Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/03/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
someone unknown copied the photo without permission! --H.A. 19:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
New photo is following --Holger (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment New photos are good. Why delete this one? If new photo is better version of same, upload over it. If different photo, 2 photos of something is not a problem. Also, please do not remove image description from image page when making deletion request, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Infrogmation. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. This is now at least the second time the uploader has nominated this for deletion. In the absence of any new reasoning to delete this image, I'm closing this and keeping the image. Adambro (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also Rolled back, because Holger had deleted all description and licensing information. Sv1xv (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
this is a bad page --Semi-protected (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, bad-faith nom. You really think that's gonna work? ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It is copyrighted photo Battoturk (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Kept: policy page, not a photo. --Guanaco (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Completely out of scope; added by someone to illustrate his vanity article on the English Wikipedia Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Article on enwiki was David garcia dee los santos, now deleted for good reasons since it didn't demonstrate that this individual is notable. As such, it isn't realistically useful for education purposes so is beyond the project scope. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is a duplicate of File:Adanabodies.JPG, see the next DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Commons is not a repository for p*rn or 'bondage' images We have many already at 118 images --Leoboudv (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- And yet Wikipedia has an article w:forced orgasm, as does the French Wikipedia, which would seem to benefit from proper illustration. There is no nudity in this image, I cannot imagine why it is not an appropriate illustration for those Wikipedia articles. Max Rebo Band (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Commons is not censored. Huib talk 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Max Rebo Band and Huib. Free licensed image illustrating topic relevent to articles in more than one Wikipedia, seems in scope and not redundant. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Legitimately in use, thus in scope. –Tryphon☂ 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
"non really educative work" according to nom User:Glevrard. I have only completed the incomplete rfd by User:Glevrard.--Túrelio (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Image is currently used on de:Simone Weil and IMHO it's of educational value as File:Solesmes.jpg has a far lower resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep And other uploads by User:Glevrard that he now wants to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use, thus in scope. –Tryphon☂ 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
nonencyclopedic and unused Jonjames1986 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: description page says it is "from J3P Films first production", so it may be a copyright violation. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, in scope, but unfortunately not free. File:GerryAnderson.jpg, by the same uploader, is probably a copyvio too. –Tryphon☂ 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
listas.20minutos.es seems to be user uploads. The images do not come from 20minutos.es, so no cc-license. Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Redundant/low resolution image. Several other higher resolution images of the same subject available at Category:Albert Fall. --Allen3 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep That is not a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Whilst they are other images of this subject, this image cannot be described as a duplicate of any of them so I don't consider it redundant, nor do I consider the low resolution to be so detrimental to the image's educational value to make it worthless. Adambro (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sense of category utterly unclear - it's a matter of personal opinion whether something "resembles number 4"... and in the present case, someone simply seems to believe that every bermuda sail resembles "number 4." If so, the entire category:Sailboats and parts of category:Sailing ships should be categorized as "number 4"... or rather any triangle whatsoever, especially, if one of the short sides is extended a bit (here: the mast). With all due respect--this is ridiculous. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Just to avoid misunderstandings: Yes, I can imagine that there are analogous categories out there for 1, 2, 3, 5, etc., which I haven't looked up (yet). Either way, the very concept is totally POV, and as this category shows, the content is even more than totally POV (if such a superlative should exist... else it should be invented for this category). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Clearly Delete.
- Delete: Has to be one of the weirdest categories I have seen around. Anyway, as Ibn Battuta said above, "it's a matter of personal opinion whether something resembles number 4." OSX (talk • contributions) 06:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, I also found it strange at first, but it seems it is used appropriately (with respect to your concerns about POV) and I doubt it will ever generate edit wars about whether or not an image resembles the number 4. The category is in use and is part of a series of resembling a number categories. As of why it is useful, I remember someone mentioning that graphic artists could be interested in that kind of classification (I don't know, but why not). So yes, it's a bit strange, but I don't think it's a problem that requires deletion. –Tryphon☂ 10:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - this was already discussed on the village pump recently for no. 7 and there was no consensus for deletion.--Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Google for number shape system. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is a media server, so it is normal that we have "visual" categorisations. --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If you are in favor of keeping it, I'd ask that you also state your opinion (nothing official, just collecting ideas) about how to deal with the content. As you can see, the category is currently filled with an entirely arbitrary selection of sailboats. (Please check category:sailboats...) So if this category is kept, do you want to make category:Sailboats part of category:Shapes resembling number 4? How about windsurfers? category:Sailing ships (yes, some of those ships have the exact same sails)? etc.? As I wrote above, I don't see any sense in this category, but if you want it to stay, it should at least have some remotely reasonable content. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't over think it, this category doesn't have to be an exhaustive list of all images that resemble the number 4. We can live with just a small subset (at least I can). And making whole categories subcategories of this one is not a good idea. For example, in Category:Sailboats there are File:Big old ancient boat.JPG and File:Semaine du golfe - parade (2).jpg which obviously do not resemble the number 4 at all (or any other number, for that matter). –Tryphon☂ 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Category:Color combinations and Category:Facing left will always be incomplete too. Commons is a visual server. --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominate this flickr image (in the 'images Not found' category) for deletion because it is completely unused on Wikipedia. If the copyright isn't somewhat secure and the image is unused, it should just be deleted Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from User:Ibn Battuta's DR for Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Shapes resembling number 4, I would like to propose the deletion of the category Number Shape System and its subcategories on the grounds of subjectivity. I was personally having a tough time working out the "numbers" in a lot of these images. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - this was already discussed on the village pump recently and there was no consensus at all to delete this.--Túrelio (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, for the same reasons as explained above. It would probably have been a good idea to wait for a consensus on the first DR before creating this one. We don't need two separate discussions. –Tryphon☂ 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is a media server, so it is normal that we have visual categorisations. One could as well argue about red and purple cars; when they are really red or purple, but not orange or pink. --Foroa (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No indication of copyright holder, no way to establish the fact that the copyright to this image has expired. -- Iamunknown 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. The source page indicates the image was taken from one of two books; one was a compilation of NY Times articles from 1915-1922, and the other was a 1968 book by James Nazer, The First Genocide of the 20th Century: The Story of the Armenian Massacres in Text and Pictures (T & T Publishing: 1968). Determining the actual photo author is probably impossible, though it would be good to check those books if possible to see if they have further source information. This may qualify for {{Anonymous work}}. Carl Lindberg 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, thanks for that source (I missed it :-(), I'll check at the local University library. --Iamunknown 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also found here, [1] --Artaxiad 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- From that page: "The Armenian Genocide in the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918 Available From the National Archives and the Library of Congress - the most comprehensive documentation in the world on the Armenian Genocide." Great! Thanks for the additional info, Artaxiad. I tried a brief search in the library but found nothing ... I'll try again tomorrow. I just wish I could find more information about the photographer. --Iamunknown 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete probably taken by Armin T. Wegner (1886-1978) Madmax32 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- The book author would not have owned copyright; that is not an issue. The national archives typically have public domain material, so very little of what comes from there is a copyright violation. This picture is PD in the U.S. as it was published prior to 1923, which is why the book could use it. If the photo is by an Armenian though, the copyright there would last 50 years past his death. Interestingly, if it was published anonymously, the copyright would only last for 50 years past publication, and if at that point the author was still unknown it would be completely PD (all this according to Armenian copyright law). Also NPOV is not a reason for deletion, unless the photo or caption itself is an unsubstantiated accusation. I don't know how it's likely that Wegner took this; apparently the U.S. embassy took in lots of photographs at the time. Do you have information on this specific photograph being from him? It would be best to see what credits (if any) are in that book, or what NARA has. Unfortunately NARA's information may not be online; their web page says about half of their material is listed in ARC and only a small fraction of that has online images. If the author is unknown, then it is PD. Carl Lindberg 14:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The only problem, Carl Lindberg, is that the National Archives (NARA) has no pictures of the Armenian genocide, neither does the library of congress, the only photos I could find in Loc were of a US diplomatic mission by the US army to armenia, which has no photos of any atrocities. If anyone can prove me wrong, go right ahead and post some links, I realize not all the national archives stuff is available online, but I couldn't find any record numbers, these seem to be falsified sources to me. Madmax32 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contacting the Library of Congress would be a good move. Their collection is not fully digitized. Anyone know how to contact them? --Iamunknown 22:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- They must have some, as they made an exhibit on it in 2000. The vast majority of the Library of Congress' holdings are not available online, not even the catalog records unfortunately (their FAQ says only items catalogued since 1980 are definitely available, and presumably these photos would predate that). Carl Lindberg 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- After some further research I found out that The Armenian Genocide in the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918 is a microfiche collection [2] published in 1994, however this seems to be a collection of documents rather than photographs.
