Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 5

message: Based on the discussion immediately above, i am considering a proposal to reduce the time and effort wasted in bureaucracy deleting copyvio material. 
The proposal would be that new articles that meet the following criteria would be speedy delete candidates.
*Only contains copyvio material, and no material that is not copyvio.
*Material is unquestionably copied (e.g. virtually identical).
*No chance that we have permission.
*Article is newer than 48 hours (to avoid mirror problem).
*Deleter provides url of copied web page in deletion log.
Please note that copyvio material that doesn't meet the criteria would just be dealt with in the usual way.
Please indicate whether you think this is a good proposal, even if you just write 'support' or 'oppose', or offer ideas on how it could be improved. Thank you!! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: **DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!
**--fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 00:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
***Oops. Did not scroll down far enough. Denni☯ 19:14, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
***Yes, there is plenty of warning, plus copyvio stuff is illegal anyway, plus its not as if we keep copyvio stuff if the uploader didnt realise it is against the rules is it? it still gets deleted. I'm sorry but that isnt even a valid concern. If you think there is not enough warning, this is not the place to bring it up. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 10:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 10:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary proposal

message: There has been an ongoing problem with copyrighted images with bogus fair use claims, and Jimbo has suggested that such images should be speedied.
I propose these additions to the images criteria:
# Images uploaded after September 1, 2005 that lack source information.
# Images uploaded after September 1, 2005 that are taken from present-day news media or wire service reports.
There is no defensible fair use rationale for images from present-day news media, and these images pose a legal problem for the foundation.  There has been a lengthy transition period during which uploaders of unsourced images were given an opportunity to supply a source.  Everyone should be aware of the rules by now and, again, the unsourced images pose a legal problem.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we're going to get support for speedying images without source information, but for what it's worth I heartily support adding both criteria. As far as technical measures go, I'd also like to see uploading images not be allowed for new accounts, just like page moves. It would help against goatse vandalism and make sure that those uploading images have at least a faint inkling about what's going on. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 16:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
*I disagree that "There is no defensible fair use rationale for images from present-day news media". The "histopric image" rationale will rarely apply (although a recent image of an even likely to become historic may use this rationale) but other reasons may well apply. Getting stricter with fair use claimes is probably a good idea. I can see requireing a spcific spelled-out rationale for fair use, not just a template on such images, and I can see removing unsourced images (but not under a speedy rule, new images should have their uplaoders notified and be given several days, say at least 72 hours to provide source and copyright status info). But removing "all images from present day news-media" is a major mistake IMO. Indeed widespread news use of an image may well make a fair-use claim rather more plausible than a more obscure image, and also means that the "commercial value" of the image is less likely to be impaired, one of the significant fair-use tests, provided that proper source acknowledgement is provided, and a proper fair-use rationale is supplied. DES (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus fair use claims 

message: Never mind. I've no idea why this page was protected.  I just can't make sense of it.  The edit history of the previous seven days prior to protection doesn't seem to be more fraught than that of any other Wikipedia page I've ever seen.  I unlisted it from WP:PP and unprotected.  --Tony SidawayTalk 01:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was protected, if I'm not mistaken, becauae after the bold letters to emphasize the difference between context and content were added, several different people (four IIRC) thought that this was random vandalism and unbolded them only to be reverted -- at least one even after an HTML comment indiactign that the boldign was intentional had been added. This got to be annoying and someone protected the page. As policy pageas are usually fairly stable, the admin involved probably assumed this was the best response. DES (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Note that Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion is now called Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion; please update all occurrences. I can't do it myself, it's protected (and I doubt it should be for much longer, looking at the history I don't feel the frequency of vandalism is high enough to warrant protection of a policy page). --IByte 15:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous deletion / page protection 

