Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Whose votes count?

How many edits must a user have made before his vote on this page is counted? 1? 10? 50? I'm assuming I should count everyone's votes, unless I hear otherwise. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

10 or less and/or very new accounts may be suspicious. Would it be possible to put the votes in a table, a la the jewish ethnocentrism VfD et al? --Mrfixter 19:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what those look like. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Fairly new accounts are generally discounted in deletion votes, since they are often suspected of having been created specifically for the purpose of the vote (i.e. sockpuppets), or if not, do not reflect the consensus of Wikipedians in any event, since they are likely not aware of relevant policies, nor part of the Wikipedia community. As regards a specific number? 10 edits or fewer is very suspicious. Editors with considerably more edits have also been discounted, if their edits appear to be solely for the purpose of voting on deletion votes. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The table looks like this [1]. --Mrfixter 22:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The invisible don't edit below this line line!

Ok, I thought I'd be smart and click on the [edit] link at the End section at the bottom, and put my entry there, so I did not see this html comment at all in the edit box:

<!-- Don't edit below this line, except to add categories and interwiki links. -->

The result was of course my entry went below that very line. How about putting right at the top something like Please do not click the edit link at the End, or, maybe move and change the comments to just below the End section like this:

== End == 

 <!-- Only edit *above* the == End == line just above to add an entry. --><br />
 <!-- Only edit below, *after these comments*, to add categories and interwiki links. --><br />
 <!--    Remember ALWAYS to alert the uploader of image via their talk page       --><br />
 <!-- Tell them their image may soon be deleted. You can use {{idw}} if you like. --><br />

-Wikibob | Talk 01:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I moved the comments below the == End == header. dbenbenn | talk 14:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 30

For some reason all the instances of "Autofellatio.jpg" have become "################" in the March 30 section. I can't find the specific edit that changed this, and it seems very odd. Anyone know what's up? TIMBO (T A L K) 08:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I seem to be going crazy or it was fixed. That was weird. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Markaci saves the day. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Queries

I have some queries on deletion of images.

  1. If I make a map and replace a copyrighted map with my free one, would I be at liberty to delete the old one on sight?
  2. What about works that I create while testing, (eg. I create some maps and often test the colours for suitability against the wiki colours)? Should I list it here or should I save everybody's time and delete it?

 =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:06, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Answers:
  1. No, you should list the old one on IFD instead.
  2. If you're the one who uploaded them, and no one else has used the images or included them in articles, then they are Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion and you can delete them. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also have a question. What if I upload an image, then I was told the image is not needed or will not be used. Can I request a speedy delete, since it not only it is an orphan, but I am the original uploader of that image? Thanks. Zscout370 19:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if no one else has included the image in any page, and no one else has modified the image or the image description page. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

New layout needed

I am unfortunately not sufficiently involved in this project to know exactly how to proceed with my idea as outlined below, but I hope someone who is might agree with me and follow up on the idea.

I think this page should be cleared of disputes.

They could be handled on subpages, in a similar way as the WP:RfA, and in my opinion better be separately listed on a page Wikipedia:Disputed proposals for deletion of images and media.

/Tuomas 09:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

This page needs an administrator or two to process old deletion nominations. Quadell stopped doing it recently (come back!). Since then, I've been doing it, but I'll be away for six weeks. To whoever takes over: just be very careful not to incorrectly delete an image, since deleting can't be undone. If you delete an image that's been pushed to the Commons, make sure all relevant versions have been pushed, not just the latest one. And avoid processing your own nominations. dbenbenn | talk 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DrippingInk (talk · contribs), together with at least one sockpuppet Drippinglnk (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses such as 64.231.113.36 (talk · contribs), hs been obsessively protecting a number of teeny-pop articles from attempts to improve and wikify them. He has, in the course of this, up-loaded a number of images. At first he didn't place templates on them, and when I asked him to do so he refused, and I listed them for deletion. I then found a couple of other images — one seemed clearly to be a copyvio, and I've listed it accordingly, and the other had a "fairuse" template, but no source. The user's history, as well as the lack of information, made me suspicious, and I asked him to supply information as to the source. Aside from his comments on my user page ([2]), he changed the photo's template to "GFDL". Now, I'm morally certain that this is unjustified; there's still no information about the photo's source, and it clearly wasn't taken by him. What do I do in this situation? Should I take it to copyvio, IfD, or what? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, DripppingInk asked me to take a look at this. I know nothing about it except for the with/With debate on AN/I. Which images are involved exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:23, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
The one I'm asking about here is Image:Gwen Stefani.jpg; the one that I've listed as a possible copyvio is Image:Avril Lavigne MoD.jpg, and the ones I placed at IfD are at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#May 10 (so far DrippingInk has only voted twice...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Right, thank you. He seems to believe he has supplied the source information, which he clearly hasn't, so perhaps there's a misunderstanding about what that is. I'll get back to him about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've written to him explaining about sources, tags, and fair use, and also suggesting that he use only one account and consider changing the way he responds to you. Judging by his latest note on your page [3], it has made no difference, but it's possible he posted that before reading my e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I hope that he starts to calm down (but there seem to be a lot of short tempers around at the moment; is it the time of year?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of SHOUTING and everyone seems to be a sockpuppet. I'm beginning to suspect the encyclopedia's being written by four people with 30,000 user names. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm SS, Snowspinner, and Kim Bruning; who are you? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion log