![[2]](http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Armenia/The_Armenian_Genocide_in_the_U/armenia11.jpg){kind=link}
"Chadwyck-Healey Publishes Guide to Armenian Genocide Documents in U.S.. Archives
With the release of the Guide to The Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Archives, 1915-1918 on April 24, 1994, the publishing firm of Chadwyck-Healey, Inc. announced the completion of this significant project which now furnishes a comprehensive collection of the documents related to the subject of the Armenian genocide found in the United States National Archives and the Library Congress.
The publication includes documents on the Armenian genocide from seven record groups in the United States National Archives: Record Group 59, "Records of the Department of State," 1910-1929 - specifically the files concerned with "Internal Affairs of Turkey," "American Consular Offices," "Protection of U.S. Interests in Turkey," "Claims against Turkey," and "Political Relations between Armenia and Other States" - Record Group 84, "Department of State, Consular Post Records"; Record Group 38, "Chief of Naval Operations, Intelligence Division, Naval Attache Reports," 1880-1939; Record Group 165, "(War Dept. General and Special Staffs) War College Divison, General Correspondence," 1903-1919; Record Group 256, "American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Inquiry Documents" (Special Reports and Studies) 1971-1919 and "General Records of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace," 1918-1931; and Record Group 200, "Records of the American Red Cross," 1881-1961, 1917-1934. From the Library of Congress, the two collections examined were "The Papers of Henry Morgenthau, Sr.," and the "Woodrow Wilson Papers." Madmax32 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check there website [3] they have there address and number. Also by searching there site they have documented events on the Armenian Genocide. --ArmeniGen 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep by --Digon3 talk Found in US archives before 1923
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Such images are not for enzykopedias, the source should be 10 percent clear, but it isn´t --131.130.223.74 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, your copy-paste statement is incorrect and you didn't even take the time to read the information provided with the image. According to the given source (yes, the source is given), the image comes from the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918, Available From the National Archives and the Library of Congress. –Tryphon☂ 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the website refers to this book. –Tryphon☂ 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep The source is National Archives of US. The IP appears to belong to Молох. VartanM (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The image is in the US Archives which is in the public domain. How can anyone argue that the quality of the picture is a reason of deletion for an image in the 1910's? Its not like this was taken in the 1980's or 1990's with superior cameras. This is an important image too. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There may be a bad faith element in this DR. The nominator is Turkish and the victims in the photo are all Armenians. Turks and Armenians dislike each other (a lot). Turkey still refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of WWI. --Korman (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Source is given. It is a French documentary film. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but why GFDL then? Probably PD-old, or anonymous work, but we don't really know. –Tryphon☂ 10:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Armenian Genocide, Arte France, The cie des Phares et Balises...that schould be the source? its not a literature its not a book how we can proof it? --Молох (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's the title of a film The Armenian Genocide, as Pieter has written already. However, as our image is from 1909, the film cannot be the original source. Anway, an image from 1909 is likely PD. A source for research of such images might be here. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Turelio. --Korman (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. User is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en masse, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is difficult to assume good faith when one compares such statements with the contents of the infobox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en masse, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per bad faith and nationalistic efforts of nominator to suppress information in the PD concerning the Armenian Genocide of WWI. --Korman (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en mass, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The source is clear and the Turkish nominator seems to have an agenda to eliminate all PD documents concerning the Armenian Genocide of WWI. This is likely a result of the spread of the ongoing Turkish vs. Armenian POV conflict from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons now. Commons does not need these bad faith DRs! --Korman (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- As a regular en.wikipedia editor I can say that I have never encountered Molox before. Rest of your observation is correct. He's a Turkish user and is nominating Armenian Genocide images for deletion en mass. With April 24 approaching Turkish ultra-nationalists wake up from their hibernation. VartanM (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en mass, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - the source information is rather detailed, even carries the page numbers, despuite the original being from 1917, i.e. 92 years ago. --Túrelio (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong --Foroa (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en masse, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is difficult to assume good faith when one compares such statements with the contents of the infobox. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en masse, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- ??? Source is given as en:The Graphic, issue of 7 December 1895. Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en mass, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)--
- Keep Yes it does. Read. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where? There is no Source information that we could proof.--Молох (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Picture showing Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide. Image taken from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, written by Henry Morgenthau, Sr. and published in 1918. This is not correct source information? --Daniel Baránek (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator doesn't know what is clearly sourced information. Secondly, the nominator is not neutral: he is Turkish and the Turks and Armenians have had nationalist clashes over the Armenian genocide of WWI. --Korman (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Turkish user is nominating Armenian Genocide pictures for deletion en masse, claiming that there is no source, while the source is provided in the infobox. VartanM (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This picture should be deleted due to unproven accusation 212.174.225.76 10:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Just because you don't like the fact that he openly accused the Turkish government of the Armenian Genocide, does not mean this picture should be deleted. EtienneDolet (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep historical document. The deletion request seems to be just vandalism. --Don-kun (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Alan (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama for architecture in France. ALE! ¿…? 09:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the fact I transferred the picture to the German Wikipedia it is still used on 51 pages in 19 projects. Is there a chance to inform all these projects without spending a whole day for it? --King (talk)
- Why did you transfer the image to the German Wikipedia. It has also to be deleted there. Regarding FOP the same rules apply on de.wiki. --ALE! ¿…? 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I trusted on this comment. --King (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why did you transfer the image to the German Wikipedia. It has also to be deleted there. Regarding FOP the same rules apply on de.wiki. --ALE! ¿…? 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per COM:FOP#France. –Tryphon☂ 12:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Images of CrazyKlaudia
[edit]- File:Quarter Horse(Holly).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Trottatore americano.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Magic.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Very suspect, they were originally uploaded in it.wikipedia by banned user CrazyKlaudia (see, in Italian http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/CrazyKlaudia), many images uploaded by that user were deleted due to suspect - but sometimes blatant - copyright violation. See also here, here, here and here. --KingFanel (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I uploadet File:Magic.jpg in Commons, but forgot to replace the "en" in the Commonshelperform with the "it". Unfortunately there was a File with the same name in en.wikipedia and therefore There is now a File:Magic.jpg on Commons with the Picture of the it Wikipedia an a description of the en.wikipedia.
