Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 13
2009 May 15 >

14 May 2009

[edit]

The discussion has now been relisted, and notice as described above given [1] [2], [3], [4] Erik9 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, links to the TFD discussion will not be added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Erik9 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:R from other capitalisation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Redirects from other capitalisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Did not follow any of the suggested remedies. Deleting this could break features of Wikipedia.

  • I'm also concerned about the actual closing. That result was pulled out of his ... (hat). Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only a simpler redirect to the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}.
  • But I'm the lonely keep — and gave a detailed enumerated discussion:
    1. The template provides an explanation for the redirect purpose, so that the redirect won't be carelessly removed.
      • There are at least 27 redirects to this template, indicating wide usage by editors.
    2. The eponymous category is used by category intersection software (such as Cat Scan), and more generally by program-assisted editing software.
    3. The Unprintworthy category is required for CD archive generation, and *** MUST NOT *** be removed!
    4. Created in 2004 by the eminent Docu (talk · contribs), one of many such long-standing features of Wikipedia.
    5. The template and related categories have survived numerous XfD, as far back as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005#Template:R from alternate name and others.
    6. "Useless" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.
      • The original nominator admits not knowing about Deletion Policy.
      • The nomination was placed in the wrong XfD queue.
    7. The primary rationale given so far is that some editors are unhappy that non-administrators must use a longer process to move over these redirects (Wikipedia:Requested moves). That is considered a "Good Thing", as this inhibits move wars!
  • In fact, the deletion decision did not address the latter concern, merely replaced adding a template with adding a category. Same effect, without the explanatory text.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure was in line with the consensus; none of your points demonstrates why the closure was incorrect. We do not have to consult the entire community for a change of this magnitude—it's not that signficant. Your views above on the validity of the template were presented in the XfD, and were rejected. Consensus was followed. seresin ( ¡? )  23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Editors supporting the deletion of the template argued that
    1. The continued addition of the template to redirects served to obstruct legitimate pagemoves to the redirects edited, since non-administrators cannot move articles over redirects having more than one revision. It was observed that such moves could be accomplished through WP:RM; however, convenience in conducting pagemoves is regarded as a sufficiently important consideration to permit ordinary editors to perform moves in most cases, instead of limiting the move function to administrators. It was argued that a template should not be utilized as a back-door mechanism to restrict pagemoves to WP:RM.
    2. The addition of the template to redirects, and consequent obstruction of pagemoves, provided negligible benefits in terms of navigational value.
    3. Only by actual deletion of the template could its further addition to redirects be prevented. Merely redirecting Template:R from other capitalisation to Template:R unprintworthy would allow the subsequent usage of the former template. To prevent the creation of > 260,000 red-links, the deletion of the template absolutely requires that edits be made to the redirects in which it is transcluded.
  • Furthermore, since Template:R unprintworthy's sole function is to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to redirects, preceded by an explanation of the category's purpose which essentially duplicates the description provided at the category page itself, I concluded that it would be more efficient to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects directly to the redirects, rather than create > 260,000 transclusions of Template:R unprintworthy (which currently appears on less than 3,000 redirects). Erik9 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query
      1. Did you not understand -- in terms of number of edits -- that adding any category to the redirects has the same effect as adding a template to the redirects?
        • That is, the edit count increases from 1 to 2, and moves over those redirects require an administrator?
        • How did your closure remedy that complaint?
      2. Where did you get the idea that the redirect templates and their categories provide "navigational value", rather than administrative value, pursuant to {{Wikipedia category}}?
      3. But this argument is true of the Template:R unprintworthy itself! Your argument is fallacious on its face.
      4. The logical conclusion of your assertion is that redirect templates can be replaced by their bare categories:
        1. In that case, what is the difference between adding Template:R unprintworthy and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? It only is "more efficient" assuming the template adds less value than the category. Otherwise, the efficiency is the same: one (1) edit.
        2. Are you arguing that all 3,000 Template:R unprintworthy also be replaced by the category?
        3. Was this an attempt to somehow distinguish between original Unprintworthy redirects, and deletions of other redirect templates that are also Unprintworthy?
    • Therefore, the close itself was not valid. It appears, in addition to pulling the solution out of your ***, you didn't understand the arguments (and lack of valid argument) presented in the discussion. Many "votes" had a "useless" argument. A "vote" is not a substitute for discussion.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist so fuller attention can be paid. I would recommend ensuring that there is adequate attention to any discussion at CfD or RfD that actually does have broader implications. Thjis is certainly one of them. RfC or the VP is the place, or at least a wider attention notice. Erik's argument may be right, but it deserves fuller attention than here or CfD. DGG (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though every TFD discussion has "broader implications" insofar as the templates whose removal is being considered may be transcluded on a large number of pages, TFD closures are not ordinarily invalidated on the basis of a lack of extensive, project-wide notice. Nonetheless, if the editor requesting this deletion review actually believed that the TFD discussion would have benefited from broader publicity, he could have posted notices about it at WP:AN, WP:VP, template:cent, and other neutral locations, then mentioned this action in his "keep" comment, and requested that the closure of the discussion be delayed. For William Allen Simpson to request the invalidation of a TFD discussion in which he participated on the basis of inadequate notice, when he refused to remedy the problem at the time, is blatantly obstructionist. Erik9 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and initiate a wider discussion at the Village pump if required pending the fix of MediaWiki T16323. The code changes related to bug # 14323 broke one of the more visible aspects and functions of the redirect information templates.