Is there a listing of deleted images somewhere? I don't want to have to slog through the general deletion log. JamesMLane 09:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Watermark

I was wondering if we can use a new two letter abbreviaton: WM. This is short for the term watermark. It is used to denote the use of a water mark in the image, like with images from Corbis or Getty Images. I wonder what do yall think about it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just use CV. No need to complicate. Superm401 | Talk 21:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I made substantial changes to the above section on the main page. Superm401 | Talk 21:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia

Current state:
English Wikipedia has these templates: Template:NowCommons, Template:Deletebecauseoncommons

The problem:
People are often not aware of Commons' existence and that leads to double uploads of the same image to multiple national Wikipedias. Most of the time, copyrigt, licence and source info is not preserved. That's why moving all free images not specific to a national Wikipedia to Commons is desirable. Cleaning up is made difficult, because:

  • In case a duplicate is found, it needs to be verified, that it's pixel-identical image, because image deletion cannot be

reverted with current version of MediaWiki (user_talk:helix84).

  • Deletebecause can be used only for images, where the name is identical with the one on Commons.

See also:
Look at these relevant pages before posting: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Images_moved_to_Commons, Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia, Template_talk:NowCommons, Template_talk:Deletebecauseoncommons, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/April_2005, Category:Images_to_be_moved_to_the_Commons, Category:NowCommons

Proposed policy:

  • Cancel NowCommons.
  • update Deletebecauseoncommons; warn that before deleting (examples of problems included)
  • write good usage instructions on its talk page, enforce clear and effective policy

File:Helix84.jpg helix84 15:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest to create pending deletion list for images moved to Commons similar to WP:IFD, so images will be alive for some times and several admins could review them. Comment and discussion about license could be placed here too. --EugeneZelenko 16:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you suggest to cancel both current templates in that case, too.
That'd be fine for en:, but what about other national Wikipedias? It's in the long run impossible to keep track on multiple international deletion lists. Most of them do not even have lists like WP:IFD. This problem concerns all, not just en:. What about creating such page on Commons and making templates on all Wikipedias pointing there? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 16:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should also discuss, if scaled-down versions of images are subject to deletion File:Helix84.jpg helix84 16:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a pending deletion list would be useful. I don't know what policies most other language versions have, but I don't think it's necessarily useful to try to make this policy a cross-wiki one. There have been objections in the past to removing scaled down images since the quality of manually scaled images is often better than the automatic scaling produced by the thumbnail feature. Perhaps a decision could be made when such images are listed for deletion about whether the quality is better for each image listed. Angela. 18:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, national Wikipedias are used to adopt rules of en: before they have their own rules. In this case, most images I listed for deletion because they're duplicate (and most of the time they missed information) were deleted by admins. I suggested to make this a cross-wiki policy, because it is a cross-wiki problem.
I agree on the scaled-down versions. File:Helix84.jpg helix84 18:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the {{NowCommons}} template. It's quite useful for marking an image as having been moved to the commons. Whether the image gets deleted is a completely different issue.

User:Helix84 seems to be proposing a change to the criteria for speedy deletion. If so, the discussion ought to happen at that talk page, not here.

I like Eugene's suggestion about making a fork of IFD especially for images moved to the Commons.

