Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposal to narrow F8 reasons for not moving an image to Commons[edit]

There are maybe four valid reasons I can think of for not wanting to move an image to Commons: (1) There is a licensing reason (usually that it is PD in the US, but copyrighted in its home country and so Commons will not accept it, this would also apply to cases where there are questions about the uploader's respect for copyright and the image is tagged with {{File at CCI}}). (2) The image is only for a user's user page or for a local discussion with no conceivable encyclopedic use on any other project. (3) The image is high-risk and we need it to have the benefit of our cascading protection. (4) There is substantial history and it is beneficial to preserve that history.

Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons for which a local copy has been requested to be kept now has an ungodly number of images in it. Some of them are for legitimate licensing reasons, but a lot are more for "I don't like Commons and I want to WP:OWN my contributions" reasons.

So my proposal is this: I propose to amend "The image is not marked as {{Do not move to Commons}} or as {{Keep local}}" to add the requirement that one of the above four reasons be the case.

For something like this - File:Baseball (crop).jpg - a high-risk image that is used all over creation - keeping a local copy makes sense. But then there are others, like File:Her Majesty Sultanah Terengganu Tuanku Nur Zahirah.jpg, which is not even a user-authored image. It's a Flickr image and 100% SHOULD be moved to Commons where they have a Flickr review process in place. Or something like File:Hickory smoked barbecue bacon.jpg or File:Hi flowerchip!.jpg, which could be useful to other projects and there's no reason whatsoever to retain the local image once it's moved. --B (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There's no reason to delete local images if it makes it easier for people, even if it's just because they don't like Commons or whatever. Commons won't respect {{Do not move to Commons}}, so it's a pretty dumb template, since it might give the misleading impression that it'd prevent things from being moved to Commons. But if someone wants a local version to make their life easier, m:DICK applies, and there's no reason for us to delete it and piss them off, when it offers no gain for the encyclopaedia. WilyD 09:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In what way (other than the four reasons I mentioned above) does it make their life easier? Retaining the local version serves no useful purpose and just makes one more thing that has to be maintained. Allowing a user to dictate ownership of a page because sends a wrong message. --B (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem with the current system is that we often get outdated or low-resolution files on one website as files only are kept up-to-date on one of the websites. Besides, if there is a copyright issue with a file, there is a risk that someone might overlook the fact that the file is available on two websites with the outcome that one one of the copies is deleted although both should be. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
      • For instance, one can watchlist it. Or, one might be blocked or banned on Commons. No doubt numerous others will occur. Why should we treat users here harshly for no benefit to Wikipedia? WilyD 09:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
        • It is possible to watchlist files on Commons too. If users who are blocked or banned on Commons wish to upload files, the users may use WP:FFU or upload a local copy which can be moved there by someone else. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
          • It is possible to watchlist files on Commons too, but in the absence of global watchlists one would have to be active at Commons for that to be of any use. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
            • It is possible to enable e-mail notification when a page on your watchlist is modified on a project which you are not regularly following. If you ask at c:COM:VP, you might also find consensus to add a checkbox which allows you to also receive e-mails when someone makes a minor edit. I find it strange that this checkbox isn't available on all projects by default as offering that checkbox shouldn't cause any trouble for anyone. The checkbox is currently available on Meta. Also, if you ensure that you upload the file directly to Commons (so that you are listed as the uploader on Commons (instead of relying on someone else moving the file from here), then you should receive a talk page notification if someone nominates the file for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
          • We shouldn't strive to make it possible for authors and editors to write and improve articles here. We should strive to make it easy and convenient. Especially when there's no upside to the project in making things harder for everyone. WilyD 10:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support People should be using Commons more and retaining them for silly reasons is pointless. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • But shouldn't we motivate people with a carrot rather than a stick? Why antagonise our editors for no encyclopaedic benefit. WilyD 09:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose File:John Noel with filming equipment, 1922.jpg is a file I recently uploaded to WP with requests to keep local and not to move to commons. I spent a great deal of time trying to assess whether it is in copyright in the UK (I'm not sure but I think it is) but because of its publication status in the US I think US courts would regard the US as the source country. It seems unclear how commons regards images simultaneously published in the US and UK if by general provenance they are close to UK. Is commons policy that because the US courts would regard it as US-only then that applies on commons or would they disregard the US courts and consider copyright in UK and US? I have asked at commons regarding pre-1923 images and got the answer that UK copyright is not relevant[1] but I am not confident I would get that answer every time. Am I being unreasonable in worrying whether someone doing a 10 second assessment might decide that commons would only consider US copyright and so it's OK to move it? Later it may be deleted at commons because it considered not to be US-only. Are such matters appropriate for speedy deletion? Thincat (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That file would seem to fit example (1) above: debatable copyright status due to unclear source country. If the book was published within 30 days in both the UK and the US, then the source country is the country with the shortest term (in this case the US), but it is probably near impossible to identify the exact date of publication, so it may be difficult to tell whether the UK publication was at most 30 days before the US publication.