    It's clear many of those involved in the original discussions who "!voted" delete had absolutely no idea what the {{R ...}} redirect templates actually did and many freely admitted this fact in both the CfD and TfD. See "discussion" at Bot owners' noticeboard (permalink), CfD 2009-05-04, and TfD 2009-05-04.
    While I believe it was inappropriate to initiate a CfD and then TfD for a category and template where the editors involved in the discussion had no idea what its real purpose actually was, at this point I see no reason not to assume good faith for the editors involved in those discussions because these templates are very old and their actual functions have not been well documented.
    On the other hand, even after the discussion in the TfD and on the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink), which is still ongoing, I'm having a hard time with the reasoning Erik9 has presented for closing this particular TfD the way he did.
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is not possible to simply "delete" this template and its category. Both are used by different parts of the Wikipedia project for a number of purposes, none of which have anything to do with the original complaint of "this template won't let me move a page over a redirect", which is not a fault of the template itself but rather an issue of MediaWiki's design. If there is an issue with subsequent edits to a redirect page not allowing a page to be moved back, this is something that needs to be addressed on the Village pump and with the MediaWiki developers. That is not a valid reason to target a widely used template and category for deletion. The page move issue is clearly much larger in scope than only pages that use this particular redirect template and attempting to delete one template as a temporary or Band-Aid fix is certainly not the way to go about solving it.
    This template is also very much in use by editors who add it by hand as well as with automated tools. Deleting the template itself, which is what Erik9 apparently was trying to do after he closed the TfD is simply not possible. See Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Redirects from other capitalisations
    As I stated in the TfD and on AN, if there really is a valid reason for deleting this template, this is an issue that must be presented in a forum where there will be more community involvement. It is quite obvious that the earlier discussion was made up of only the "regulars" present on WP:BOWN, WP:CFD, and WP:TFD. Another editor I'd very much like to see involved in a larger discussion is Lenoxus as he spent a great deal of time standardizing these templates.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main problem seems to be related to the way one of the bots operated when adding this template to existing redirects.
Whether we apply the template or categories directly, I don't think it matters that much (I wonder if the template doesn't pre-date categories).
In any case, it seems a waste of resources to edit the redirects to change between templates and categories. -- User:Docu
  • I believe the template does predate categories. Categories were implemented around mid 2004 and this template was created prior to that. I'd be interested in seeing the revision history on the original category as well since it was renamed in 2006.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Docu, you created it in 1994, before templates or categories were done, using [[MediaWiki:R_for_alternate_capitalisation]] and [[Special:Whatlinkshere/R_for_alternate_capitalisation]]. (Memory is the first thing to go, good thing we have some edit histories to look back upon. But the histories are getting rather longer as time goes by, compared to 2003-2005.)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AsiaPulse News (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedied but I was not notified to object. It needs to go to AFD. It is a source used in over 30 articles in Wikipedia. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
  • It's customary to contact the deleting administrator first before making a listing here. That doesn't appear to have happened here. If there was a discussion, can you please point it out; if there was not, can you please explain why you omitted that step?
  • Notification is encouraged, not required, for pages nominated for deletion.
  • Based on your contributions, you were not online during the period between nomination and deletion, so it would have been irrelevant whether or not you were notified.
Holding off on !voting until you reply. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went by the book. No assertion of notability. Law type! snype? 11:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only PRODs are overturned on any contest. The nominator is the author of the article in question, and so he can't remove a hypothetical CSD tag himself, which means it was not a "legitimately-[sic]contested" speedy. seresin ( ¡? )  23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done so, and thereby made it a legitimately-contested speedy. So this hardly invalidates my remark.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
file:Underground entrance.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Someone claimed that since the photographer doesn't own the copyright to the statue that the file is not free. This is ridiculous. Even if the law somehow fails to acknowledge the freedom of panorama, it is obviously still licensable as fair use and it was entirely inappropriate to delete it.  –radiojon (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the closing admin. I agree that the law is ridiculous, and I would love it if the U.S. changed its laws to match those of Germany, where any photo of a public statue in a public place is acceptable. But we have to deal with the law as it is, not as we would want it to be. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh - This is verging on disruptive. Nominator refused to comment at the discussion, instead simply undid the nomination twice. [5] [6] Radiojon did not respond to my message on their talk page asking them to comment [7], then commented after the file was deleted [8], and then started edit-warring with a bot account [9] [10] [11]. Now someone has created an SPA just to make a strange !vote above. I don't know why this person (or persons) is acting so strangely, but please let this discussion be the end of it. Endorse deletion as an appropriate response to the lack of responses to the nomination, as well as an accurate interpretation of copyright law and WP policy. It is not a free image, and it is not a fair-use image. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This possibly the most bizzare discussion I've even been involved in here. First, I have nothing to do with whatever was at UMBRELLA Consulting. Check the history of this page and you will see that someone else failed to follow the template for adding a listing here. If your vote to endorse the image deletion was due to this strange insertion, please reconsider based on this fact, maybe just start over again below. With this edit, I am correcting that user by moving that discussion below this section with a proper header.