Finally, a comment. Technically, any image licensed under the GFDL that is pushed to the Commons is a copyvio. Our GFDL has disclaimers, the Commons doesn't, and the GFDL doesn't allow discarding disclaimers. dbenbenn | talk 19:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I mentioned the topic on criteria for speedy deletion with a redirect here.
Ad keeping the NowCommons: it's acceptable only in case the policy is clarified. It may be used to mark images, that weren't deleted after objections were raised.
Ad copyvio: I don't completely understand, can you explain in detail, please? What do you mean by discarding disclaimers, how is the disclaimer linked to the text of license and what does the disclaimer say that is unacceptable for Commons? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 20:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The template {{GFDL}} here ends with the line "Subject to disclaimers". Commons:Template:GFDL has no such line. Technically, if you push a GFDL image by someone else to the commons, you have to add that "Subject to disclaimers" sentence. It's a very nit-picky point.
There are similar issues with pushing Creative Commons licensed images, which require you to include the original title of the photo, and a link. Basically, to push someone else's work to the Commons correctly, you actually have to read the legal text of the licenses, which is a giant pain in the ass that no one bothers to do. dbenbenn | talk 00:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I surely would do that, have I known it before. Things like this have to be said in human speech, as you will agree that not many of us read the licenses. To be listed in usage instructions.
Is there a reason why the Commons template doesn't say that, or is there still a problem if it would? I'd say that Commons being a wiki just like Wikipedia should have the disclaimer for our legal protection, too. Doesn't it? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 00:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand that our license doesn't like removing disclaimers, but doesn't Commons allow for adding one? Anyway I would say that having the same image both here and on commons is redundant, and would have no objection to speedily deleting the one here (to avoid bureaucracy, mainly) iff the one on commons can legally stay there. Radiant_>|< 07:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Now I actually read those disclaimers, and they don't differ, apart from that Commons adds something little at the end. Is there still a problem or was your info outdated? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the Commons GNU template doesn't say subject to disclaimers... So again, is it a problem to add that? File:Helix84.jpg helix84 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I've now created Commons:Template:GFDL-en, which exactly mirrors Template:GFDL. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Err, isn't that a workaround rather than solution? I asked if it were a problem to change the original GFDL license, i.e. what consequences would it have? ~~helix84 12:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't understand what you meant. No, you can't add disclaimers to Commons:Template:GFDL, just like you can't remove them from Template:GFDL. Even if you could, it would be a bad idea to encourage people to use silly disclaimers in the future. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

by permission only

Could someone clarify what is meant with "by permission only" images no longer being accepted? Does that mean all images have to be either fair use or some free licence, or is it enough that other entities apart from wikipedia (commercial or non-) are allowed to use them under the same licence as wikipedia? --W(t) 17:00, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Jimbo's email specified only "by permission only". If the image is available to all reusers under the same license, it shouldn't be deleted immediately, even if the license isn't free. dbenbenn | talk 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:sl Unverified images

On Slovene WP we have a lot of unverified images. Is there any rule about deleting such images? TIA, --Klemen Kocjancic 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

You guys have to decide your own policy. dbenbenn | talk 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
Well, here is an idea. Contact the uploader of the image, ask where he/she got the image in question. Give them a few days, and if no response, put the image on IFD. Wait a week, then delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Many images in Category:Images for deletion

Hey yall. I noticed that many images have been in this category for ages. Do you think we could speedy delete most of them, if they are not listed on this page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

No. I plan to list them on this page in the next week. But they should get the normal community review before being deleted. dbenbenn | talk 3 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
If we speedy those images, we encourage people not to follow proper procedure and rob everyone of their fair say. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 22:21 (UTC)
Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Deleting previous versions of images

OK, I notice the pictures have the option of deleting previous versions. If so, I request this string of previous versions for an image, Image:Zscout370 ribbar.png:

  • (del) (rev) 08:54, 12 July 2005 . . Seeaxid (936 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
  • (del) (rev) 08:53, 12 July 2005 . . Seeaxid (1099 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
  • (del) (rev) 03:57, 12 July 2005 . . JacksonBrown (50927 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
  • (del) (rev) 03:56, 12 July 2005 . . JacksonBrown (50927 bytes) (Trying again)
  • (del) (rev) 03:55, 12 July 2005 . . JacksonBrown (1099 bytes) (Reverted to earlier revision)
  • (del) (rev) 03:51, 12 July 2005 . . JacksonBrown (50927 bytes) (Even more awards)

If any admins wants to do it, thanks, and if there is a better way to ask for this, let me know please. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Debate in the Watermelon article

There's a debate on the use of an image in the watermelon article that I thought some of you might be interested in. Watermelons were strongly associated with racism, as the text in the article mentions, for many decades in America. But should the watermelon article include a representative caricature of a black person eating a watermelon, that some find offensive? There's a strawpoll going on at Talk:Watermelon#Straw poll on watermelon caricature image. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting images to make way for identical image in wikipedia commons