One problem is that {{Keep local}} creates problems like this where a low-resolution copy of a file hides a high-resolution copy of the same file. There are also cases where one of the copies is outdated. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The template {{keep local}} should not be used here (and I have removed it). The image correctly has {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly|expiry=2059}} and adding {{keep local}} is pointlessly confusing. You do not, I am assuming, have any objection to the image being moved to Commons once 2060 gets here and the image is public domain in the UK. If you have no such objection, then the {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly|expiry=2059}} template will do exactly what you desire. --B (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the decision as to what is the "home country" (in cases such as this) is a matter that can be decided without discussion? There will be no doubt in some people's mind that the image I cited can be moved to commons (home country US[2]) and it then may be deleted there because in other people's minds there is doubt whether it is out of UK copyright. My reading of your proposal is that images tagged {{Do not move to Commons}} may be moved and speedy deleted if the mover considers there is no "licensing reason" against it. There would be no discussion. Is that intended as part of the proposal? Thincat (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Would you be happier to support the proposal if it were modified to allow F8 deletion if the file first has to be listed for a week at WP:FFD deletion only happens if the uploader manages to present a reasonable reason for keeping the file? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be happier if any file on my watchlist that is moved to Commons could not deleted from both sites without me having seven days' warning. The premise that the only files moved to Commons are ones that will be kept there is completely unrealistic. Movers make mistakes and Commons is erratic. Files moved are no longer on WP watchlists. Possibly easier than your suggestion would be to require FFD before deleting a tagged file that had been copied to Commons. I also think that a file should not be moved at all without consensus if there is a reason given on the tag. I don't understand the thinking that moving a tagged file without consensus is any less objectionable that wanting to preserve a file for personal reasons. Thincat (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be much less likely to think this proposal unreasonable if you could point at a couple dozen ffds where the local copies of such images were overwhelmingly deleted, opposed only by an uploader with a "silly" reason as stated above. As is, this fails the "uncontestable" criterion for new speedy deletion criteria, #2 at the top of this talk page, pretty much by definition. —Cryptic 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    • These files are usually not taken to FFD as they would be kept there if the uploader gives a 'silly' reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Uploaders and maintainers of content should not be forced to keep a constant eye on a completely different website in order to defend their content on from being destroyed. If a file gets nominated for deletion on commons, it doesn't show up on your wikipedia watchlist, and commons does not send files back to wikipedia projects after deleting them, and for a disturbingly large amount of content, it is almost impossible to predict whether a given file will somehow fall afoul of some commons editor and get deleted out from under you. And like others have said, the fact that someone has placed a {{do not move to commons}} or {{keep local}} tag means that the file is automatically invalid for CSD because it is, by definition, contestable. I do, however, agree that it would probably be a good idea to do a cleanup to see if do not move files should actually be retagged as keep local, since the do not move designation is restrictive - ie, it keeps content from being shared - while keep local is permissive - it keeps the content shared as widely as possible. But until commons has policies that replaces files in local wikipedias when they get deleted from commons, editors have every reason to legitimately need critical files to remain local, and their needs should not be blithely dismissed. VanIsaacWScont 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You seem to be misunderstanding a few things. If a file has a restriction which forbids people from uploading the file to Commons, then the file satisfies speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F3, unless a fair use copyright tag is used. If a file risks being deleted on Commons, then the instructions at WP:CSD#F8 explicitly tell that the file doesn't satisfy deletion locally, and admins are required to check the files carefully before deletion. If a file risks being deleted on Commons for copyright reasons, then it almost always risks being deleted here too and should therefore be nominated for deletion on both projects. Will you ensure that files also are tagged for deletion on Wikipedia when the one tagged a file for deletion on Commons overlooked that there also is a copy on this project? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
      • No, you seem to be the one with the misunderstanding. Because Commons has shown itself time and time again to apply vastly different criteria than, even far outside of the free-use criteria. Files don't just risk deletion on commons for copyright concerns, they face deletion for a myriad of reasons, and even when they do have copyright questions, the standard they apply is almost always pedantic or incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't spend large quantities of time on commons. Quite frankly, I would have no problem with commons duplicates being nominated here when they are nominated at commons, but I have a serious problem with commons unilaterally deciding a critical image that I put in a template or article can just be deleted out from under without anyone here knowing about it until it's all over. Now, as far as I know, I've never actually tagged an image with either {{keep local}} or {{do not move to commons}}, but I know and work with editors who have done so on several occasions, and they all had previous experiences with critical images being summarily deleted from commons for no discernible reason. However, before making demands that tagging be symmetrical, I'd check out to see how well commons and match each other when the same image is nominated at both places. I have a feeling you will be surprised at just how markedly divergent the determinations in the two communities truly are. But if you do check out symmetrical nominations and find a high degree of consistency across projects, in contrast to my experience, come back to me, and I'll work with you an a bot to automate the FFD tagging. VanIsaacWScont 08:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Commons should only delete files which are in use on English Wikipedia if there is a copyright problem. If someone accidentally deletes a file (which may happen on any project), then it should be enough to ask the admin to undo the deletion. I don't think that an 'FFD bot' would be a good idea; it is probably better to go through files manually instead, and we don't want thousands of files on the same discussion page anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've always thought it was silly to allow uploaders (and, in fact, anyone else) to WP:OWN files like this. I'd support a removal of the capability for people to request a local version to be kept for nothing other than their own convenience. If you really want to keep a close eye on files on Commons, you can set up e-mail notifications on your watchlist or something; or in the future (after SUL finalisations), cross-wiki watchlists will become a reality. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because while we shouldn't need something like this, what gets deleted at Commons is not predictable based on Commons policy (let alone en.wp policy) and there is no guarantee that any image will not be discussed before deletion, or how long any discussion will last, and so a watchlist entry may or may not be generated in time for anyone here to see it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

