Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gfoley4 (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 27 February 2011 (→‎Template:KeepLocal: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

Template:Family Guy characters

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

The result of the discussion was Merged (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family Guy characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only has a dozen entries, all but a few of which are redundant to the characters section of Template:Family Guy. Propose merge with Template:Family Guy Purplebackpack89 23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2018 FIFA World Cup England bid venues

Template:2018 FIFA World Cup England bid venues (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

World Cup went to Russia. Template is no longer relevant. MicroX (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Personal announcement

Template:Personal announcement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template. No meaningful content. --173.49.140.141 (talk (DO NOT POST MESSAGES HERE)) 19:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC) See User talk:Perseus8235[reply]

Used only by Chinese users as a zh.wiki template. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KeepLocal

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

The result of the discussion was Keep clear consensus (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KeepLocal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Except in very specific cases where what English Wikipedia allows and Commons doesn't differ because of legal considerations, there is no good reason to retain local copies of images that have been copied to Commons, especially in cases where the local image will block an image on Commons. This seems to promote poor housekeeping, and also goes against the spirit of speedy deletion criterion F8, which encourages deletion of local media where it has been transferred to or already exists on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If someone obtains a release for an image, they can surely keep it wherever they want, though anyone's welcome to copy it to the Commons. In the case of featured articles, it can be particularly important to keep an eye on local images, because images tend to disappear from the Commons for no good reason. This is maddening when a lot of work went into finding the image and obtaining a release. No one should be obliged to keep an eye on a website other than this one to prevent that kind of thing happening. Encourage, by all means (per F8), but don't force. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to give one example of the kind of thing that's been happening, I went to very great lengths (a real saga) to obtain a release for File:Wiesel15(3).jpg for Night (book), a featured article. It's an image of Elie Wiesel when he was 15, just before he was taken to Auschwitz. I don't want to see the local file be deleted, because of various problems I've seen in the past on Commons with images just disappearing, and it's surely doing no harm here. But Kelly, ShuminWeb, and Magog are proposing it for deletion, not once, but now extended, because I removed the tag too soon, so the first discussion doesn't count. It's beyond silly, yet this is going to keep on happening if these templates are ignored or deleted. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see any reason for an image with good OTRS permission to be deleted from Commons, but, if for some reason it were, is there something preventing undeletion here at en Wikipedia? If I'm not mistaken, you've undeleted images in the past that had been deleted under CSD F8, even if the copies still existed on Commons. Kelly hi! 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images don't "disappear" from the Commons for no reason. When they're deleted, it's because of copyright violation. Kelly hi! 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - I have never seen images just up and get deleted (i.e. disappear) for no reason. They go through a process, like how things go through a process here. Because certain editors may miss those discussions does not make these discussions out of process or otherwise invalid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is stopping anyone from watching images on Commons, or even getting e-mail/RSS notifications when they are edited. Kelly hi! 23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one contributing content to the English Wikipedia should be forced to get involved with a second website to maintain the quality of their work. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. Both websites are part of the same overall project. Kelly hi! 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? The Brezhoneg Wikiquote is also a WMF project but I bet your point would be even more invalid if we were telling users to upload their images there. When I choose to upload to the English Wikipedia, my image can legally be moved to Commons, but if I request a copy be left here, is there any reason why it can't? It's legally permissible as well. I'm sorry, Kelly, but your claim that anyone who uploads free images here should magically know all about Commons and watchlist/set RSS notifications for an image they didn't even put there, simply doesn't make sense to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting that anyone magically know all about Wikimedia Commons. That's why we have many people doing this project - so that we can move files to Commons as necessary if it is within Commons' scope if one does not know about Commons. But allowing multiple copies of the same thing all over the place is bad housekeeping practice (since we have to clean up after it in multiple places), and goes against WP:OWN. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that this decision is more of a policy decision than a simple deletion one. Perhaps there should be a broader discussion, possibly at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor point of information, for any editors who might find it useful. I find that it's very easy to watchlist files at Commons that interest me, and to set my user preferences at Commons so that I get an e-mail whenever anything on my watchlist changes there (which one can do there, unlike here). This isn't a comment on the question of template deletion, just something that I wanted to point out explicitly, because it sounds like some who have commented here might, perhaps, find it useful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with its counterpart, {{NoCommons}}. Over time, images are improved, enhanced, descriptions updated, additional languages added, notations of derivative works added, etc, etc. Keeping multiple copies of images just means the work has to be done in more than one place. These templates are a violation, typically, of WP:OWN. When there are valid legal reasons to keep an image on en Wikipedia and not Commons, there are tags for that purpose, such as {{Do not move to Commons}} and various non-free licenses. Kelly hi! 