We should probably add an explicit instruction that it is ok to speedy delete an image if it exists in the wikipedia commons. Thue | talk 17:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk: Speedy deletions for that — I don't think it's possible to change policy on this page. Deco 19:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There already was a section discussing that at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. They seem to agree. Thue | talk 20:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Care needs to be taken here we don't want to loose history, source or licenseing infomation about such images. Plugwash 15:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Has anyone ever answered this question anywhere? My guess is that many images have lost their history on moves, contrary to the GFDL. --Audiovideo 20:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The project page currently states that for images moved to Commons, they cannot be speedily deleted. RedWolf 04:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's not just the history that's being lost-- what about categorization? I have placed at least 1300 images in Category:U.S. history images. As these get moved to commons, this is going to be lost. Is this a good thing? -- Mwanner 23:26, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that is clearly a bad thing. I'm one of those Wikipedia contributors who has spent many hours hunting down public domain images from original 19th century and early 20th century sources, scanned, and uploaded them. As the history of this gets speedy deleted and someone else gets credit for the image simply by yoinking it from en: over to the commons, I find it rude, frustrating, and inappropriate. I suppose someone with thinner skin than I who wished to really make an issue of it could probably make a good case that this is a deliberate violation of GFDL, so that seems a very bad idea. -- Infrogmation 03:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
What also we could do is at the instruction page that tells people on how to upload images that if their images will be under these certain licenses, then can place their images at the Commons instead of here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The Upload file page has had a Commons message for some time. (SEWilco 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
Perhaps interwiki categorization should be dealt with in Commons. There are two general approaches to choose from: separate categories by language, or categorize by concept and translate those concepts. One way to separate by language would be to have separate Category namespaces for each language, while another way is to have a Category for each language which subordinate categories can then link to. I do not know if there are multilanguage abilities in Categories which can be used for the category-translation approach. Once Commons provides support for storing multilanguage categories, Image categories can be copied over. Interwiki linking of a Category is a separate problem from storing the information. (SEWilco 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
I am aware of several issues with Commons and history. If history could be copied over, the source details can be retained. However, the edits were made under en: licensing by people intending to contribute to en:, and their changes have to remain under the proper license. In my case, I would like to contribute more to Commons but my understanding of copyright often requires me to not load to Commons; it is fine with me if someone with a different interpretation loads to Commons but in that case although the records may give me credit they should not make it appear that I loaded to Commons, thus history can not be seamlessly copied over to Commons. (SEWilco 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
Other problems with moving to Commons is what to do with text in Image: and Image_talk: pages. Some Image: pages are elaborate. Image:North america terrain 2003 map.jpg This is not an issue when merely dealing with images which have nothing more than source information. (SEWilco 04:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

Orphan pages and userspace

Are images that are used solely in userspace considered orphans? I'm not talking about someone's photo of themselves, I'm talking about a subpage with a gallery of unused images – User:Evil Monkey/Nudity. I don't object to the images that are being rightfully used to illustrate articles, but those that aren't are just taking up space as vandalism bait. android79 00:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • By analogy with TfD yes, they'd be considered orphans (see the Holding Cell at the bottom). But I don't get into images much, so my analogy might not be accurate. -Splash 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If the user agrees to the deletion, then I see no problem. If they do not agree to the deletion, then we will get into a mess. Plus, there are some images people just only use in their userspace, such as photos of themselves. I, myself, have a few such images floating around. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Banned users

Do images created by banned users is a reason for deletion or no? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If the image was part of the reason for the ban, yes. Otherwise probably not. Whether a user has been banned does not really say much about that user's images and contributions. Ashmodai 20:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Pornography

Off subject, but I also noticed a lot of porn have been added and deleted from here. Is there wiki policy on porn? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of any specific policy about porn, but the general consensus seems to be that pornography (by the dictionary definition) should be avoided, whereas purely educational nude pictures are legitimate (images depicting sexual practices in full detail, otoh, would usually be classified as porn).
I am not sure, but I think Wikipedia is a bit more liberal than US American law is about nudity (which isn't all that difficult anyway :P). Ashmodai 15:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between artistic nude images or scientific pictures and pornography. Porn isn't necessary and doesn't serve any useful purpose on wikipedia, because porn can never be anything but pron - that't just the definition of the word. Webster's Dictionary describes it as "material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement" - nothing more. That's why porn is not needed or welcome on Wikipedia. --Mütze 18:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Go figure. The problem with that definition is the definition itself. Many sexually conservative people consider even the slightest amount of frontal nudity pornographic. Others consider very graphic pictures simply "artistic" rather than pornographic. If the decision whether something is pornographic or not would be as simple as you make it sound, it wouldn't be such a hot topic.
I guess the best criteria we can use for Wikipedia is whether a particular picture conveys information or not. In many cases sexually explicit photographs could easily be replaced by more neutral diagrams or sketches which convey the same information without being as graphic. I guess the problem is that photographs (just like anything really) cannot be entirely NPOV. Ashmodai 19:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The pictures I seen deleted were pictures of sexual acts and of porn stars naked, mostly as copyvios. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia contains an image that has been described as
the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses.... It isn't that she is naked and stretched out on a bed—no, it is the attitude of one of her arms and hand. If I ventured to describe the attitude, there would be a fine howl.... [In the museum] I saw young girls stealing furtive glances at her; I saw young men gaze long and absorbedly at her; I saw aged, infirm men hang upon her charms with a pathetic interest. How I should like to describe her—just to see what a holy indignation I could stir up in the world—just to hear the unreflecting average man deliver himself about my grossness and coarseness, and all that.
I suggest that those who would fain keep their fancies pure avoid viewing this image. (It is a painting by Titian and the above description is by Mark Twain). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Exactly my point. And about the problem of where to draw the line: Simple. Just make sure that the origin of the picture is always clear. If it comes from a porn site, like Image:Bukkake-5.jpg this one (soft porn example, I've seen others on Wikipedia) obviously does, it is porn. If on the other hand a non-pornographic source and a non-pornographic intention can be verified, the picture should be permitted.
And now please don't tell me, you can't "draw the line" when describing what is defined as a porn site. You can. Mütze 13:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Question: photograph of sculpture from the AIC