message: See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Non-notable Internet entities. ~~ N (t/c) 20:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: Wik is supposed to be accessible for all.  Seeing a text starting off with a word (sysops) that almost nobody but insiders knows is a real turn-off. this is especially disconcerting, when one continues reading about this Cyclops who can devour one's ten years of effort with-out and with-in a blink of the eye.  Finding definitions of Wik and Web jargon remains difficult and time-consuming. (Wik is slow and very unstable on many systems, so that one is often afraid to try to find the definition for fear that the system will crash or the  time involved in a (possibly unsuccessful) search will be too much.  Kdammers 01:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * perhaps we should link any jargon used templates and administrative pages to the definitions like a link Explanation of Terms used in CSD notices. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's a good idea—it took me a while to figure out just what exactly was meant by A7 or G3. I eventually asked Zoe and she cleared things up for me. There's a glossary, but it doesn't cover that kind of stuff. It's been an unvoiced complaint of mine ever since I got started that WP is very hard to navigate if you haven't been here a while. I still find it hard to find out how to do things I need to do. It took me an hour to find web colors when I wanted to play around with different colored texts; I ended up finding it from m:Help:Table, of all places. I still don't know where the different usable fonts are stored or how I'm supposed to figure out how to do that stuff alone, where people find out about shortcuts like , how I'm supposed to figure out how  works, etc. It's not mentioned in Wikipedia:How to edit a page or in the tutorial as far as I can tell. It's not obvious how to do things or how to figure out how to do things around here: mostly I just take a gander at the sources of WPns who know more about WikiMarkup than I do, but it's slow going and certainly frustrating and time-consuming. This might be another helpful step in the right direction. --Blackcap | talk 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is just that there are more things to learn than well-written, clear documentation to explain them (yet).  We could sure use a nice paragraph on the CSD page explaining the use of the terms, A7, G3, etc.  Maybe I'll go write it... As for your other specific questions: fonts are handled by the viewers browser - not by the 'pedia; more than that I do not know.  As for the many fun templates, I don't think there's a full list, but there's a semi-complete list at Wikipedia:Template messages; also, we don't have a nice tutorial on the use of >div>'s yet(or if we do, I don't know about it).  More links to descriptive answers would seem like a Good Thing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, nice work on that paragraph. That'll help a lot, I think. And you're completely right—maybe I should start writing Help articles myself. --Blackcap | talk 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use English. 

message: There's a lot of articles being added that are very obvious dicdefs and slang. A lot of them have been AfD:ed and a lot of them have also been kept, but with very dubious motivations. People seem to have a lot of trouble confusing definitions of usage and just general meanings with encyclopedic content. I think that extremely notable and important slang and dicdefs with major culutural importance such as nigger or honor are very valid article subject here at Wikipedia, but when it comes to things like egg (person), svenne/blatte (Swedish ethnic slurs) and hella (slang) we've crossed the line to Urban Dictionary Land, not to mention an important language barrier. Particularly the last one is very disturbing to me, since that means we've become a repository for just about any slang in any language. 
I think obviously non-notable slang should be a valid CSD candidate. The only problem is if people decide that literally any slang, not matter if it doesn't have an important cultural connotation of its own or is even widely recognized in the English-speaking world, is to be considered notable. Personally, I think the notability in this case should be extremely obvious, or it should be whisked away to Wiktionary.
I've started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Dictionary definitions, and I welcome your input.
Peter Isotalo 11:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a centralized policy discussion on this is probably a good idea. Tryingt o make it a speedy deletion criterion is IMO probably a bad idea. DES (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions and slang 

message: Based on discussions at:
* Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29/Archive E#User_talk:Zscout370.23Photos
* User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#image_deletion
* Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#image_deletion
I would like to append to the following classification
* Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been in the category for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.
...the following:
* Because image deletion is not reversible, to avoid accidentally deleting properly licensed media and to avoid unnecessarily upsetting legitimate uploaders, the following request is made of adminsitrators deleting articles in these categories: Please make sure the uploader has been duly notified of the pending deletion by a message on their talk page, a reasonable amount of time (perhaps 7 days) before deleting.  This gives them a chance to properly identify the original source and licensing terms.
It would be convenient for administrators if a bot were set up to automatically notify uploaders of images placed into these categories.  If the bot notified uploaders within 24 hours of the image being put in the category, all the administrators would need to do is check that the article had been in the category for the requisite amount of time, and that the uploader did not comment on the image description page or associated talk page.
Manual notifications can currently be accomplished by administrators with the help of these sorted-by-author lists, for these and related categories:
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_with_unknown_source.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_images.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Non-free_images_for_deletion.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_with_unknown_source_for_deletion.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Non-profit_conditional_use_images.txt
* User:Pearle/by-author-Category:Images_used_with_permission.txt
-- Beland 03:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "seven days" criterion is apparently an attempt to make a run around forming consensus.  I've removed it; it's clear no thought was put into its potential consequences.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: *Jimbo doesn't have to "run around forming consensus", he can make whatever rules he likes. If you don't like this one, which I can understand, you have to talk to him about it. Kappa 23:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: However, I do agree with Beland's idea of mandating notification(see my comments at Category talk:Images with unknown source).  I think that's a reasonable modification of the rule. Superm401 | Talk 00:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is far too much of a backlog of copyright violations to be wasting time putting notices on people's user pages and adding yet another waiting period.  Everyone has been on notice that we cannot have unsourced, unlicensed, and other forms of copyright violating images for months now.  We do not, and obviously cannot reasonably, require consensus for the deletion of copyright violations.  This is being done to protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the project, and is endorsed by Jimbo.  There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of copyright violations in Image:, and we've known this for months now.  Failure to act with all deliberate haste is unconscionable.  Kelly Martin 01:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this is a major pain. I'm all for encouraging notification, but it shouldn't be made mandatory. There's just too much to be done. I'd be for adding a warning to the sitenotice about it though, as was suggested elsewhere. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless those who want 6000 warnings given out go and do it, or write themselves a bot, I am just going to start deleting these kinds of images. Jimbo says on his talk page that he thinks we should more likely be blocking these users than warning them! -Splashtalk 01:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a case where common sense applies. I've left notices where the uploader is an active contributor and the images are likely to be indeed legal. Where they are clearly copyvio or it is unlikely the contributor will ever return to tag the images, I've been deleting them. I'd rather we have no image than a probable copyvio. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Blackcap | talk 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my recent conversation with Jimbo on this topic he did stress that we should be mindful of the feelings of established contributors, especially with respect to older images (where people may have felt that "it's GFDL, I don't have to mention that because it's the default").  However, this is a "use common sense" situation, and the policy itself must not require warnings of any sort.  As to writing a bot: it's not even possible to fully enumerate many of the image categories because of a bug in Mediawiki.  The pymediawiki framework breaks when used for this purpose (as explained in one of my recent wikien-l posts).  Until we get past the "emergency phase" of this project there isn't likely to be a bot.  Kelly Martin 02:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, what your asking is ludicrous, there is already a huge backlog on untagged and mistagged images and requiring notification would not only make the backlog worse it would make it harder for people to do their jobs when routing out images that should have been deleted months ago due to being unsourced and uncopyrighted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 05:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so I tried to do the contact the uploader about a deletion and the various reasons why. Well, this was what I got . So, even if we do the right thing and tell people about a deletion, I still get told to fuck off. I am now thinking to go back to not telling people. Thoughts? Zach (Sound Off) 05:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings requested for unidentified images 