File:Her Majesty Sultanah Terengganu Tuanku Nur Zahirah.jpg, mentioned above, is now at FFD; I nominated it because I don't think we should keep Flickr-sourced images purely on the request of the en:wp uploader. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't keep them, do we? The "discussion" has by now been closed and the file deleted.[3] Thincat (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this discussion in the right place?[edit]

Would it be better to discuss this at Template talk:Keep local? It seems that this is the real issue here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't I'm afraid. Anything concerning a type of speedy deletion is best kept on this page for a centralized discussion, then any changes agreed upon are implemented in templates and elsewhere. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that commons copyright policy is not the same as en copyright policy. In particular, if something is non-copyrightable in the US, but copyrightable in its country of origin, Commons is unambiguous that it must be deleted. Our copyright policy is that we MUST obey US copyright law, and that "according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States." which leaves a lot of room for discussion on what should happen when its clearly not copyrightable in the US, not because of lack of treaty, but because say the US doesn't recognize it as being copyrightable. Monty845 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy for albums by various artists[edit]

I placed a speedy notice, WP:A9, on Sacred Revolution. It's a collection of live performances by various artists. It was released by a conference, not a band and not a record label promoting its artists. The A9 was denied with the comment, "Decline WP:A9 speedy deletion, artist has an article, not eligible." I don't buy that argument as

  1. the artist listed in the infobox is not an artist,
  2. if any subject with an article, such as a local radio station, can be listed as the artist in the infobox and the criteria for A9 is used to "promote" the work and force it to go to PROD and then AfD,
  3. if for collective compilation works such as this, if only one performing artist, or even half of the listed artists, need to have articles, you have a situation similar to 2.