I figured I'd ask here, since the people here are probably more familiar with licensing concerns than the folks at the Wikipedia:Help Desk. I've taken a photo that I'd like to upload of a Giacometti sculpture, since the article doesn't really show much of his work. However, I can't find anything on the Art Institute of Chicago's website explaining whatever copyright situation there may be, and no amount of reading on copyright issues (here or elsewhere) seems to be helping to clarify. I see similar photos released under GFDL, but it seems like this may not be allowable. If GFDL is actually appropriate, I'll just put it up on the Commons. Thanks much for any help! —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Alas, since Giacometti only died in 1966, his sculptures are still copyrighted. Did you take your photo from a public place, or from within the museum? If it was from a publicly-accessible area, I think it can go on the Commons. Otherwise, put it here and tag it {{GFDL-self}}{{fairuse}}. dbenbenn | talk 16:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
No matter where you took it from or whether it's publicly accessible, your image is an infringing derivative work. Fair use is reasonable, but don't tag it GFDL or put it on commons. Superm401 | Talk 20:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for the input. I was fairly sure it would be problematic, but since there were already a couple of photos up that must be similarly infringing, it seemed worth a shot. The photo[5] was taken from within the museum, which I already felt slightly guilty about (sadly). I don't think the article will benefit enough for it to be worth uploading under fair use, unless there's some specific verbiage you can give me that will keep it off of IFD. Thanks again! —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can. Add the {{fairuse}} tag along with the following:
"This image is a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. However, the image is a fair use of the coyrighted work. It's purpose is educational, and in conjunction with [[<ARTICLE NAME>]] it helps advance education, creating something beyond the original. Furthermore, the work has negligble effect on the value of it's sculpture, or duplicates of the sculpture. This is because the image is an insufficient substitute to viewing the sculpture. Because the derivative work is published but not displayed publicly, the right of public performance is not infringed at all, more evidence that the effect on the work's value is little." That should keep it of IFD. I'll watch the image and vote for you on IFD if it shows up as well. Superm401 | Talk 07:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Do you think it is a good idea to tell users not to blank images that are up for IFD? My reasoning is that, just like with VFD, people have to see what they are voting on before they cast their vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion procedure

I'd like to help out with the janitorial tasks related to this page. However, it seems a bit daunting at first. What's the established procedure? Any pointers to write-ups would be most welcome. Thanks, --MarkSweep 22:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to help too once I get the adminship mop. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The instructions at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Instructions for administrators say it all, as far as I can tell. Help is appreciated! dbenbenn | talk 23:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting images that violate the nudity policy

I don't know how this is done, but I wanted to let someboday know that the image in the Samantha Fox article violates the nudity policy and should be deleted. Ksnow 13:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Ksnow

There is no "nudity policy". dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not censored for minors, a majority of the purely porn images that have been uploaded have been deemed copyright violations. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The image in question, however, is not purely porn and is safely in the realm of fair use. ¦ Reisio 23:51, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
I think your talking about the DVD cover, right. Well, that's fair use since that is how the DVD cover is depicted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Magazine cover. ¦ Reisio 00:00, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
Ok, Fair use. However, is it being used in an article at all? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read the first message in this section by Ksnow. ¦ Reisio 00:24, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
Still, wouldn't it be ideal to replace this with a more clothed version to avoid unnecessarily shocking people? ~~ N (t/c) 23:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, that could be done. Here is an example which I liked to bring up. We have an article called dildo, the sex toy. We have to have pictures to show what dildos look like, but we really do not have to have a photo of a dildo being used. While I do see Nickptar's point very clearly, there are some things we have to show without any bariers, such as clothing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that an explicit photo on dildo is probably appropriate, but one on a porn-star article is gratuitous unless it's a really famous shot (like Lenna, although that's not explicit). People can get the idea from a clothed photo. ~~ N (t/c) 12:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Obscene images