As for the image itself, deletion of the image is baseless, and therefore unexpected. I've never dealt with this process before so forgive me for not knowing the best way to handle it. I undid the auto-closing of the discussion because the discussion was not done yet, and the bot clearly did not realize that, just as I did not realize there was another way to handle it by coming here. (What exactly is an SPA?) Yes, WP:FOP states that statues have not been covered under panorama in the US yet, but there is no discussion of that under other image-use pages (like WP:IUP), so I had nothing to refer to until I found WP:FOP after the fact. Even then, it still qualifies under fair use (see WP:FU#Images, which explicitly uses statues and an example), and a legitimate rationale can certainly be provided for use in the article about the place where it is located (considering the statue would not warrant an article of its own to use the image in). I am creating a section to discuss the statues at Underground Atlanta #Statues, such as their authors, titles, and meaning.

Lastly, it appears that a user is trying to discredit me with things that have nothing to do with this situation. First, I have in no case ever changed the content of anyone else's comments! What is cited above was to move a request from "Uncontroversial requests" to "Incomplete and contested requests", because I was contesting it. WXIA-TV was reverted due to vandalism by an anonymous user who kept deleting correct information and replacing it with incorrect info. The user also appears to accuse me of being or having a sock puppet, which makes no sense whatsoever, and is absolutely false. There is no basis in any sort of fact, and I don't even understand which other user is being referred to. Making accusations to the contrary (regarding any of these three things mentioned by the same user) is completely disingenuous and does not help further this discussion at all.