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to expand on my comment earlier - there are times when {{do not move to commons}} isn't appropriate. For example, I had to create a customized template for File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg, because {{do not move to commons}} didn't explain it well enough. And SV is right; sometimes the image is already on commons, and the status is unsure, while the status is sure on English Wikipedia (or, alternatively, we keep it here in case it needs to get converted into fair use). Ideally we'd always nominate images for deletion on commons when they're unsure, but anybody who's gone through that process knows it includes no small amount of vitriol - there's a culture there that expects someone not to nominate an image for deletion unless s/he thinks it ought to be deleted (which is different than unsure but maybe free). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's all well and good to suggest there's no problems at Commons. It's also nonsense. I've lost count of the times I've seen images overwritten or altered in a way that seems to make sense to someone there, not realizing that it looks completely wrong here. We've also had serious problems with image vandalism causing harm in our articles (why do you think the user formerly known as Betacommand gets so disturbed about unprotected main page images?), and a switch in an image at Commons is not detectable on this project. Different interpretations of copyright may mean that images are deleted without warning. "So we just undelete the enwiki version" is the wrong way of looking at things. Leaving copies on enwiki does absolutely no harm at all. I agree with Tryptofish that this is an attempt to change policy by deleting a template. If you don't like the policy, go discuss the policy. Risker (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Risker. Anyone who agrees with me shows excellent judgment! But I want to clarify that I don't think that this nomination was intended as an attempt to change policy. I would just prefer that it be discussed as such, instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing substantial has changed since the previous deletion debate so there is no real reason to go through this again. I have had numerous problems with my, and others, contributions being transferred to commons: incorrect attributions, incorrect licencing. The main problem is that a transferred image is not added to my watchlist at Commons, so even if I regularly monitored that list (which I don't) it wouldn't do any good. Substantial changes can be made to an article through its images without it being flagged in the watchlist of those editors that are interested. Similarly a deleted image at Commons does not flag up to any Wikipedia editor. Since a bot comes round afterwards and cleans up articles with deleted images, if you are not on the ball, you can completely miss that the article ever had an image. I can cite several cases of images being incorrectly deleted at Commons and it not being noticed here. In one example an image was deleted at Commons (incorrectly identified as unsourced) and not noticed here for a year - even then I only picked up on it because an IP had noted on the talk page that the text referred to a non-existent figure 2. Getting deleted images restored on Commons can be a bit of a mission, it is often easier just to undelete the original here. For articles that aren't being monitored it makes little difference where the images are stored, but we should not be putting obstacles in the way of editors trying to care for specific articles. SpinningSpark 00:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it was already said that there are cases there the free copyright status in US is certain but the free copyright status globally is in doubt (e.g. an image published in USA before 1923), there are cases like images published in the Soviet Union/Russia there the copyright law seems to be a moving target: any image perfectly valid just a few months ago may suddenly and retroactively become copyvios due to a stupid decision of Russian lawmakers. In that case at least here we can claim fairuse. In the past Commons uploaders were often not very careful about GFDL - e.g. removing useful info and its attribution when uploading info to Commons. As an example saw plenty of Commons images with the only source info being "English Wikipedia". Deletion of those "source images" creates many problems. In short the template can be useful in number of cases and should not be deleted. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the pre-existing images simply be undeleted if these events occur? Kelly hi! 01:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but first one has to realise it has happened - Wikipedia editors are not informed by Commons; and second a regular editor cannot do this themselves, they have to go through the performance of explaining themselves to an administrator to get it done. SpinningSpark 01:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And exactly how difficult would this be? If a local editor has an image on their watchlist, they're informed if it's deleted. Then it's a quick stop at WP:REFUND, where the admins have always seemed more than amenable. And how often does this happen, anyway? Kelly hi! 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And exactly how difficult would this be? If a local editor has an image on their watchlist, they're informed if it's deleted. Then it's a quick stop at WP:REFUND, where the admins have always seemed more than amenable. And how often does this happen, anyway? Kelly hi! 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the example I gave, actually, it would have been beyond difficult. The image in question was created neither by me nor the editor who highlighted the problem. It is impossible for a regular editor (like the one who noticed the problem) to tell that an image even ever exited there so s/he had no idea . It only got fixed because, (1) I happened to be passing by, (2) I smelled a rat and investigated, (3) someone noticed who actually cared, (4) I happened to be an administrator so could read the original file and determine the uploader, and (5) the uploader was still around and could confirm that Commons were wrong and he was the original creator (as stated on the page). SpinningSpark 07:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt the overall difficulty caused when this happens is greater than the theoretical "difficulty" cause by having a relatively small number of images kept locally and on the Commons. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that images are often badly transfered. But it is the job of the deleting administrator to check that the transfer was done correctly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Their non-paying volunteer "job" to do so. But that's not particularly relevant to the issues being raised here of what actually happens, not what theoretically should happen. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons well articulated by SlimVirgin, Risker, Spinningspark, Alex Bakharev. Images are often uploaded incorrectly, and policy differences between wikis can and do lead to Commons images being deleted when it is appropriate to keep the local image. Even when the images are kept on the Commons, errors are often made with them that are no longer evident to the original uploaders, who no longer have them on their watchlist, making good stewardship difficult. The number of images tagged this way is relatively small, and no compelling or even particularly coherent rationale has been forwarded explaining what real disadvantage there is in have some images kept local this way. Even if this were only done as a courtesy to the original uploader, it would still be worth doing for that reason alone; it's nice enough for people to go to the sometimes considerable effort of providing these images, we don't have to completely dismiss them once its done. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see the whole issue looks simple to Kelly, and it probably is when you specialise in images and copyright, but most wiki-en users don't do that. Being told by Magog that it's all right because any problem is the deleting admin's fault doesn't actually help either. Bishonen | talk 02:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I'd argue to keep this less on the basis of copyright issues, but of the fairness for the author of an image. Commons is not the English Wikipedia, and keeping a specific image local allows the author to keep track of it better, whilst one would need to watchlist the image on Commons and use an unfamiliar route to get it undeleted if anything ever happened. In addition, I don't know of any policy- or common sense-based reason for why we cannot host perfectly free images locally. It's not like we're running out of server space, it's not like someone can't choose where to put their own image, it's not like we can control what happens on Commons. This is not harming anyone and often prevents cross-wiki issues. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even as this discussion is going on, Schuminweb is proposing "KeepLocal" images for deletion because they're orphaned. Two I spotted today: File:Trapped underground.jpg, which I obtained the licence for, and File:Winslow.jpg, which Giano uploaded. But free images don't have to be used to be kept, and anyway they're sometimes orphaned by mistake, when someone removes the image from an article or template and no one notices, which was the case with at least one of the above. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 11:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 7/7 image wasn't a collection of photographs, which is what NOTREPOSITORY addresses. It had only been orphaned because someone removed it from a template. The point is: please stop seeking to delete images that have the KeepLocal or NoCommons tags on them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commons policies and consensus differs from enwiki, and enwiki users should not be forced into accepting the consensus formed under a different regime. The duplication is an unfortunate necessity, under current systems. If the system is wrong, go change it - but given current policies and guidelines, there is no reason to delete this template.  Chzz  ►  18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, en-wiki and commons have different policies, and when there's the possibility of a conflict, this is useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep users commenting above have given some good examples of what this template is used for; the rationale for the deletion request appears to be that we should never have free images on Wikipedia, not even those that can't or might not be able to go on Commons. —innotata 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- just because many editors have accounts both here and at Commons is no reason why we should force everyone else to follow suit. As long as en-wiki allows file uploads, this template has a purpose. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see plenty of fair reasons why users would not want to have to deal with Commons- there's no problem with people wanting to keep their images/images important to them where they can see them. If this was being used massively in some kind of attempt to work against Commons, then there may be a problem, but right now, there doesn't seem to be one. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J Milburn and others. Jonathunder (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just noting here that SchuminWeb has tried to close the discussion as "withdrawn," rather than "keep," [1] [2] [3] but given that this has been raised before, I think we need an uninvolved admin to close it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:US federal budget

Template:US federal budget (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The US federal budget has a much earlier history than 1996 Quest for Truth (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elections Ont maps

Template:Elections Ont maps (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no evidence, that this really is PD. No link to any law or to a website confirming this. I first started a DR on Commons because some of the files using this template was transfered to Commons. If this template is deleted the files using this template should also be deleted:

Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:YSW riding map small.JPG. MGA73 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Momma's House

Template:Big Momma's House (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary template, only 3 links. Sufficient links exist within the three related articles to provide navigation. AussieLegend (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20&oldid=416122876"