on kuvan pääaihe, kuvaa ei saa käyttää ansiotarkoituksessa.[4]
Roughly translated:
It is allowed to photograph a work of art when this is permanently placed at or close by a public space. If the work of art is the main theme of the photo, the photo may not be used for earning money.
-Samulili 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)