In any case, please consider undeletion based entirely on its merits, and not any of this other crap that has been thrown into the discussion.

The fair-use rationale is as follows:

  1. There is obviously no free equivalent
  2. A picture obviously cannot replace a statue
  3. Only the front side of the statue is used
  4. It is permanently displayed on a public street
  5. It is encyclopedic, and used in the article that discusses it
  6. It meets WP:IUP, which specifically mentions a photo of a statue
  7. It was used in one article and will be restored to it
  8. It would be unreasonable and difficult to discuss the statue without showing what it looks like
  9. It is used in an article and nowhere else
  10. The description page will be updated to relect required fair-use info when it is undeleted

 –radiojon (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Umbrella consulting comment was supposed to be a separate DRV; the brand-new user inadvertently placed it under this discussion. I was thinking of some connection between Miami and Altanta. Relevant comments stricken with apologies. MuZemike 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the uploader is sock-puppeting. I believe he is acting in good faith, and trying to follow policy. But I have enough experience with our non-free content policy to know that this will never pass NFCC#8 in an article on Underground Atlanta (since seeing the statue is not necessary to fully understand the article). Many people are surprised to learn that the non-free images they uploaded cannot be used in an article, even when it makes the article look better... but as a free encyclopedia, we only use non-free images in a very limited set of circumstances. I myself have uploaded my own photos of sculptures, years ago, and had them deleted. I hope it doesn't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic query: Does anyone know when these statues were erected? IronGargoyle (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a good rationale; can someone please tell me which article(s) the image is intended for? That will enable me to decide for myself whether it passes NFCC#1 and #8 in the context of that article. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore since there's obviously a solid way to apply fair use. Question: Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama links to a US Copyright Law on Architecture, but what part of the law actually discusses statues? Not mentioning them in this particular clause means that one doesn't apply to statues, but it doesn't mean no alternative exists. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default, any photograph of a copyrighted work is a derivative work, requiring the consent of the copyright holder of the photographed object. There is a specific U.S. law that exempts architecture, but no law that exempts sculpture, and case law has verified the right of sculptors to sue for photographs of their works. By the way, "fair use" isn't the issue. If it's non-free, then (as you know) it has to adhere to NFCC, whether it passes a "fair use" exemption or not. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. (I suppose I get to vote for myself?) Thank you all for some rational discussion on this. I understand that its original use could be considered "decorative". My intent is to create a section at Underground Atlanta #Statues about this statue and another one located there sitting at the cascading fountain. However, I can't find anything about them so far, such as authorship, ownership, meaning, installation date, etc. Still working on it, if you have any ideas please post them.  –radiojon (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the fair use rationale looks solid enough to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore fair use looks fine. If once added it is found to be purely decorative and ends up orphaned, we'll delete again of course. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Adequate fair use rationale. I didn't comment before, but what Radiojon said is sufficient. DGG (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

DO NOT DELETE!!!

LEAVE IT FREE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A HUGE CORPORATION THESE GUYS ARE INGENIOUS!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0d di4bl0 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has been deleted four different times, by four different admins, in two days. Every time, the deletion was appropriate. If these guys are geniuses, then they're presumably smart enough to not want your help. – Quadell (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's unusual. Deleted for a promotion and then deleted for an attack page? It sounds as if several different editors have created this article with different versions of the text?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty much just been User:Qtgeo, and some anon-IPs and SPAs, which are likely one guy. The page was recreated as an attack page against the deleting admin, briefly, and was deleted for that reason. All other times it was deleted for being essentially unsourced advertising for a non-notable company. – Quadell (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_14&oldid=1146652513"