- As far as I know, it has had the same uploader as File:Quarter Horse(Holly).jpg wich is now nominated for deletion.
- --Kersti (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This should be speedied as the suspect images of a banned user. No metadata also. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Added Magic.jpg to the deletion list. --KingFanel (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The image contains a copyrighted logo. ALE! ¿…? 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The original version of this image has been updated to NOT include the copyrighted logo. Autoutopia 15:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would have considered the logo ineligible for copyright, at least you could keep the textual part if you want. But I think the image is better this way, so the question remains, do we have to delete the older revision or not. I think we can keep it, but it's probably borderline, and since it's not particularly useful, I would delete it. –Tryphon☂ 15:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the old revision. I tried to do it twice but something didi not work. --ALE! ¿…? 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted the first revision and kept the one without the logo. –Tryphon☂ 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It's an alternative drawing of a space ship from Star Wars. It's a derivative work, still subject to the original image copyright Belgrano (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"en una imagen promocional" does not fit to "foto by 20minutos.es". The image is sourced witth Archivo which is means unfree in 95% of the cases. Images from 20minutos with the description Archivo are not acceptable free. Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please delete --Motopark (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Foto:Archivo from 20minutos.es, the image also appears on the Rosario Flores website http://www.rosarioflores.org/rosario-flores-biography.php, very probably that 20minutos was permitted to reuse the image for a publication but not for copyfraud the image and publish it under cc-by. Martin H. (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not Foto:20minutos.es but captioned with 3demotions.com Martin H. (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Foto:Archivo. 20minutos.es does not have any copyright on this image. Probably it belongs to BBC Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 20minutos.es original material is Creative Commons, but they also publish wire service, promotional, and archival images which they aren't the copyright holder of. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
the web site seems to be non-free 95.24.183.160 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France Huib talk 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, Commons is not for hosting personal images Huib talk 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, unused. Eusebius (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this image on the internet before, I dont believe the own work part . Huib talk 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio : http://www.truckpulling.nl/new/index.php --Coyau (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DJ Bungi
[edit]En-wiki user en:User:DJ Bungi has uploaded a large number of photographs of Bosnia-Herzegovina on en-wiki, many of which have in the meantime been transferred to Commons by various people. These photos are most likely all copyvios. Of those found on en-wiki, I have identified at least five that could be traced to four different web pages. All other images seem to be of the same kind: All uniformly claimed as self-made, all high quality photographs (some professional-looking); most lacking Exif data and at lower resolutions than self-made ones are typically uploaded in.
Images currently on commons:
- File:Cvrsnica.jpg (known source: [4] )
- File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Cevapcici.jpg (known source:
[5][6])- might be the opposite: our image is 800x600, the one on the web is 300x200.--Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- See comments below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Provided better source, with the exact file in full resolution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- might be the opposite: our image is 800x600, the one on the web is 300x200.--Túrelio (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Bsarma.jpg
- File:Bosnian cuisine-01.jpg
- File:Bosnian cuisine-02.jpg
- File:Bosnian cuisine-03.jpg
- File:Bosnian cuisine-04.jpg
- File:Bosnian cuisine9.jpg
- File:Najbolja slika Stari.jpg
- File:Eminajahovic2.jpg
- File:SarajevoCofBiH.jpg
- File:Sebilj.jpg
- File:Volujak Mountain.jpg
- File:Vares.jpg
- File:RamskoLake2.jpg
- File:TrebinjeBiH.jpg (known source: [7]
- File:Stanisic Village (Bijeljina).jpg
- File:Rakitnica Canyon.jpg (known previous publication on the web: [8])
![[5]](http://www.urbangrill.ba/images/jela/cevapi_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(Probably more to be added.)
Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree As for File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Cevapcici.jpg I strongly disagree with the accusation of copy violation. See the image on the web site http://www.urbangrill.ba/efoto.html , the size and light color and composition are quite different from this image. If DJ Bungi violated the copyright, how the image size is bigger and the quality is better than the one on the website? Those are distinctly different images and please remind that the food is a kind of "fast food".--Caspian blue 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- As for the lack of EXIF dada, I've known many editors who've uploaded reguarly high quality photographs to Commons and English Wikipedia intentionally erase Exif data for security concerns, and others. They do not want to expose the time of taking photos, camera types, photoshop skills etc. DJ Bungi said he took the food images after he prepared or visited restaurants. I could be wrong, but given the wrong allegation on File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Bsarma.jpg, you may be wrong.--Caspian blue 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a whole series of similar images. I can't be bothered to dig them all out on that website, but they are all there, just browse around a bit. It's a series of professionally done pieces of food photography made specifically to illustrate the menu of that fast food restaurant in Sarajevo (see the restaurant's logo on the plates). There's no way these could have been self-made and then incidentally taken over by the restaurant. There were other images in the same series that I deleted on en-wiki and that were also exactly identical; for instance, the bottom right photograph on this page ([9]) was en:File:Urban_Grill.JPG ([10] ). The same happened with another series from another restaurant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you indefinitely blocked the user on English Wiki, so showing evidences to back up your accusation are purely on your job. You have to bother yourself fiding "exactly matched images" from web. The diffs that you show are only for admins. I can't compare.--Caspian blue 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't owe you a proof. I told you what the situation is; if you think I'm lying, ask another enwiki admin to check. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say you lied so drop the absurd accusation. You have to prove your claim with evidences to the community. That's why you're an admin. And I'm one of the community. --Caspian blue 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Caspian, could you be a little less confrontational? Commons tends to be a calmer place then enwiki - see COM:MELLOW - and it would be appreciated if you helped keep it that way. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back. I thought I asked him to prove his allegation as much politely as I could. Rather, I wonder why he had to say "I can't be bothered to show evidences" and "I don't owe me a proof". While deletion discussion always requires "scrutiny" with clear evidences not with just allegation. Because File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Bsarma.jpg counters his allegation.