message: I propose that instead of speedy deleting, we can just upload placeholder images over-top the "bad" images (untagged/unsourced).  An admin could then "protect" the image if needed.  Also, the image would obviously have to be removed manually from the article immediately before.  But, that should be done regardless.
This would allow all users, not just admins, to deal with problem images.  Admins would only be needed for protecting and unprotecting.  No images would be permanently deleted, until all hope for the validity of the image was gone.  
Doing this would produce very rapid results, since many more people would be involved, and the visual impact of an image being replaced would motivate the uploader to tag/source the image quickly, but they would be less angry, since they wouldn't have their image permanently deleted.  It also would be easier to revert to the original image (from the placeholder), than to go digging for mirrored backup, which seems to be happening.
Since this sounds so obvious to me, there's probably an obvious reason why it's not done, that I wasn't aware of.  If so, sorry in advance.
--rob 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine its the same reason we speedy pages rather than blanking them. In this particular case, the infringing content would remain onwiki, and retrievable by anyone following the link in the history, and restorable with the click of a mouse. -Splashtalk 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my proposal, admins would protect the placeholders at least as quickly, and probably much more quickly, than they could delete the image.  Also, there would have to be strong policy againt reverting an image before an admin was able to protect the placeholder.   So, there would be no more problem of ill-used images than there is now.  Also, once it's confirmed an image is hopeless it would be permanently deleted.   Also, by forcing people to edit the actual article, everybody with the article on their watch list, becomes aware of the problem, and will try to fix it.   Currently, I find if I (as a non-admin) replace a untagged/unsourced image with a proper one, the article might be quickly reverted.  This approach would make that less likely.  --rob 23:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We are about to start speedying copyvio. It is no quicker to protect an image than it is to delete it, since either way it needs to be removed from the article, and a reason given in the protection/deletion log. This really does just add more work — if people can't read the instructions they are presented with at upload time, then really it's their own fault. -Splashtalk 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How is it more work for admins?  All the admin would have to do is protect the image after others uploaded the placeholder, and hopefully edited the article.  Also, if there's obviously no hope for an image, or there's a good PD/GFDL replacement, than by all means do the speedy.  My suggestion is quite similiar to text copyvio replacement notice. Also, a person acting in bad faith, and reverting back to an unallowed image is equally likely to re-upload another image (nothing stops them from doing that now).  Both acts could be deemed equally disallowed, and dealt with.  --rob 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're assuming that all speedy marking is done by non-admins. I think it's closer to the oposite. Also, tagging an image as a speedy deletion is a lot less work than uploading an image for the non-admins. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 00:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not assuming that.  As a non-admin, if I put the tag on the image, and remove/replace it out of the article, it's extremely likely that the article will quickly be reverted back to the "pretty" picture.  The reverting editor has no idea about the tag, since after the reversion everything looks good to them (they just see the thumb, and probably don't visit the image page).  When the offending picture is ultimately deleted, I'll have no idea, and the article will be left with a red-link.  Meanwhile, the PD image I wanted to use as a replacement might be classified as an orphan.  As a non-admin I see no purpose in replacing a copyrighted images with PD/GFDL images, if the change can so easily be reverted by other editors.      --rob 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, yes. Jimbo, however, appears to want this done now rather than in a couple of MediaWiki releases' time. -Splashtalk 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we got some fixes done to the categories themselves, we could run a bot that gets rid of the images. But even if we do the slow and careful method, we will still get an ear full from everyone who was affected by it. It has been a week since the new policy was in place and I still get an ear full. Zach (Sound Off) 02:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a bot (backup/delete or placeholder) makes things less personal.  People who have their images removed (regardless of how) need to understand it's not just some individual admin being tough.  I've noticed a big divide in talks on this between admins; with some saying it's good to notify users first individually, and others saying it's necessary to act first (based on policy).  To me, the "ask first" admins are unintentionally making the "act first" admins look bad.  An automated approach (placeholder or backup/delete) has the advantage of consistency and fairness.    Plus you can say "don't blame me, it's the robot".  Also, I would assume such a bot (aka script) doesn't involve a new MediaWiki release. --rob 14:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually you go to a screen offering links both to the history of the deleted page - which will include all the edit summaries, including whatever info the original uploaded added at the time of uploading, and a (admittedly more obvious) link to the upload page.  But, the likelyhood that the original uploader, or someone familiar with the original image, would be so much more tempted to re-upload an image without providing a source or license just because they are given a link to the upload page, seems far fetched to me.  In any case, if the supporters of this want to go around putting placeholders up in place of already deleted images, or even, in place of not-yet-deleted images(as long as there is the un-sourced image tag is left, so the unsourced images can be deleted eventually), I'd be happy for you all to do it.  The more the merrier. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy placeholders instead of speedy deletes for images 