So what is the criteria here? Did I err when applying A9? Did the admin err in stating that A9 didn't apply for that specific criteria? Could the rules be states more clearly for other similar articles? (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with the decline. The letter of the A9 criteria says there must be an artist, but in this case realistically the spirit of the criteria is met because there are multiple artists associated with the work that have articles. I'd say take it to AFD instead where it would have to meet WP:NALBUM more specifically. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So then a compilation album by a local bar of local artists, including Carly Rae Jepsen, could be PRODed or taken to AfD, but not put through a speedy deletion. (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I am the admin that declined the speedy delete mentioned above. The decline had absolutely nothing to do with the non-artist that was put into the infobox as the artist. It had to do with the 5 artists that made ~75% of the music on the album having articles. The remaining ~25% was made by two artists without articles. I believe that is enough to survive a WP:A9 speedy deletion. -- GB fan 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
So then a compilation album by a local bar of local artists, including Carly Rae Jepsen and other artists that comprise 51% of the album, could be PRODed or taken to AfD, but not put through a speedy deletion. (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I would say if there was an article about a compilation album with Carly Rae Jepsen on it, then the article should go through Prod or AFD, not be speedy deleted. -- GB fan 20:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that A9 doesn't apply here, or to any album containing a track by an artist with an article. I can remember a similar case when I declined to delete an article about a compilation album under A9 as it included some tracks by some very popular artists such as Queen, it was eventually deleted at AfD for not being notable. Bear in mind that speedy deletion is only supposed to be for uncontroversial circumstances that almost everyone can agree on, if there's anything ambiguous or problematic then an AfD isn't much effort. Hut 8.5 21:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it be worth changing "has no corresponding article about its recording artist" to "none of the contributing recording artists have an article" or adding a clarification that "This criterion applies to compilation albums only when none of the featured artists have an article."? Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Not really. They both clearly state the same thing, and I understand both. But, I'd probably go with the shorter explanation since whatever is added to the description on WP:CSD has to, in turn, be added to its corresponding {{Db-meta}} template, and most of those templates are already large text-filled eyesores. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • A good point. That's a voice for the first of my options then. I'll wait a couple of days in case any objections come in before doing this though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Non English articles[edit]

How to deal with articles in foreign languages as a new pages patroller? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for dealing with non-English articles in new page patrol can be found at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Dealing with foreign language new pages. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Criterion U2 may need revising due to the SUL migration[edit]

After talking about this for a bit, specifically on WP:VPTECH about User:UBX and User:Example, with the WP:SUL (Single unified login) migration that is currently taking place which is being carried out by the bot User:Maintenance script, I think that with these changes, criterion U2 needs to be updated in one way or another. Since the SUL process moves all user pages, subpages, and contributions that are not linked to a unified login when a unified login with the same name exists, deletes all of the leftover redirects, frees up the user name to be used for the unified login user, and (at least on this wiki) moves the user, user page, and all subpages to "User:Name~enwiki", this has the potential to break certain needed links to a point where it causes technical issues on the wiki. I'm not sure how to word this, but given this information, there may be some plausible cases where the user name where the pages were moved from is technically not registered by the global user, but need to be retained. Pinging some who may have interest due to participating in the User:Example and User:UBX discussions: Cenarium, Mr. Stradivarius, Guy Macon, EoRdE6, and Technical 13. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What about a simple tag that can be placed on those pages (if there aren't too many) that declares them exempt from U2 and links to the explanation. If there are more than the few exceptions, then a U2 modification may need to be made. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That would seem to be workable for the English Wikipedia. I have been giving this some thought, and it seems like every Wikipedia should have an example user in their own language. The question is whether we should allow someone to use the the username "Beispiel" on the English Wikipedia or the username "Example" on the German Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it will be enough just to fix the accounts that currently show the problem. Once the pseudo-accounts broken by SUL migration are fixed, anybody creating a new pseudo-account for use on enwiki would likely create the account on enwiki in the first place, or visit enwiki while logged on with that account. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)