--Caspian blue 00:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Caspian, could you be a little less confrontational? Commons tends to be a calmer place then enwiki - see COM:MELLOW - and it would be appreciated if you helped keep it that way. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say you lied so drop the absurd accusation. You have to prove your claim with evidences to the community. That's why you're an admin. And I'm one of the community. --Caspian blue 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't owe you a proof. I told you what the situation is; if you think I'm lying, ask another enwiki admin to check. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just for your information, if anyone copies and pastes some image onto a new page in photoshop and save it. Then EXIF data can be all gone. --21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you indefinitely blocked the user on English Wiki, so showing evidences to back up your accusation are purely on your job. You have to bother yourself fiding "exactly matched images" from web. The diffs that you show are only for admins. I can't compare.--Caspian blue 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's a whole series of similar images. I can't be bothered to dig them all out on that website, but they are all there, just browse around a bit. It's a series of professionally done pieces of food photography made specifically to illustrate the menu of that fast food restaurant in Sarajevo (see the restaurant's logo on the plates). There's no way these could have been self-made and then incidentally taken over by the restaurant. There were other images in the same series that I deleted on en-wiki and that were also exactly identical; for instance, the bottom right photograph on this page ([9]) was en:File:Urban_Grill.JPG ([10] ). The same happened with another series from another restaurant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. File:Najbolja slika Stari.jpg can be found here, but I suppose it is possible that the site used the image from enwiki/here rather than vice-versa. Future Perfect - are you sure that the files you found on other sites were copied from there - rather than the uploader's images being used once he released them under the GFDL? Obviously, those of us without admin access on enwiki can't check for ourselves so more detail of how you came to block this user would be helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I found a similar case of the mentioned example as a flickr user falsely declares the ownership of images actually from Wiki.--Caspian blue 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
![[9]](http://www.urbangrill.ba/images/foto/icon12.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AUrban_Grill.JPG&file=8gnct2ettr4h9dmtxe3yl7m4fuxofao.jpg&token=1a19b02b980357fdc24ee91f999ddd05%2B%5C){kind=link}
- File:Korean.costume-Wonsam-for.Queen.Joseon-01.jpg
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/m-louis/293188324/ (original photographer)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/26292594@N06/3277504765/ 398px-Korean.costume-Wonsam-for.Queen.Joseon-01
- File:Korean_costume-Hanbok-Dangui-Seuranchima-01.jpg
- File:Korean royal costumes-01.jpg
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/91485322@N00/2676775190 (original photographer)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/26292594@N06/3278325816/in/photostream/
- Oh, I agree it definitely does happen. The question is whether that's what's happened here... WJBscribe (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know the flickr case would be the same as DJ_Bungi's case but I warned the flickr user to attribute the original sources. Maybe you can verify the deleted images on English Wiki? DJ Bungi is inactive for a week, and does not set up the email function. So I have no way to confirm or contact him.--Caspian blue 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately as I no longer hold admin rights on enwiki I can't verify the images there. Hopefully either someone else will or Future Perfect can offer additional information. WJBscribe (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you returning to English Wiki too? Your adminship and 'cratship rights would be restored in a second if you request them back there...--Caspian blue 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, just here. WJBscribe (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aren't you returning to English Wiki too? Your adminship and 'cratship rights would be restored in a second if you request them back there...--Caspian blue 01:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately as I no longer hold admin rights on enwiki I can't verify the images there. Hopefully either someone else will or Future Perfect can offer additional information. WJBscribe (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know the flickr case would be the same as DJ_Bungi's case but I warned the flickr user to attribute the original sources. Maybe you can verify the deleted images on English Wiki? DJ Bungi is inactive for a week, and does not set up the email function. So I have no way to confirm or contact him.--Caspian blue 01:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree it definitely does happen. The question is whether that's what's happened here... WJBscribe (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, once more.
- From [11]: All the five food shots in the gallery below were taken
- File:Bosnia and Herzegovina-Cevapcici.jpg = [12]
- en:File:Urban Grill Restaurant3.jpg = [13]
- en:File:Urban Grill Restaurant4.jpg = [14]
- en:File:Urban Grill Restaurant5.jpg = [15]
- en:File:Urban Grill Restaurant6.jpg = [16]
- Note, again, that these were professionally made commercial food photography made specifically for that restaurant; to assume that anybody else independent of the restaurant website could be the copyright owner seems extremely far-fetched.
- From www.vinoteka.ba:
- Same situation, professionally done food photography from a restaurant website
- From summitpost.org
- [18], submitted "by LeonardoDj on May 20, 2007", =File:Cvrsnica.jpg, uploaded on en-wiki 4 May 2008
- [19], submitted "by Dinaric-ZG on Feb 24, 2006", = en:File:UnaVodopad.jpg, uploaded on en-wiki 15 February 2008
- from skyscrapercity.com:
- [20] (submitted by "BL", 22 February 2007) = File:TrebinjeBiH.jpg (uploaded on en-wiki 16 February 2008)
- from bosanihercegovina.blogger.ba:
- [21] (blog entry 3 October 2005) = File:Rakitnica Canyon.jpg (uploaded on en-wiki 16 February 2008)
![[12]](http://infobar.ba/katalog/restorani/urbangrill/sl-06.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://infobar.ba/katalog/restorani/urbangrill/sl-07-m.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](http://infobar.ba/katalog/restorani/urbangrill/sl-08-m.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://infobar.ba/katalog/restorani/urbangrill/sl-09-m.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://infobar.ba/katalog/restorani/urbangrill/sl-10-m.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.vinoteka.ba/slike%20menu/lignje.jpg){kind=link}
Now, to the degree that these need enwiki admin access to check, I can't help you guys: you will either need to take my word for it (and honestly, I'd be seriously offended if you didn't, because it in fact would imply you'd be suspecting me of lying), or you'll have to ask some other enwiki admin. The Cvrsnica one has presumably been verified by User:Bidgee, who performed the speedy here on commons yesterday. There's not much more I can say about this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyvios. Given further evidence from Future Perfect, there can be no doubt that these these images were uploaded to enwiki after they appeared on the other websites. The evidence concerning the images of food having been made for the restaurant is compelling. WJBscribe (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope; private artwork by uploader, to advance his own highly speculative ideas; no educational purpose. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I now see that User:Ferman has uploaded about 70 diagrams here. As a teacher of physics, I believe that this is outside the educational scope of the project, and that the uploader is using commons as a channel to get more exposure and credibility than what a private web site or a blog would give.