message: I've noticed a lot of invalid speedies under CSD G1, "No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). See patent nonsense." - The Wikipedia:Patent nonsense page has a nice list of things that are often confused with patent nonsense; I'd like to add it to this page, to clarify CSG G1.  
The specific wording I suggest is this: "No meaningful content or history, text unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters). This does not include: copyvios, bad writing, partisan screeds, religious excogitations, immature material, flame bait, obscene remarks, vandalism as such, badly translated material, hoaxes, or fancruft, unless the material is actually unsalvagably incoherent. See patent nonsense."
If no one objects to this in a week, I will do it.  JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Zach (Sound Off) 04:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have also noticed a lot of bad (or at least arguably bad) articles that do not qualify as "patent nonense" as per WP:PN beeing tagged with  or deleted with the given reason of nonsense. I approve of the above proposal, but i doubt that it will have much effect. Can't hurt, though. DES (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a good idea, but as DES says, I don't suppose it will stop people tagging. We should make more of the provision in WP:VAND that joke articles are G3 speedies, because a lot of the time that's what people really mean. -Splashtalk 14:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Instruction creep?  It was already in the instructions, it was just less visible.  I don't think instruction creep is a fair description of making already applicable rules more visible.  So what reason do you think people abused the tag for?  And how exactly do you propose to measure it's effect in "reducing the misuse" - I expect it will mostly be used by admins, reviewing the category, choosing to not delete things tagged with {nonsense} because they can read the list of things it's not right on the page.  How do you propose to measure this? JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It absolutely isn't instruction creep. It's just a copy-paste of existing policy. How is that creep? -Splashtalk 23:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right that it's not the classic form of instruction creep because it is not a new instruction but it is still creep-ish in the sense that it's more to read on a page already longer than ideal.  It's creep in the sense that it's a second copy of content that is already stated perfectly clearly at Wikipedia:patent nonsense - which today is not a problem but which will become a problem as the two definitions drift apart (which experience tells us they will tend to do).  To answer your question above, I think people abused the tag because they could.  It was easy to say and rarely got challenged.  The measure of "reducing the misuse" will be anecdotal reports of admins reviewing the category and finding fewer articles mistagged.  Rossami (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I like your shortened version.  Thanks.  I think Ambi's describing a cut and paste copy of an existing, (and AFAIK, well-respected) guideline as "nonsense" is - humourous, to say the least.  Sort of sad, in another way. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a copy of [[WP%3APN#Not_to_be_confused_with...|What's not patent nonsense]] to G1 

message: On my watchlist there is a notice about speedy deletion of photos. It isn't specific, so is this something that has been sent to every watchpage (and why the watchpage then?). I've looked at the lists of images with unknown source and copyright status and I don't see any of my photos there. So what is this about? Should I worry? :) DirkvdM 10:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just you. Its a general notice. -- Ec5618 11:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion notice on Watchlist 

message: I'm curious what the community's opinions are on a "common sense" speedy criterion.  This would be for speedying things that obviously don't belong, but for which there is no specific CSD.  I'm thinking it would be used for things like blatant spam or obvious hoaxes.  Unfortunately such things sometimes currently end up in Afd, which is unneccessary.
I realize that deletions like this are already done sometimes, without benefit of a formal CSD.  Would it be useful to add one, or is "common sense" the kind of thing we don't need a rule for (other than Wikipedia:Use common sense)?  The main advantage I see of a formal CSD would be that such deletions are no longer considered "out of process" and subject to easy undeletion.  Thoughts?  Friday (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to chime in.  Regarding a common sense criteria - I would oppose, for all the reasons DES said so clearly.  Regarding the Queen Elizabeth type things - yes, I would really like to see a nicely specific, clear criteria for, shall we call it: laughable nonsense.  I'm not sure how to phrase it though.... JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense speedy 