I think we could use a short line at the top discouraging people from listing every single image they see that shows more skin than a picture of a nun. Comments? ¦ Reisio 21:50, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Yup. It doesn't happen often but is annoying. ~~ N (t/c) 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah the standard knee-jerk "they must be prudes" reaction. The truth is a lot of obscene images DO deserve deletion because they are unencyclopedic, explicitly sexual, and a better non-sexual, encyclopedic image exists. Agriculture 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
True, but this is about images that are nominated for deletion solely because of nudity. ~~ N (t/c) 23:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it's about obscene images. Such as this one which are overtly and inappropriately sexual. Agriculture 00:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not "overtly and inappropriately sexual." It depicts, in as unpornographic a manner possible, the subject of the article from which it is linked. Not every image of sexuality is by definition obscene or pornographic, as we discussed at length the first two times we voted on this and similar images. Exploding Boy 02:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Obsecnity is not a reason for deletion. The only reason why we got rid of the first autofellatio image is that a fair use image (the one being deleted) was taken and the old one was a copyvio. Most images of porn stars we had on here, we got rid of because of clear copyright violations. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I think they probably are mostly prudes, but I'm confident this suggestion is motivated solely by a desire to waste less time and resources. I'm only suggesting something like a link to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and/or Wikipedia:Profanity, possibly a mention that there is basically no "nudity policy" (to quote the uninformed user's topic preceding this one), or something to the effect that an image that isn't G-rated isn't automatically unfit. Thinking about it now, I find it odd that those two articles are not already linked with a mention that they should be read before listing anything. ¦ Reisio 00:13, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

I know my own standards for an adult forum, but I would like to know a few things from the any-gross-act picture-is-encyclopedic crowd:

  1. is there any standard at all on Wiki?
  2. if so, what is it?
  3. if not, what about the possibility that this encourages such acts similar to those stupid trick shows that encouraged people to do stupid, even dangerous, stunts to be on TV or to get their 2 min. of fame?
  4. if not, address all the potential issues, such as real life depictions of wife beater, raping someone, child abuser, suicide, sick sex (which I think File:Autofellatio 2.jpg crosses the line into)? At what point, if any, does a picture of a murder become too graphic? Should we pick the really graphic pictures of terrorist beheading?
  5. address the encouragement for such images to proliferate on Wiki
  6. address what happened to the first vote at here. To quote, another similar picture voted on earlier was "overwhelmingly been defeated by a much larger body of voters in a ratio of slightly over 80% against its inclusion to slightly under 20%, for it. As others have pointed out, that photo was one about which even the rather admirably permissive Jimbo Wales had declared: "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline." --Noitall 01:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I could make I think some useful responses to those, but I am not of the any-gross-act picture-is-encyclopedic crowd. ¦ Reisio 02:04, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
I did not mean to be confrontational with that statement; it refers to my assertion that there are such things as grossly obscene pictures and that some think that such things are ok or even encyclopidic. I do not mean to represent that anyone who answers my questions falls into such a category. --Noitall 02:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Sure there's a standard on Wikipedia. It's consensus. There was consensus that the previous image be deleted and no consensus on the autofellatio pic. Articles about rape and domestic abuse shouldn't show the acts themselves because they aren't about the techniques of rape or abuse, but could show the results of such acts. Death, lynching, and beheading should show various cadavers. As in all things, consensus will determine the level of discretion (keeping the pic small or "below the fold"). --Tysto 02:47, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Any image may be submitted for deletion; often, pornographic articles are orphans that are not thought to be informational or useful (due to camera angle, better replacements, etc.), or are clear copyright violations, and so will be deleted. But no image should be deleted on the basis of "obscenity". Courts have ruled that the standards of obscenity are set by local communities, and if we cannot conform to all of them (and we can't), then I don't see why we would should conform to just some of them - how would we choose which ones? Deco 05:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The obvious answer to any allegation of 'obscenity' is that as an encyclopaedia the one thing we are committed to above all others is Neutral Point of View, and any decision on how obscene something is is inherently POV. --Ngb 07:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That is a weasly kind of statement. That is like saying "Everything is relative!" and fails for the same reason purely relativistic arguments fail. There must be some standard of decency on Wikipedia or it will become a pornographic website, and end up being banned from most locations and no longer fulfill it's role as an encyclopedia. The first and foremost thing that as an encyclopedia we must ensure is that articles and images are encyclopedic. There is already some clear guidance towards what is obscene, though I will admit it does need to be enlarged. In general overt depictions of sexual acts should not be photographs, but illustrations, furthermore it is officially stated that

Sometimes, a photograph may be considered offensive or in poor taste, for example, if the article is about parts of the human anatomy, such as breast, penis, or clitoris. In those cases, a stylized photograph or drawing may be the way to go.[6]