- He is using commons pages to write encyclopedia-style articles: Covalent bonds, Classic atomic models, Orbital cuts, Rotary engine, Algebraic product of sets, Ubiquity principle, Aether, Gravity, Magnetic force, Mass and weight, Matter, Cosmic energy, Water and hydrocarbons, and Cosmos' formula. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, everything comes from the uploader's website and presents his own point of view on how the universe works. Unlike some theories which are wrong from a scientific point of view but still are notable enough (like creationism), this one is completely built by one man (the uploader) and he's the only one to defend it; that's what makes it out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Fringe theories and Pseudoscience. Sv1xv (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect the work spent on this category, but all this category and its sub-categories do is create a parallel system to the existing categorization system for ships. On Commons (and the Wikipedias), there is exactly one category for each ship (even if a ship has been renamed throughout its history, we assign only one category). This means that every IMO category is totally identical with another existing or to-be-created category. Or in other words, in every IMO category there is exactly one sub-category: Namely that of the ship, which refers after all to the exact same content as the respective IMO category. It's like creating country categories and the categories for the telephone codes per country. By definition, they match precisely in pairs. [BTW, even in the cases where there is only one image (or sometimes 2 or 3) of one ship (yet), it only means that a name category for the ship is not yet created. And if someone says now: "Yeah, but we don't want categories with just 1 or 2 or 3 images, so maybe such a name category will never be created"... then I'll respond: "If we do want to avoid such near-empty categories, IMO categories are no better because they, too, contain only 1 or 2 or 3 images in these exact same cases."]
So what is then the benefit of this category? After all, it is simply a directory of one (unique) feature of all ships that exist or have existed. Could this information/service be provided without creating a parallel universe of categories? Yes, easily: We only have to add the information from the IMO categories--most importantly the IMO number--to the existing categories... and then everyone can easily browse for every possible number (on Commons or via search engines).
In short, then, the entire IMO category system is a system of (sorry) superfluous synonyms (!) of existing or to-be-created categories. Thus I move to delete this entire category system. Before deletion, the extra information that the creator of this category system has admirably added, can be added to the categories or (where it might be even more fitting) directly to Wikipedia. (And pragmatically speaking, foreign ship articles aren't usually created by people without any knowledge of English, so moving the information to the English Wikipedia will likely be good enough... but whatever, we can also leave it on Commons.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
PS (Just to make sure it's crystal clear): I just want to emphasize that this deletion request does not request to delete information. I think that Stunteltje's work on the IMO numbers is admirable. I just don't think that categories are the best venue for this information because it means creating two identical categories per ship (which only differ by name of the category). That's why I suggest to delete those extra categories and add the IMO information to the regular categories (i.e. to categories with ships' names). If someone really knows only IMO number of a vessel, the search function (or google) easily allow to find the category of the ship. And for all other purposes, it is common and easier to simply use the ship's name.
This is why I request to delete this and all the sub-categories (i.e. single IMO number categories). And now let's see what others think... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: In my opinion the IMO-categories has a broader perspective than categories based on ship names. Though the IMO-system is much lesser known it does provide a more coherent categorizing of individual ships. So if anything is superfluous it would be the ship-names categories. That said i really don't see the problem with two parallel universes of categories. They both spawn from Category:Ships and basically just produces another entry-point to a vessel (much like Category:Ships by operator by the way). As none of the categories are abandoned i don't see a problem. They just produce another entry-point and i don't think that Commons is running out of category-space, so let's keep them. --Hebster (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Information about Scheepsnaam may be found at [[:Category:IMO {{{1}}}|IMO {{{1}}}]]. A ship can change name and flag state through time, but the IMO number remains the same through the hull's entire lifetime. As a result, it can be useful to identify a ship by using the IMO number. |
- My intention is to help users finding all pictures of barges and sea-going ships on Commons by gathering the available information in a single file. As barges and ships change names as clothes, the constant factor is the number of the hull together with the engine room. For barges was it the Europenumber, now ENI-number, and for ships the number of Lloyds Register, now IMO number. The wrong assumption is that these numbers easily can be found by Google. It takes me sometimes a week to find the right number and I have experience to look where they can be found. The easy way is to pay Lloyds to get access to their system, but it is expensive and not everybody has sufficient money to do so.
The reason for owners of sea-going ships to register the ship with a new name in a new company under a diffrent flag is the fact that during the lifetime of the ship the rules change per nation. The sea is safer now that it was before. But it is not always possible to keep up the standards of a certain nation and many times it is cheaper to change the registration to a registration at a less strict nation e.g. Liberia, Panama, Bermuda. (Advantage for the managing company is also that the number of qualified crew can be reduced.) Have a look at Category:IMO 7126322.
I started with the Category:IMO XXXXXXX and gathered there the individual existing categories by name of the ships or the loose pictures. No one had a better suggestion at the English WikiProject Ships. Doing so and giving IMO numbers of the individual file in the project of ploughing through all the files on Commons, it is unavoidable that the IMO category contains the Category by alphabet (with all the pictures made during the time she had that name) and some of the same pictures, loose now. It takes time and extra effort to delete these loose files. Besides: Not every ship has her own category by name (alphabet) also.
Doing that an extra advantage could be realised. Looking for the IMO number, a lot of information on the ship was also found. It was a pity to ignore that and I added the information to the IMO number category. Most compact Vesseltracker information or more extedted Miramar information. As a former professional standardiser I standardised in a single format, the technical information under Ship and the names and other relevant information under History. So an user who looks for pictures of an individual ship in Commons can also find an extract of the relevant information together with the picture. Not necessary to put all that information in the Description part of the picture, but if someone wants to do so, go ahead.
The question here is: is the Category system the best instrument? I am not so very experienced in Wikipedia, so I thought it was. I asked it in the WikiProject Ships and here in the village pump too and no clear alternative was given. Giving a ship her own category by IMO number, it works fast and easy to group the available information and files. For me it is no problem if the category-system is changed by another system, as long as it works fast and has the same advantages.
By the way, we have 1.364 IMO categories now and I have no intention whatsoever to export all information by hand into a new system. I'll wait with adding new categories until this question is solved and hope I have sufficient motivation left if the work is to be done on a more complicated way. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I'm still not clear. I do ****NOT**** want to delete information (nor do I want to make anything more difficult for you!). I do value your work and think it's awesome to have all the information on Commons!!!!!!! It's *only* about how to provide it. What I meant to say is merely: It's simple to google an IMO number because (i.e. after) *you* have already added it to Commons. It's just not necessary to name a category after the IMO number to make it accessible. You can just as well enter the IMO number into the category, and you'll have the exact same benefit: a number, which remains the same for the ship's "life", no matter how often it is renamed. - And BTW, nobody's suggested putting the information into an image description, I think we're all talking about categories. All I'm saying is that it's not reasonable to have two categories for the same content; and BTW, one of these categories happens to have the information, and the other doesn't. What's that good for?