message: I have started a  discussion at the village pump about how the "if" clause in A7 should be read given that I have seen it be interpreted in a number of different ways be different users and admins.  Dragons flight 19:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinki this discussion, which i thank you for reviving, although i disagree on several issues, more proeprly belongs here. i have restore the section on it from the arvchives below, as discussion was still ongoing, and IMO should not be archived while this is the case. DES (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "If"  clause of A7 

message: Why do we treat text and images so differently?  It makes no sense to me.  If I created a textual entry, I can expect, mostly because of the "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK..." boilerplate, that the entry will not be deleted for copyright reasons.  If I uploaded an image under the same circumstances, I can expect the image, per CSD, to vanish.  "Assume guilty before proving innocent" is not appropriate or necessary for wikipedia images any more than it's appropriate for wikipedia text, AFAICT.  Is there a major difference to the laws protecting these 2 media that warrants the different attitude?  Has WPs actual experience with the two media been vastly different?  Not AFAIK.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Possibly_unfree_images#Poll:_Use_of_page provides an unanswered (but admittedly rather heated) argument supporting my view, and none opposing it.  IMO, it's appropriate that the policy be supported with a rational argument, or changed.  Elvey 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CSD]] I4 is nonsensical. (Images with unknown copyright status warrant speedy deletion) 

message: I've created  to be used as a shortcut  template for the new CSD, deletion of blatant copyvios. It looks like this, after a bit of tweaking by Splash:
This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.  The given reason is: This article and all its revisions are a blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider: [ ], with no assertion of permission.
If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.
Administrators, remember to check if anything links here and [ the page history] ([ last edit]) before deleting. Also, verify if the author of this page has been notified about our copyright policy.Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
Should pages be tagged with  and with  at the same time? Titoxd 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be unnecessary.  is for those needing investigation at WP:CP which is no longer all copyvios. Additionally, the text of an A8 candidate should not be blanked as it is with a correct applicaiton of {copyvio}. -Splashtalk 03:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the duplicated use of ; all real URLs(that we would use) need to start with http:// and that (unless guarded by nowiki tags) automatically links itself; so there is no need to duplicate it in single bracket external link style.  Bad HTML habits. ;-) Otherwise, it looks very good.  Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for new A8 criterion 

message: How do I tell when an image was last used in an article? -Splashtalk 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't, just like you can't tell whether a category has been empty for more than 24 hours (C2). I think you're expected to take a reasonable guess. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 13:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the contributions of the person who tagged the image a CSD.  If his previous edit was to remove it from an article (which is the abuse that the time limit is probably meant to catch), then it's probably been less than a week. :) —Cryptic (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise on Categories. On categories especially, check the history. If the category has been around for a while, or has a history of more than just one or two edits, you may assume that it once did contain articles. Incidentally, I believe this criterion (Category empty for >24h) is flawed anyway: consider a populated category, depopulated by an editor and then tagged as a speedy and then deleted after 24h. That's just a cheap way to cicumvent the deletion process at WP:CFD. And it's not only a theoretical possibility either; it has happened recently at Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany (see the talk page). Lupo 06:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree, and have queried this clause in the Categories CSDs several times, but noone seems especially interested. In fact, what you describe happens not at all infrequently on CfD. We should remove that clause altogether, imo. -Splashtalk 00:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any plans to implement some kind of "related history" for categories (and other stuff too)? If not we should suggest it. Categories should defenently contain a "log" of when articles are added or removed from the category. A simmilar system for wikilinks could also be usefull (a "link log" wich register whenever someome add or remove a link to something).  --Sherool 11:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I use CSD I5? 

message: I regularly weed through the pages on WP:DEP, which brings to attention a number of copyvios which are weeks to monthes old but haven't been touched. I've noticed some of my copyvios have recently had the speedy copyvio tag added (and I've also received a notice about speedy) even though the articles are much older than 48 hours. So how serious is the 48 hours condition? Should I be using the speedy on the older untouched yet still just as blatant copyvios? What's the reasoning for the 48 hours condition anyway? Whitejay251 00:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, A8 just passed, and it was decided at the proposal page (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material) that older copyvios could be speedied if they existed before A8 was created, but not if they were created after A8. So, an article that was created a month ago that meets all of the criterions in A8 apart from the 48 hours but could be tagged and speedied, but a page created three days ago meeting all other criterions couldn't (because A8 already existed). I'm pretty sure about this, someone correct me if I'm wrong. --Blackcap | talk 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I work on CP often, and appreciate the help this will provide. However, I would like to strongly protest the retrospectivity, although I missed that debate at the time. The copyvio tag gives the author 7 days to mend their ways. It's unfair to summarily change that via another process to 48 hours. Those that were reported before the effect of A8 should remain immune from it. -Splashtalk 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason for the 48 hours was to avoid hitting mirrors, not to give uploaders time to mend their ways. i would hold that if the original  tag was put on within 48 hours of the inital page creation the rule is satisfied. The condition reads The material is identified within 48 hours of upload It seems to me that when the inital copyvio tag is placed, or a complaint is made, the copyvio materiel has been identified. DES (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify for me 48 hours condition of CSD A8 

