Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:Deletion policy

Improving deletion proceduresEdit

Own work - no permission templatesEdit

I'm thinking of creating Template:ow-npd and related templates, as a counterpart to npd and Template:dw-nsd. Commonly "no permission" is used for situations where the user claims something is their own work, but that claim is highly questionable. These new templates would more accurately explain the situation: "If you created it, please confirm this with OTRS. If you didn't, please edit the file description and state where it's actually from."

This wouldn't change how these images are handled in practice, but it would be a change to the text of this policy, requiring discussion. Is this a good idea? Are there any issues that might arise if we go ahead with this? Guanaco (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea - I'd support that. I find myself using that template increasingly for work that doesn't look like "own work" but which I can't find a source for. --Herby talk thyme 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Herby.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Herby as well. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This may open a new door for abuse by deletionists, who want to score points. SV1XV (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Sv1xv: I think this potential for abuse already exists with npd. With this change, standard npd would no longer be a valid template where ow-npd applies. Instead, nominations of this type would be in their own category, allowing you and others to patrol and dispute them more effectively. Guanaco (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This seems eminently sensible to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. I like the idea. In the past I created a regular deletion request under such circumstances. Taivo (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unless Template:Ow image permission (or similar name) is also created for talk page notifications, much like Template:Dw image source.   Weak oppose if created: Commons has {{Fact disputed}}, in addition to {{Wrong license}} and {{Disputed}}. They don't set any time limits, however. I don't like the existing overlap with NPD and DW-NSD right now anyway, because it's sometimes difficult to distinguish which template (or both) one should use. Most claims of own work in the limited scope I review images are DW-NSD, or require nominating for deletion. I can support the notion for improvement, but I don't think a new template in the already existing "mess" is a way to go from reviewer UX perspective. Yet, I have no better ideas for proposal. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I don't know what the upload process flow is from UX perspective. If a majority of uploads are claimed to be own work but it's questionable, I think that's an usability issue on the MediaWiki level (UploadWizard or something) which should be addressed. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • An example of an UX issue with Special:UploadWizard: Anonymous contributors are asked to log in when onboarding the upload process. It tells nothing about Commons' licensing policies, or even the option to register. (I've only ever used the experienced basic uploader.) There's nothing on Commons front page to let an user quickly understand what Commons is about, and quite frequently it's confused with Wikipedia (where fair use may be allowed).

        There's other UX problems related to this: If you go to a non-existent file like File:Foo bar 1234.jpg through search or directly and you click Create, you're not actually uploading an image or met with instructions. This is an unrelated issue however.

        Looking at File:Upload Wizard Slides.pdf (design document), I don't see clear distinction between the choices and explanation what each of the options is. {{Self-photographed}} is also heavily underused, and tagging most of those files as own work is constant source of confusion in my opinion. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 10:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

        I think the UX issues you describe are a separate, though definitely related problem. We should talk about those in a different thread; maybe make some {{edit protected}} requests in the MediaWiki namespace. To be clear, this proposal is to create a complete set of templates including more helpful notifications. Guanaco (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This has long been overdue. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A very good idea. This would be of real help in properly distinquishing a common class of problem images that currently get wrongly bundled in with 'no permission'. No wonder uploaders get confused: they are so often told they have forgotten to give permission, when in fact the real issue is that the permission they have given is suspect. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Should we name them "ow-npd" etc., or would "dowd/disputed own work by date" be a better naming scheme? Guanaco (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - no need for more procedures where processing admin has to guess why the tag was pasted. A regular DR works fine for such cases, please don't try do fix things that are not broken - Jcb (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Jcb: What do you think of the current use of {{npd}} for such cases? Guanaco (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe for obvious cases it's fine, but for less obvious cases I think a regular DR is better. Jcb (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would rather focus on improving the no permission tagg. And let's not create more speedy or semi taggs. We already have to many of those. Let's not turn Commons in a second en-wiki likish jungle. Natuur12 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Natuur: I was an admin at enwiki and desysopped twice by ArbCom from 2004-2006. I'd say it was in part due to my temperamental, teenage nature and in part due to it becoming such a jungle. After coming back ten years later, that community appears even harder to navigate. I agree we can do better than enwiki, for our admins, patrollers, and for our new users. What do you think about implementing quick DR categorization as below? Guanaco (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
that train has already left the station. the commons jungle has a widespread negative reputation. while i applaud the rewording to give the uploader clue as to what is happening, i would prefer a standard of practice, so that the process is less "i doubt that" to curating images and coaching uploaders. 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a kind of speedy deletion. Barring outright copyright infringements, licensing-related speedy deletion should only be done in bright-line cases: it doesn't have a source/author/license at all, or it claims that the non-uploader author granted a license, but no evidence of permission is presented at all. This is functionally "doubtful permission", which someone ought to be able to challenge; unless we want to create something like en:wp's proposed deletion system (applying it to files, of course, not the articles on which en:wp uses it), these files need to go to DR unless they're rather obviously not own works and can be speedied as copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Another ideaEdit

Maybe my proposal above isn't the best solution. Here's an alternative:

The nsd/npd/nld templates may only be used in cases where they strictly apply. If own work is claimed, {{copyvio}} may be used as always for obvious copyright violations. Other cases must be listed as a DR. Otherwise, deletion policy would not change.

We create pre-defined DR templates for common file problems. Then we update AjaxQuickDelete (the "Nominate for deletion" tool) and VisualFileChange ("Perform batch task") to have a drop-down menu to select from these options, if one applies. The DRs are then automatically categorized, while the user talk notification templates provide more precise information about the problem.

Some of the templates I would suggest:

These might invoke an optional "type" field in the standard {{delete}} template. To be clear, these would list the files at DR as per current policy, only with better tools providing categorization and a brief explanation in the uploader notification. Guanaco (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC) (edited 20:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC) for clarity)

At least absolutely do not use tags for 'freedom of panorama' cases. Those cases should always go to regular DR. Jcb (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this proposal is to extend functionality for {{delete}}. They would be listed at DR under standard deletion policy. Guanaco (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Deletion policy".