- And yes, you're obviously right that not every ship has its own category yet--but instead of creating more and more IMO categories, we could just as well create categories with the ship's name. So the question remains: not whether to create categories, but whether to create two identical categories.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Battuta (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know that it is not strictly forbidden to make another category with (in most cases) just a single file in it, and I should be glad to create such a category in Category:Ships by alphabet in parallel. But on the other hand I have the impression that it is not appreciated to do so. Perhaps can this discussion also give an answer about the advisability to create these single file categories. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. My sense so far was that in generall these categories are heavily discouraged... and that nobody actually cares if you create them nontheless. Regarding the question discussed here, I think it doesn't matter much whether we will have a one-item IMO category or a one-item "pick your category name of choice" category. We cannot avoid one-item categories without deleting a lot of the information (IMO numbers and technical data), which you have entered. And as I said, that wouldn't be an option for me. BTW, right now, almost all the IMO categories should be one-item categories (only having one "name" category in there) or few-item categories (having name-subcategories and/or two few ship images to allow for a name category). At least the former could be avoided if we merged IMO and name category systems... although that improvement by itself wouldn't matter very much for me... :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: often having "technical" or "expert" named categories like this can be useful. I see no beneficial reason for deletion, however, maybe the main category could be refined into subcategories (is this possible while maintaining sense of the IMO system?). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Commons serves as server for encyclopedias. "Ships by IMO number" is the only category for ships that is precise and unambiguous, while avoiding confusion with other ships. All other category systems can be in error, with spelling or naming convention mistakes, other alphabets, other names/owners/operators/countries through their lifecycles, ... This is obviously the mothercategory of all ship categories. I doubt that one can recreate the information as for example in Category:IMO 9206712 or Category:IMO 5183364 without other complex structures or templates. --Foroa (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Quite honestly, to my knowledge and in my opinion, the subcategories of the mentioned ships are just a mess and not encouraged by Commons. There is nothing wrong with combining all these images into one category. But even if you don't want to do that: Just create one joint category, which should be used anyways because information like the shipyard actually remains the same. And you can't categorize different names for different countries because many ships are renamed more often or less often than they are sold internationally, and/or their names may changed briefly before or after transfer of ownership etc. etc. etc.--in short, it's a mess, and trying to solve it with subcategories is well-intended, but usually impossible. And a super-category is never a problem. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: As outlined by Stunteltje, IMO numbers follow an internationally accepted system that allows to identify individual ships even if they go through a long number of ownerships and different names. Considering this, it seems to be quite natural to name individual ship categories after their IMO number (as far as we have one) and to keep the associated top-level-category. Multiple hierachies of categories covering the same range of subjects are quite common here and present no additional problems as far as I can see. Many thanks to Stunteltje who worked so hard to set this up and we shouldn't make his work harder. It is of course possible to think about alternatives to categories like identifying templates (see {{PND-link}}, for example) but so far there is no consensus to move into this direction and such a new system should be in place along with bots supporting the move etc. before we get rid of the previous system. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: I'm happy with this category system. (David.lindeijer) 27 March 2009
- Glad to hear that... but it wouldn't hurt to say why you think it's necessary? ^^ --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Some of these categories do have multiple subcategories -- when a ship is renamed and maybe transferred to a new country, we sometimes have a category for each name (quite reasonable if we have many photos of the ship under each name); these are both under a single IMO number category. Given the nature of commons, we are more likely to need multiple subcategories in that situation (as we get more and more images) than wikipedias are likely to need articles. This does provide a neutral way to group them. It does feel a little bit awkward, but I can't think of a much better way, and I'm generally in favor of more ways to navigate to categories. I certainly don't see any harm in keeping them; they aren't required but they could be really helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, some ship categories do not have a common super-category yet. That's a problem, which can (and should) be easily resolved. It's not a reason to categorize a ship by an entirely different category name. As I wrote before: If Stunteltje had used the common category system, you would already have the common categories. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: This method of categorizing ships seems to make the most sense since the ship name may change but the IMO number always stays the same. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep Useful for those who need it. We have for example dual schemes for scientific names for plants and popular/culinary names for the same thing, each serves its own purpose. No one is asking for you to maintain it, if it really bothers you just ignore it, there is no need to spite the work of those who are maintaining this scheme by asking for deletion.KTo288 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please point out the identical categories you refer to? I don't know a single one. And please keep your ready assumptions to yourself - if you believe that requests for deletions mean to spite others' work, that's your own prejudice and no reason to judge me on. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Many species and animals have a category naming system for the popular naming and use, a second more specialised category system for the scientific ordering. Just think of dogs (and canis), flax, cannabis, cotton, hemp, melons, oranges, ... At some point, the two systems overlap or even conflict, but they are complementing each other, just as ships by name and by IMO are separate. --Foroa (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Pork for example belongs to subcategories which follow both a scientific and culinary taxonomic branches. One could get to say the beef category by following the scientific branch, so one make the arguement that the parallel culinary branch is redundant, which I hope no one will. Categorisation wise having additional categories poses no problems to the server or software, the principle is that each file and category should have as few categories as possible but as many as is appropriate. The fundamental thing is that any categories used are accurate, if you were arguing that the IMO categories are inaccurate then I would be the first to endorse their deletion. If the arguement is that the categories are not that useful for the majority of users or that they are too technical, we have and live with not that useful or technical categories. Watercraft by colour for example which is perhaps useful for graphic artists, or gaff rigged vessels which is divided into gaff rigged cutters, ketches etc which is probably a level of technical detail which is unnecessary for most users. With your arguement that we would be having multiple categories for the same thing, it is normal that people and things will have multiple identities and qualities at the same time and that it is right and proper to recognise each of these identities and qualities, for ships type, class, flag, construction, ship yard, service etc, the IMO number is just another of these qualities.. Finally may I offer my apologies for not assuming good faith and assuming malice as a motivation on the barest of evidence. However I remain perplexed as to why you see the need to delete these categories. No one is asking you to help maintain them, no one is asking you to use them and if they bother you, can't you just ignore them?Categorisation by IMO numbers will be useful to someone maybe not to you, I haven't looked but I guess there are categories which are of no use to me but I don't ask for their deletion KTo288 (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- [squeezing in...] I think this is exactly the misperception: No, ships do not have "multiple identities" in terms of a name and an IMO number. As I've written below in more detail (look for the list with the numbers 1-4.3), ship name categories should exactly refer to one vessel/hull. There may be subcategories for different names and different times (although I can promise you that many ships do not have these), but there is or at least should be exactly one category per vessel/hull. And that is precisely what the IMO category does. If they were only partly overlapping etc., I certainly hadn't started this discussion. Many category systems are parallel and end up at the same super-super-superordinate categories. No problem whatsoever. I'm only objecting because these category systems overlap 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 % (not rounded ^^). As I said, see below for a case-by-case list of how & why they overlap precisely. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the apologies, and don't worry about it. I'm sure I was also off, and I should just have made sure I phrased my initial request more clearly... and, as AFBorchert mentions below, I should have posted it at on entirely page. Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Its not just that different ships have the same name, but the same ship may have different names. We have files of IMO 7018563 as both Pacific Princess' and as Pacific, all we now need is files of her as Sea Venture if there are enough files to warrant it. Thats three possible categories which would be logical sub cats of IMO 7018563, although it details such as builder would remain constant through out the sub categories, other details such as flag and operator have changed and will change.KTo288 (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- [squeezing in...] I think this is exactly the misperception: No, ships do not have "multiple identities" in terms of a name and an IMO number. As I've written below in more detail (look for the list with the numbers 1-4.3), ship name categories should exactly refer to one vessel/hull. There may be subcategories for different names and different times (although I can promise you that many ships do not have these), but there is or at least should be exactly one category per vessel/hull. And that is precisely what the IMO category does. If they were only partly overlapping etc., I certainly hadn't started this discussion. Many category systems are parallel and end up at the same super-super-superordinate categories. No problem whatsoever. I'm only objecting because these category systems overlap 100.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 % (not rounded ^^). As I said, see below for a case-by-case list of how & why they overlap precisely. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the apologies, and don't worry about it. I'm sure I was also off, and I should just have made sure I phrased my initial request more clearly... and, as AFBorchert mentions below, I should have posted it at on entirely page. Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ibn Battuta, in my previous comments I made the statement that the IMO number could possibly be useful. I can now state that it is definately useful. For example IMO 7018563 was initially christened as Sea Venture and is currently called Pacific both logical candidates for the name of the parent category for this ship. However for most of her career she was known as Pacific Princess and is most famous under this name. She also has a fictional identity as the ship used in the television series "The Love Boat", because of the fame of the Pacific Princess name Princess cruises now operates a second ship by the name IMO 9187887 (which itself initially served under another name.) So by the logic of using either the most famous name or the current name we have two ships vying for the same main category title and until a couple of hours ago they were both were, meaning two files at least were mis-categorised. Although we cannot expect users to search by IMO numbers having the numbers helped in at least this case to correct the mistake.KTo288 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the problem (unfortunately) remains, no matter what we do--people will miscategorize ships with identical names, no matter how elaborate our categorization system will be. We can only try to minimize the number of miscategorizations by clarifying category names and/or trying to mention in the categories what is meant. And even then... just have a look at Category:Gorch Fock (ship) - I've intentionally not yet re-categorized the image in it, just to show that no hint or explanation seems enough, especially when many users will have no clue whatsoever which ship they've actually photographed. (BTW, if you have a better suggestion for this or other categories, I'm always happy to adopt the change!) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Keep. The IMO system makes sense for the reason Captain-tucker states. Sv1xv (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion
[edit](subheader added to make the discussion easier to edit)
Comment category:Cats, category:Dogs, Category:Tulips, category:España, category:USA, etc. etc. etc.--all these categories could be used as well, but they aren't (click to find out!), in favor of different category names instead. In fact, there's also a template for merging categories with different names--because Commons so far does not have the policy to use two categories for identical content. With good reason: Why categorize every picture of a ship in two identical categories? To which category would you link on Wikipedia? etc. ... ... ... I don't see any reason so far why having two category names for the same category is helpful. Honestly, I'm more than willing to listen, but so far I only hear that the information is worthwhile. And I've never disputed that. Think of it like uploading the same image twice: We wouldn't keep both, even if the descriptions differ. Instead, we would add the description of one to the other.
I've heard one suggestion so far that addresses the problem of identical categories--namely to delete the non-IMO categories or to rename both. Hm, not bad. We probably all agree that the majority of Wikipedia and Commons users look for ships' names rather than IMO numbers (and unfortunately, ships' names are often harder to google because they can be names of different things as well; and IMO number is unique, as we all know)... but some may indeed find it convenient to use IMO numbers. Sooo... how about this suggestion: rename the categories into category:ship name (IMO number) or category:ship name, IMO number, so that everyone finds what they want? It'd be obviously easy to sort such categories for category:Ships by IMO number (just like sorting name categories by last name)... and there would/should always be exactly one category per hull. The two problems I foresee are: 1.) We have at this point far more IMO categories than ship name categories. Should all those IMO categories be renamed even if no ship name category exists so far? I think it would help, especially because most people won't use/know about IMO numbers, and besides it'd be consistent. 2.) Which name to use (in view of changing names)? I think that, like on the Wikipedias, it would make sense to use the most recent ship name unless the ship really became famous under a different name. I don't foresee too many discussions, at least about the other ship name categories there weren't. And in the case of doubt (or of changing ship names), it's easy enough to rename categories. - Okay, enough. Opinions? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Just in case you wonder: Bots should be able to easily rename those categories, especially if two identical categories already exist.
- Do you mean what I started on a barge: Beveland_ENI_02323406? The main problem working this way is the fact that you can't ask a user who is not familiar with ships or barges to know of ENI or IMO numbers and you have to do a lot of work on each single file to come to this result. And after all that work it is really more a Wikipedia article than a Commons category. I can see what happens should I transfer this article to a not-Netherlands Wikipedia: "Never heard of the ship" with deletion request. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much so... except that I personally wouldn't start single pages for ships (or almost anything) because yes, they are pretty much like articles, and if they're in English, they could simply be articles in the English Wikipedia (where more people are looking for them anyways). But using the same idea for categories would for me resolve this issue. Regarding the "naive users", they won't start IMO categories either, so there's work to do no matter what (also see my answer below, to AFBorchert). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ibn Battuta, if I understand you correctly, you seem to assume that we have two identical category systems rendering one of them obsolete. As outlined by Stunteltje above, that does not seem to be the case because a ship that goes through multiple names and ownerships has a one-to-many relationship to the categories representing a time period with one name and usually just one owner but just a one-to-one relationship to the IMO number. You are further suggesting that in such cases we shall ignore the former relationship by merging the most common or recent name with the IMO number into the category name. I do not think that this proposal helps us as
- this would force us to join categories which were originally split
- to rename lots of existing categories, and
- enforce lots of renamings in the future as most people who do not know about the actual IMO number (or are perhaps not even aware of the IMO number system) are likely to name categories just after the current name.
- This is in my opinion not feasible and given all its burdens would very likely be the end of an organisational system for ships that supports IMO numbers. In addition I would like to add that DRs are not the most suited method to open discussions about large scale reorganizations of category trees. Instead such discussions shall take place at COM:CFD. When a consensus is found there, a transition can be executed without issuing any DRs for individual categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi AFBorchert, sorry, I didn't know about the categorization discussion site. I guess I should have imagined that it must exist, but yeah, I didn't.
- Ibn Battuta, if I understand you correctly, you seem to assume that we have two identical category systems rendering one of them obsolete. As outlined by Stunteltje above, that does not seem to be the case because a ship that goes through multiple names and ownerships has a one-to-many relationship to the categories representing a time period with one name and usually just one owner but just a one-to-one relationship to the IMO number. You are further suggesting that in such cases we shall ignore the former relationship by merging the most common or recent name with the IMO number into the category name. I do not think that this proposal helps us as
- As for the category system: We have virtually two identical category systems. The differences are:
- 1. Some ships have no IMO numbers. Not too many, but those will obviously not appear in the IMO system.