message: How is C1 to be applied? One cannot tell whether a category ever contained articles from looking at the category. And if it has no articles presently, it may be hard to guess or otherwise find the articles it once contained. We would need software support for this: the software would need to give us some indication what articles were added/removed from the category when. Lupo 07:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say "stop," simply on the grounds that something like this ought to be talked and thought about before just removing it. The purpose of this CSD, I figure, is to be able to speedy delete categories that no longer serve a purpose. It does so rather badly. So, instead of deleting it, why not think of something that works better? I'd do it myself, but I'm awfully tired and am heading off to bed. I'll see if I can do this tomorrow. --Blackcap | talk 07:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inducing discussion was the purpose of my post :-) I did think of something better: don't speedy such categories, let them go through WP:CFD. We may reconsider speedying such cases when and if we have the necessary software support, and when and if WP:CFD is bogged down. Lupo 07:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't get that: obviously you were suggesting that they got through CFD (don't know why I didn't think of that) :). Never mind. If the software would support this, then it would be fine, but as now should go. Same with I5. --Blackcap | talk 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, it wasn't the best of CSDs to begin with and the fact that it can easily be abused just makes it worse. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 13:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Since I don't see any fundamental objection to my doing so, I have removed the former criterion C2 (Categories empty >24h). I have also added a cautionary note on C1. Removing C2 should stop the problems with that criterion. If somebody wants it back, we'd first have to figure out what it was intended to accomplish, and then how to phrase it in a foolproof way. Lupo 07:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the changes you have made. Lets see how it goes with others and CFD practices.  ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for categories 

message: A7 speedies are normally tagged with  or  etc. But I'm a little concerned about the identical tag . When a new user creates an unsuitable, but good-faith, article about themselves, their favourite teacher, or worse their highly esteemed deceased grandfather it is bad enough that it will be deleted (as it must), but to tag the person as a 'nobody' seems unduly and unnecessarily harsh. Does anyone agree, and if so, how do we propose this for deletion? (I obviously don't want to delete the templete nn-bio.) --Doc (?) 08:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that does strike me as biting the newbies a little, I'd support its demise on RfD. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. -- Kjkolb 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A7 tagging - offensive? 

message: Acording to the fair use doctrine part of the "excuse" to use copyrighted images is that it's a "low resolution" version right? So IMHO the current wording of I1 is a little misleading:
: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 clearly indicate that bigger images are prefered. However it should make an exception for fair use images (not sure how to best word it). Just though I'd mention it, recently I listed big redundant and orphan fair use image on speedy deletion, but instead of being deleted the big image was put into the articles the smaller image was used in and then the smaller image was deleted instead. Not gonna make a big deal out of that, the difference was not that big, but IMHO it might be in order to make it more clear that as long as they are big enough to show the subject in question a scaled down/cropped image should actualy be prefered over a bigger/full size version when claiming "fair use". --Sherool 20:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point.  In such cases the larger version should be deleted (even speedy deleted).  We actually need guidelines to define how big is big enough, and how big is to big.  If the smaller image is big enough, and the bigger one is to big, definately delete the bigger one if it's "fairuse".  I also think its a mistake to leave it up to indivudals to decide what's "high resolution", as everybody has their own definition. --rob 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly I would say that fair use images should not be any bigger than how they appear in the article. I think that would be a very good rule of thumb while not adding too much "instruction creep". So basicaly if an image is too big to use in full size (add "framed" atribute to test), then the image is too big and should be scaled down. That should be a fairly easy rule to follow. The particulars would probably be best discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use though. I just think CSD I1 should mention that "smaller is better" when it comes to fair use. --Sherool 21:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding CSD I1 and "fair use" 

message: Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting someone has just discovered an article which redirects to a stub template (Simpsons-stub). I don't know how you all feel about that here, but I suspect that there is never a valid reason for an article to redirect to a template or vice versa - perhaps the CSD should be extended to cover these weird cases? Grutness...wha? 00:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've speedied a number of cross-namespace redirects, usually those that fall under CSD R2 or R4. Clearly R2 is too restrictive: as a hypothetical example, there's probably no good reason to have a redirect from, say, the User talk: namespace to the Image: namespace, and I would not hesitate to speedy them. I wouldn't mind rephrasing CSD R2 to say something like "any cross-namespace redirect that does not serve a useful purpose", but I'm sure it will come under attack from two sides: those who believe that one should not rely too much on individual judgement will prefer a more specific version that can be interpreted narrowly; and those who are comfortable with trusting that admins have only the best and noblest of intentions will point to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for blanket permission to delete such redirects. --MarkSweep✍ 02:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read between the lines here, and hope the latter group holds sway in this case ;) Grutness...wha? 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possible type of speediable redirect?