In the case of the Autofellatio image, there is already a drawing, so the hardcore pornographic image is inappropriate as it adds nothing to the article, is needlessly in poor taste, and ultimately unencyclopedic. Agriculture 07:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
My point is more that coming to consensus on an issue of POV such as what represents obscenity is near to impossible. You clearly think that the autofellatio image is obscene -- it offends your standards of morality and decency. I, on the other hand, don't think it's obscene (or, for that matter, pornographic). How do we resolve this?
I agree that there is no need for gratuitous use of nudity or sexual images: in fact, I have recently removed such images from the Paz Vega article. However, in that case there was no need to use such images: alternatives are obviously available, and there's no reason in the content of the article to use imaged of nudity. But I don't see why there should be a problem with an article on a sexual topic being illustrated with a sexual image. --Ngb 07:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The page you quoted isn't marked as an official policy or guideline that has consensus. Also, the pages it gives as examples do have photographs; multiple ones on 2 of them. --Mairi 08:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Consensus has and is so far upholding that though, see some of the other images up for deletion (such as hand job, 69, etc). Agriculture 08:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that the fact that some sexual images have been listed for deletion by our self-appointed moral guardians represents a good reason for listing other sexual images for deletion. --Ngb 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice knee-jerk reaction, others disagree with you so you feel the need to assign a derogatory label of "self-appointed moral guardians". Please, stick to the facts, speaking of which here is some current "case law" where there is no objection to the deletion of needlessly pornographic images being deleted because a more encyclopedic illustration exists,
Consistancy is called for, so similar images should also be deleted. Agriculture 08:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not a knee-jerk reaction: it's a considered opinion. You and other editors believe that these images should not be shown on Wikipedia because you think they're 'obscene'. That implies a moral judgement, and is therefore directly in opposition to WP:NPOV, the founding principle of Wikipedia. The only criterion here should be 'is the image illustrative of the content of the article'? --Ngb 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Labeling a group of contributors as "self-appointed moral guardians" is borderline personal attack. It is in every essence a knee-jerk reaction "people have a different viewpoint, therefor I must label them in a negative fashion". We believe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia because they are unencyclopedic, other images exist which do perfectly well, while still following common decency. It is in every essence following WP:NPOV, it is portraying the subject manner in a way which is accessible to the largest group of people without exposing others to hardcore pornography. Are you aware that distributing hardcore pornography to minors is a violation of federal law, and the state law of Flordia?, this violates Wikipedia's basic test for profanity. The only criterion should be how encyclopedic the image is, not if it is illustritive or not. Agriculture 08:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Question: what's the difference between "encyclopedic" and "illustrative"? I mean, shouldn't an image in an encyclopedia BE illustrative, and shouldn't an illustrative image BE encyclopedic? Really I think that's two words for the same thing, right? Or at least it is when concerning "the ideal image", which is what we are seeking to obtain and maintain. GarrettTalk 09:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Do the Florida and US laws apply to all nude pictures or just ones appealing solely to the prurient interest, without redeeming artistic or educatory value? Does it apply only to knowing distribution, or does it require all websites to use an adult verification system? Also, regarding the earlier statement on terrorist beheadings, we do have Image:NickBergDead.png. ~~ N (t/c) 12:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
If you can make a justification for these images being unencyclopaedic that doesn't involve you saying 'I think they are obscene' or a phrase which reduces to its equivalent, I suggest you do so. 'I think it's obscene' is not a useful criterion for deleting an image. --Ngb 11:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
A image is illustritive if it shows the subject in question, for an example of an image which is illustrative but not encyclopedic (other than the images in question for deletion), the example of the the topless girls before the bridge which was recently deleted is a good one, it shows the bridge but in an unencyclopedic way. Unencyclopedic images are those which add nothing over images which are more shocking. As to why the current image in question is unencyclopedic, it is a photograph which falls under hardcore pornography. It's a photographic depiction of an explicit sexual act, and thus against the law in the state where the servers are hosted. Not all nudity is against the law, to my knowledge it only requires adult verification systems for hardcore pornographic content. Agriculture 16:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I've reviewed Florida law, under Florida Title XLVI Chapter 847 Section 011, it is a third degree felony to distribute photographs of sexual acts in such a way that they are available to minors. Without an age check, such photos are a felony, and could cause Wikipedia to be shut down. Agriculture 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
If this is the case then obviously the image will have to be removed, since Wikipedia content has to comply with the laws of Florida. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if the law is as open and shut as you imply. In particular, it seems strange to me that this was never mentioned on the previous occasions when the image was IFDed, or when Image censorship or Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images were under discussion. Perhaps it was simply overlooked. However, I think we would need a proper legal opinion on this before making any decisions based on it.
Putting aside the issue of legality, you say the image is unencyclopaedic because 'it is a photograph which falls under hardcore pornography'. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean 'because I think it is obscene'? --Ngb 18:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I can go to the public library in my hometown in Florida and look at pictures of naked men and women.
I recall seeing a variety of sexual acts in 5th grade at my elementary school in Florida for "Human Growth and Development". It was a required class. ¦ Reisio 22:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
I think Agriculture is right, we are violating Florida law. The law, which can be seen here [7], says in the first section:
"1)(a) Any person who knowingly sells, lends, gives away, distributes, transmits, shows, or transmutes, or offers to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, or transmute, or has in his or her possession, custody, or control with intent to sell, lend, give away, distribute, transmit, show, transmute, or advertise in any manner, any obscene book, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, newspaper, comic book, story paper, written or printed story or article, writing, paper, card, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, figure, image, phonograph record, or wire or tape or other recording, or any written, printed, or recorded matter of any such character which may or may not require mechanical or other means to be transmuted into auditory, visual, or sensory representations of such character, or any article or instrument for obscene use, or purporting to be for obscene use or purpose; or who knowingly designs, copies, draws, photographs, poses for, writes, prints, publishes, or in any manner whatsoever manufactures or prepares any such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character; or who knowingly writes, prints, publishes, or utters, or causes to be written, printed, published, or uttered, any advertisement or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, stating, or purporting to state, where, how, of whom, or by what means any, or what purports to be any, such material, matter, article, or thing of any such character can be purchased, obtained, or had; or who in any manner knowingly hires, employs, uses, or permits any person knowingly to do or assist in doing any act or thing mentioned above, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who, after having been convicted of a violation of this subsection, thereafter violates any of its provisions, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."
What do yall think? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you've done very well to battle against those commas!--fuddlemark 01:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I also brought this up in the Wikipedia IRC room. While some tried to interpret the law, I think the Wikilawyers should read the laws and see what do they think what we should do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it doesn't apply to this situation on a handful of levels. ¦ Reisio 03:13, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
Well, if users begin to cite laws to justify what they did, then that usually will get people like me to find the law and find out what it says word for word. Well, lets see how this one turns out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should not make any independent policy judgement based on this law; its meaning may appear clear, but without the context of precedent defining words like "obscene" in a legal sense, we can't be sure. I agree that Mediawiki's legal people should tell us what they think. Deco 05:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Part b:

