Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was tag as historical. IronGargoyle 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission

This page conflicts with the requesting copyright permission requirements at When permission is confirmed. In particular, by not forwarding the actual answer received from the copyright holder e-mail address, the the Wikimedia Communications committee will be unable to confirm the copyright permission for themselves and the licensing for the image will not meet Wikipedia requirements. In addition to not sufficiently confirming permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia, this page also encourages posting potentially confidential email information in Wikipedia's public space. This page should be deleted and, if necessary, redirected to When permission is confirmed. Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

These are good points. . . but I have many images here and on the Commons where, for source and licensing information, it links to this page (or a subpage). Other people may as well. Perhaps you could "what links here", and search for the url on the Commons, and copy the relevant material onto image talk pages? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be good to lose valid free use permissions (they are hard to come by). Eventually, I think the posts at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission should be removed from visible free space and tagging as historic might not do that nor will copying the relevant material onto image talk pages. It looks like there are 162 What links here. Perhaps we should post a note at the top of the Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission page regarding the proper procedure to forward the letter to OTRS being at When permission is confirmed. The page then could be close off to new additions using an appropriate archival template. The page can then be worked such that each of the relevant posts on the page ( where the corresponding image does not already have an OTRS ticket #) be copied and emailed individually to OTRS with a diff to Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission, an explanation, and link to this discussion. This emailing can be done over time (e.g. a few weeks) to not overwhelm OTRS. Once OTRS has an email for each of the page posts, the Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission can then be redirected to When permission is confirmed. Someone also then may go through each of the 162 What links here to reduce the number of "Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission" What links here. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking over much that is listed on that page, nothing has legitimate permission confirmation (a large sample anyway) - which means that they are all violations. This page doesn't need to exist. The category Articles with permission confirmed has every page that has legitimately confirmed permission. The category gets populated when the tag gets placed on the article with the ticket number confirming permission. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Many of these were released before the Wikimedia Foundation had a process set up to accept written permission. For instance, when I received permission to use photos from Sam's Exotic Travels, it was mid-2005. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission looked like this. What should we do about these cases? Perhaps they should be archived, with a notice not to change them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historic with a note about the proper procedure to forward the letter to OTRS. The page should stay there in case there is ever a need to check up on an image that was logged there, but, as pointed out above, it obviously is not our current procedure. --B 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical per B. Quadell makes a good point that we may need to retain the information, but Jreferee makes an equally good point that there's a better way to log copyright permissions. Shalom ^Hello 20:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical Page shouldn't be used anymore, but information on the page should be kept. Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.