message: There now is a shortcut to link to any single criterion, such as WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G1. Hope this helps. – ABCD✉ 02:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to individual criteria 

message: Due to the constant influx of these templates at WP:TFD and the nasty implications of their very exisitence, I propose the following:
* Any media licensing template which documents a license that clearly does not permit commercial use and has no linking pages from the Image: namespace which were created before May 19, 2005.
These templates surface daily, and once they exist, newbies tend to believe that they legitimize media uploads that are prohibited and are CSDable under I3. --Mm35173 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this. Not a proper use of speedy deleteion. DES (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you expand on that a little? Whilst I'm still thinking about this proposal, one use of the speedy deletions is to remove articles and other items that potentially damage the project. This is why we speedy unacceptably-licensed images and attack pages. These templates are certainly in that kind of category, and we would already speedy any image that the hypothetical templates turned up on, no? -Splashtalk 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be considered too big of a judgment call to be a speedy. ~~ N (t/c) 00:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty easy to see if it restricts itself to non-commercial usage. They almost always use exactly those terms. -Splashtalk 00:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - Criterion T1 

message: There are photographs which are on Wikipedia which have been uploaded under a restrictive license which does not permit commercial use after May 19, all of which currently meet CSD-I3. I tagged one such image, which was the official photo of the premier of a Canadian provence, with , which according to policy was the appropriate thing to do.
User:Bearcat disputed my action, saying that the photo was entitled to fair-use debate. I tend to agree at this point. Therefore, I propose the following exception to I3:
* Exception. If the use(s) of the image appear(s) to possibly satisfy fair-use criteria, instead tag with .
The template to be used would look something like:
--Mm35173 16:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like overkill.  Better just to clarify here that I3 doesn't apply to images with a fair use rationale. —Cryptic (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, but please remove the licence info from the image page in that case, since it'll only confuse things for some people. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed exception to I3 

message: Can anyone explain why CSD:A8 doesn't apply to blatant copyvio images?  I cannot for the life of me fathom why not.  For example, today someone uploaded "Image:Keeley.jpg", a topless model shot from page3.com with the Page 3 logo on it.  Tempshill 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no such thing as a blatant copyvio image, as they can be claimed as fair use. There are other criteria that do enable images to be speedy deleted however. thanks Martin 22:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's why blatant copyvio images should be speedily deleted and not just suspected or even likely copyvio images.  I would trust the admins to be able to make judgments on this matter, especially when the uploader isn't using one of the (very unacceptably overused) fair use tags.  I would add that there's not a lot of harm done if a blatant copyvio is deleted; the uploader just uploads it again from the website he stole it from, and perhaps adds a copyright tag the way he's supposed to.  Tempshill 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually Tony it was that clear cut, that is why I removed images from the proposal when I made it. Martin 16:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't A8 apply to blatant copyvio images, too? 

message: I just got a pretty bad neologism, tagged as , which as far as I can't tell isn't actually a CSD. The text was:
Mer. (mûr) n.
   1. Everything and nothing ... At the same time
   2. An expression of disdain or mockery, as in "Mer, you're fat, mer."
   3. or Mer, Palmer has no much time on his hands Mer
    * This word and it's usage originated at Carmel High School, in Mundelein, Il.
Which I think is worth getting rid of, and I'm deleting it as a G9, but any thoughts on neologisms? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism 

message: Should this be a CSD, or, more accurately, should it be SD'd?  I can see that G1 could be construed to apply, but I don't think it was intended to be used for talk pages.  The article talk page was on CSD for well over half an hour, so others must have hesitated.  Rich   Farmbrough 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Abaddon the Despoiler]]

message: Case G9 read "Pages eligible for deletion by other policies, and/or for which consensus for deletion has been achieved by other means."  It was added by Kim Bruning on  26 Aug 2005 with the comment "General - explicitly stating that CSD does not override all other policy and does not override local consensus. (this should be common sense, but there you go)".  It was not discussed on the Talk page but at the time, it seemed to make sense and we all let it go.  
This case is now being misused as justification for speedy-deletions far beyond the scope of anything we've discussed before.  For example, a user above made the argument that it can be used in conjunction with WP:NOT.  Another made an argument that it can be used against neologisms.  We have never allowed such things to be so casually speedy-deleted.  We have always required them to go through the community scrutiny of a full V/AFD discussion.
I've removed the clause so we can discuss it here for a while.  We might need a "common sense" speedy criterion but this is apparently not the right wording for it.  Rossami (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think G9 is necessary. Other policies provide for the deletion of other pages and other materials, and its inclusion here was simply a license to delete a page that someone wanted to delete at the time. -Splashtalk 22:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should ask questions like "has this been correctly speedied under G9". Rather, my intent was to point out that criteria for speedy deletion MUST NOT (see: RFC 2119) interfere with the normal operation of other parts of the wiki. Kim Bruning 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case G9 - "other policies" 