(b) The knowing possession by any person of three or more identical or similar materials, matters, articles, or things coming within the provisions of paragraph (a) is prima facie evidence of the violation of said paragraph.

makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia is guilty of this. Agriculture 05:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
There has to be a standard of decency. Those opposed to censorship all make valid points and I too am opposed to most censorship. However, if those who claim they are opposed to all censorship, then why bother to revert obscene vandalism, why can't an article use the word "fuck" in it every sentence? At what point do you draw the line? No doubt that some of the pictures and a few articles violate the Florida statues.--MONGO 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
There has to be a standard of decency. Those opposed to censorship all make valid points and I too am opposed to most censorship. However, if those who claim they are opposed to all censorship, then why bother to revert obscene vandalism, why can't an article use the word "fuck" in it every sentence? At what point do you draw the line? No doubt that some of the pictures and a few articles violate the Florida statues.--MONGO 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
There can't be 'a standard of decency' other than what is forced upon us by the laws of Florida, because all our opinions about what content constitutes 'decent' or 'obscene' material are precisely that, opinions, and to valorise one over another would be in direct contravention of WP:NPOV. We revert vandalism because it is unencyclopaedic. An article with 'fuck' in every sentence would most likely be unencyclopaedic (although note we have a good article at Fuck) and/or violate WP:NPOV. The difference with the autofellatio image is that it is illustrative of an article about autofellatio -- so if you contend that the image is unencyclopaedic then you are contending that the article is unencyclopaedic, but that's a different debate entirely. --Ngb 07:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Then you agree that there is a standard. The question is where is the pain threshold that ultimately will make Wikipedia THE most respected source of information. It won't be achieved without some level of standards.--MONGO 07:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Erm, how do you get 'then you agree that there is a standard' from my statement 'there can't be a standard'? Let me be clear. There cannot and should not be any 'standard of decency' other than that which we are forced to adopt by the laws of Florida, because to have any such standard would be a direct violation of WP:NPOV. Where there is no legal bearing responsible editors should refrain from peddling their own standards of obscenity. --Ngb 07:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Like Deco said, "obscene" is not defined (and cannot be defined - it is in the eye of the beholder); but that is only the most glaringly obvious of many holes in this accusation. ¦ Reisio 07:37, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Lynching

I have no problem with the odd sexual image. No one was hurt in the making of those images. But I find the various images on the lynching pages horrific. In my mind there is a huge difference between voluntarily demonstrating a sexual act (which the discussion above was about), and brazenly displaying someone's murder. It seems like a overwhelming breach of someone's human rights to show photos of their execution on our encyclopedia.

Most people would agree that to be killed is worse than to be raped. So would those who argue for the appropriateness of the photo on the lynching page (a 16-year-old being lynched) be equally happy if the image was of their 16-year-old family member being raped?

I don't think I'm arguing for censorship — I'm not saying the images should be illegal — I'm just saying that it's extremely bad taste to display those images in our encyclopedia.

Ben Arnold 08:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. It is a service to noone to censor images of human rights abuses, and to hide the horror of horrific acts. Those who lynch or massacre should not have their crimes censored as unpleasant, but exposed for what they are.--Pharos 08:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_discussion/Archive_2&oldid=1137413616"