Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1-B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] I1 (images on WikiCommons)

Speedy deletion criterion I1 should be reworded to "Any image that is a duplicate of another image on Wikipedia or on WikiCommons (if allowed on WikiCommons by their license), in the same file format and the same or better in image size and quality, but only if all content on the image's description page is included in the description page on WikiCommons"
  • Presently, the criterion reads, "An image which is a redundant (all pixels the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained. This does not include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. For the time being, this also does not apply to images that exist on the Wikimedia Commons."
  • This is a new proposal, since proposal I1 has a critical flaw in the wording, that was thankfully spotted within hours of its creation.
  • Specifically, WikiCommons does not allow 'fair use' material, while WikiPedia does, and the WikiPedia license allows for 'disclaimers' while the WikiCommons license does not.
  • Links to the image should be changed (if necessary) before the image is deleted.
  • Obviously, this does not apply to a different image with the same subject, e.g. a picture of the Big Ben from a different camera angle. If you feel an image is redundant, please take it to WP:IFD.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

This is a reworded version of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1-A, in an attempt to meet an important concern from there. If you have voted there, please vote here as well.

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

  1. Support this new, better wording (and Radiant, too! Give the guy some credit for putting this whole thing together!) --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 09:40 (UTC) [1]
  2. Indeed. Good work, Radiant. We bask in your warm glow. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
  3. Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)
  5. Support - I can go along with this proposal JoJan 5 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)
  6. Sounds good — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
  7. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
  8. Wording is perfect. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)
  9. Support. Wording is good now. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  10. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  11. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Shanes 06:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose, I can't support this as it doesn't require preservation of previous versions of images, there is also the as yet unresolved GFDL tag disclaimer issue. Plugwash 5 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
  2. WP:IFD works fine as it is. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  3. I object primarily because the wording of this item was changed by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. Also, images moved to Commons may be GFDL violations because they were copied without revision histories, or they may be later found to be ineligible for inclusion on Commons meaning we lose everything. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
    Please review this thread, especially Jamesday's comments. He's very good at licensing issues, and made it clear that this is a Bad Idea. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
  4. As per Plugwash and Netoholic, this is a really bad idea, as long as it includes GFDL images. The GFDL requires that version history and attribution be maintained. Presently, the participants at WP:IFD are discouraged from deleting most GFDL images unless they first ensure that all versions and attributions are present on Commons. In most cases this means that images are not deleted because we do not yet have the appropriate tools to easily move the history and attributions. See: Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons, IFD Talk, WP:IFD#Images moved to Commons. Since images can't be undeleted, if one deletes the revisions and attributions here without moving them to Commons, then the version at Commons would suddenly violate the GFDL and need to be deleted as well, in which case we lose it all. A very unpleasant possibility. Maybe it will be possible to make these speediable in some sense or some way (i.e. able to be deleted without a vote), but it will require either better technological solutions, or far stronger instructions about when it is acceptable than this proposal provides. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 18:23 (UTC)
    The version history of GFDL images is a strange concept. In is not text, and different versions are different images. Wikipedia should not be a repository of GFDL garbage. As for attribution, etc., it does not have to be a subject of vote. All these tech details are subject of specific instructions for the deletion procedure. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
    IANAL, but my understanding is that the version history matters for the purposes of establishing that derivative works are in fact derived from GFDL compliant materials. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this requirement could be waived if the new version was unrelated to the old. However, in many cases where multiple versions exist it is because someone cropped or cleaned up a previous version. On the procedural point, I would emphasize that image deletion is permanent. The critera should clearly spell out underwhat circumstances the deletion of a GFDL image could be appropriate (or at least point to a document that spells this out), this does not do so. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 18:57 (UTC)
  5. Per Dragon's Flight's objection. I do appreciate Radiant's attempt at a revision, however. This may yet be fine-tuned. Xoloz 5 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
    I didn't say it above, but I also appreciate the attempts to improve this. I do believe there are redundant images that we should be able to just delete, but we haven't yet reached the point of adequately defining what those images are. Dragons flight July 5, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Please discuss what might be the proper wording of this criterion on the talk page. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:33 (UTC)
  6. GFDL problems and a solution in search of a problem. Take it to IFD - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  7. --Mononoke 5 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. There doesn't seem to be a strong need for this, and Dragons flight has pointed out a significant problem with it. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:43 (UTC)
  9. Oppose because of the GFDL issues. Why isn't there a version of this proposal that reads the same as the abovge, but includes "... so long as this is the only version of the image in the history, and the author is cited", which would still cover a huge number of images. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  10. IFD is working fine. — Phil Welch 6 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose. The original image version history may be needed for author accreditation, and to show who is responsible for what work. zoney ♣ talk 6 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, likely to cause accidental GFDL violations galore. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Dragonsflight. Speedied images are MUCH harder to restore (with history & description) than speedied articles. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
  14. Oppose because of possible licensing problems whereas this change would not solve any urgent problem. Sietse 6 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. A needless reform. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 16:32 (UTC)
  16. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
  17. Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:53 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Current wording is more clear/easier to understand. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)
  19. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:29 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Gwk 9 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
  21. Dsmdgold 15:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, IanManka 06:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strongly Oppose until we have the technology (or manpower? This may already be possible with 1.5) to migrate images with their revisions and data intact (see comment below). Until that time... it's a no from me. GarrettTalk 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. This proposal doesn't address the question of multiple file versions. For example, if someone uploads the original version of a photograph, and then a modified version, it is important to keep both. dbenbenn | talk 14:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. As per Plugwash. Also, no guarantee revision history will be transferred. Superm401 | Talk 13:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • I'm ambivalent about the proposal, but find the "in the same or better in image size or quality" clause very confusing. It's ambiguous as to whether we're deleting the larger, higher-quality image (obviously a bad idea), or the smaller one. Brighterorange 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to migrate the database info along with the files and do it all automatically? That would allow the history and every single version to be carried over. As it is, no way to do this. If this was a proposal to move data, I would be happy. As it is, it doesn't seem like the greatest idea ever. GarrettTalk 07:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You know, you could also have the content on the image's description page included in the description page on en-wikipedia even if you get rid off the image. That's what we do in fi-wiki. EnSamulili 10:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Wikipedia%7ECriteria_for_speedy_deletion_Proposal_I1-B_499b.html"