message: Categories created specifically to hold Userpage sub pages. 
The category name space is not a place for this. All username subpages should be either listified on a user sub-page and/or in their watchlist. They serve no encylopedic purpose and do not need to be categorized.  This does not pertain to the user templates or the various Wikipedian categories, only to such categories such as previous CFD cat :Category:User:Yar Kramer/Category! D.  «»Who?¿?meta 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well until they start adding ency cats to them, which is how they are found a lot of times. «»Who?¿?meta 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose Category rule 4 

message: I propose that insted of "listed in the category" for seven days, I4 say "has been tagged with a template that places it in the category" for seven days, aas this is easier to verify, and is how we actually do this anyway.
I also propose that instead of "not used in any article for seven days" (which there is no way to verify anyway) I5 should say "has been tqagged with a tempalte which places it in :Category:Orphaned fairuse images for at least seven days, and not curently used in any article."
Note that  and  currently place images in the above category. I suggest using them to documet the start of a 7-day "orphan" period. I am doing so currently. DES (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's ok for I5, but there is no requirement that I4 (no source) should be orphaned for 7 days. Maybe once the backlog has been cleared we could do this, but I dont think it is practical now. Justinc 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Acccording to the current wording of I4 Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been in the category for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded. They don't have to be orphaned for 7 days, they do have to be listed for 7 days. I am saying that rather than say they must have been in the category, since cats have no history that tells you when an article was included, we instead say that they must have  been tagged for this time period. Currently they are normaly include din the category by being tagged, so this is in normal cases not a functional change in how we work. DES (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yes thats fine. Justinc 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewording of I4 and I5 

message: * Oppose each and every extension, enlargement, or addition to CSD. These are bad solutions to serious problems; they destroy more than they protect. 
: NOTE: For the purpose of (VotingIsEvil) voting, my comment should always be counted as a vote opposing any proposal that gives any new latitude to speedy. Conversely, any proposal that narrows or restricts its scope has my support. 
: THIS IS A PERMANENT POSITION. DO NOT DELETE IT. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 22:58, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
::It is myu intent and thought that the above proposal neither expands nor contracts the scope of A7, but merely stabalizes it. In some of the examples it eould confirm a disputed application of A7, in others it would make it clar that an attempt was made to apply it improperly. The idea is to have the mean unchanged while reducing the varience, in statistical terms. DES (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose all speedy creep 

message: A large part of the difficulty with any speedy category is that they are rooted in argument that has internal contradiction.  
*They are intended with regard to nn-bios to avoid a five-day wait and a unanimous Afd resulting in delete - thus general princliple 1.
*However, during AfD and article can undergo expansion, becoming "worthy" of keeping, and we want to avoid placing the burden on the admin to do that expansion xemselves - thus all the other general princliples. 
Everything else (which I mostly agree with in principle) is to codify the push between these two, to strike a balance.  But since that balance is often highly contentious even in AfD, I think we're unlikely to formalize it here, other than as a LCD.  Thus this can only drive the "bar" lower, which (except for one) I think we do not want.
Having looked over the examples (thank you for those!) I'm now leaning further into the "trust the admin" zone.  If an article does not present credible evidence of notability I think it should be a speedy candidate. 
Strenghten VfU and clean of the vanity article page, but let's not touch the actual criterion.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the tension and the general purpose of my proposed principles. I point out that some people are currently arguing that any statemetn impling notability, "credible" or not, bars A7. I also point out that it is not solely a matter of admins. non-admins apply speedy tags, and non-admins can and do remove them again if they see them before an admin acts. Also it isn't so much a matter of not trusting admins, as giving them a better guideline follow, so that they know what we are trusting them to do -- then trusting them to follow it. I hope you are wriong that this is unable to get agreement except to drive the bar lower -- that is not my intentDES (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tension between Speedy and AfD

message: I disagree with the proposal listed above (except for the bits about assuming whether a claim is true or false), but rather than just unconstructively disagreeing with everything I'm going to make my own:
*A claim that a person is a member of any group (profession, occupation, etc.) is a statement of notability if:
**Membership in the group is not very common (Example: Not everyone's a rock musician.  Counterexamples: Everyone's a student at some point in their life, everyone in New York City is a resident of New York)
**It is possible for someone to be notable simply by being a member of that group (Example: Some professors are notable simply for being professors.  Counterexample:  No students are notable simply for being students).
*Any claim made in the article should be considered to be true unless it is so ludicrous that it couldn't possibly be so.
*Anyone may remove an A7 CSD tag providing they place the article on AfD.
Comments?  JYolkowski // talk 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter-proposal