- 2. Some ships have no IMO category yet. Those will probably still be added at some point, but they don't exist yet.
- 3. Some ships have no name category. They obviously all have a name, so it's just a matter of creating said category... but we have far fewer name categories than IMO categories.
- 4. For ships with multiple names:
- 4.1 For some ships with multiple names, only one name category exists. For me that's perfectly sufficient unless a ship has tons of pictures. (I'll rather find two images of a ship in one category than one image each in two categories.) Anyways, such a category is again totally synonymous with the IMO category.
- 4.2 Some ships with multiple names have multiple name categories, but also one super-(ordinate )name category. Such a super-category is again totally synonymous with the IMO category.
- 4.3 Some ships have multiple name categories, but no super-category. I find such absence highly unhelpful and something I'd change wherever I see it. In other words, this is (for me) again a type of cases where the identical name category exists not yet, but should exist.
- So overall, there is for me not a single case where IMO and name categories would differ... only cases where one or the other category is not yet created, and the few cases where no IMO numbers exist. In other words, those are two totally synonymous category system. Surprise? Hardly because it's after all about ships, and if there's a ship, there's a category, and if there's no ship, there's no category. Pretty straight forward.
- As for the category system: We have virtually two identical category systems. The differences are:
- A different question is that of feasibility:
- Right now: Most naive users create name categories; some have to be (or should be) changed, but most are fine or acceptable. (I should add that many users look at what's already out there. Given that the "visible" categories are the name categories, they obviously use the same system.) No naive users (to my knowledge) create IMO categories. So those categories have to be created by other people (currently: Stunteltje), and all pictures have to be added to those categories. In other words:
- Every ship requires one additional category creation ("IMO")
- If we changed to "no IMO categories": No further category creation or edits at pictures (beyond what we're already doing anyways if users don't categorize images at all).
- Every category would need one edit to enter the IMO and technical information (which is currently in the IMO categories). Maybe some users would add it to the category anyways... but more likely this would remain work for users like Stunteltje.
- If we changed to (some sort of) "name & IMO categories": Probably many users would keep creating name categories (although some may see the other categories and mimic them... but let's assume the worst-case scenario).
- Every ship would require one category renaming (i.e. changing from "name" to "name IMO")
- Images already uploaded at that time (usually not many) would require to be moved to the new category... unless we hire a bot to do that.
- Right now: Most naive users create name categories; some have to be (or should be) changed, but most are fine or acceptable. (I should add that many users look at what's already out there. Given that the "visible" categories are the name categories, they obviously use the same system.) No naive users (to my knowledge) create IMO categories. So those categories have to be created by other people (currently: Stunteltje), and all pictures have to be added to those categories. In other words:
- Overall, it seems to me that the work would hardly be different from today, no matter what. The only additional work in the case of "name IMO" categories would be moving the images, which, again, could be delegated to a bot.
- The advantage, however, would be that first and foremost, information becomes accessible to regular users. We can make a poll, but I dare predict that virtually nobody tries to find IMO categories... which means that Stunteltje's enormous work is unfortunately hardly ever helpful/useful right now because virtually nobody finds it! That's a shame, and a waste of work and effort... and should be addressed. Second, we would only have to upkeep one categorization system. Third, I think that identical categorization systems are denying any demands for clarity, sparcity, ressources, etc. As I wrote before, other category names on Commons are intentionally not used to avoid two identical categories. So far, I don't see why ships should be treated any different.
- A different question is that of feasibility:
- In short, I think the current system is sub-optimal, and improving it would be possible and not cause much additional work in the long run. (And switching from the existing system to the new one could be heavily bot-supported, and I'd obviously also be willing to pitch in additional work, so let's disregard that for the time being.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Back to the basics. What is the purpose of the Commons system? For me it is a database of pictures to use for articles in Wikipedia and for pictures used in other projects, if the licence fits. So the main thing is: can the picture be found. Uploaders have to realise that uploading is useless for other users, unless they put the file in the right categories. Look at the number of uncategorised files to see that this is difficult for a lot of less experienced users. It's not so simple. What I did is adding fast tools to find ships. Two main categories: Ships by IMO number and Ships by alphabet. With an IMO number to group files of a ship that is known under different names and for specialists.
- Being aware of the literalists who don't want to see categories with just a single file in it, I didn't create categories for ships by alphabet for ships with just a single picture, unless for a special reason. That is one of the reasons why the number of ships to be found by alphabet is less than the number of ships found by IMO number. A reason to give extra information on the ship by IMO number is adding value on categories with a single file. The other is that looking for an IMO number in most cases gives this information and it is a pity not to use it.
- If a ship is found by somebody who is not familiar with the IMO or ENI system, the user will find that category under the pictures by alphabet or in another category and I assumed that most users want to know what's in it. There they'll find single pictures of that particular ship by that and other shipnames or one or more categories when the ship has more files under a certain name. Putting an IMO number on files in a later stadium creates the fact that files are found here loose and in their name-category. It is extra work to skip those loose files and I spent more time on adding IMO numbers to the Commons fleet than deleting files where the don't harm.
- Using the category system the way I did, it is possible to find a certain ship and to create a category where it can be found easily. The extra work is to gather consised information on a ship, that's correct. Leave it to the user who thinks that it is nice work to do and thinks (hopes) that it is appreciated. In Commons, being a database, the result can be found by all writers of articles in Wikipedia's by language as a starting point for own research. The system @Ibn Battuta is after asks for a lot of extra work and for me it is less clear to users and I doubt if uploaders want to spend much time to work that way. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way. I don't oppose another way of working, as long as it takes no more effort to come to a good result and a simple user as I am can understand how it works. If all the work can be done by a bot, so be it. "Not invented here" is not an issue. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Stunteltje, I think we agree totally on a few things, including: (1) We don't want to cause more work. Period. At least for me, there are two more important goals: (2) I want to create a minimum of work in the long run. Creating two parallel category systems, however, does create work in the long run. How long can you guarantee to take care of the IMO system all by yourself? 1 year? 10? 25? So if we can reduce the system with the same benefits to one sole IMO and/or name category per ship, we are already saving work. (3) I want users to get the maximum benefits. Right now, as we all agree, non-experts are unlikely to use the IMO category system. It is in these categories (and in them only!), however, that you are adding all the great information. So an ordinary user, who is looking for a name category, will not find the ship data. Again: If we can improve this situation, I am all for it.
- So what speaks against the proposal I have made, i.e. using combined ship name/IMO categories? I haven't yet seen one (except that we will have to rename a lot of new categories - well, otherwise we have to create and link a lot of new categories, so I assume that shouldn't be a big issue. Besides, if most ship categories were already created, naive users wouldn't add many more--so we're really talking about very few cases here. And again, we should talk to a bot programmer, if even the renaming might be facilitated. [Just as an example: A bot could compare newly added name categories with ship names from the IMO categories. In many cases, there should be a rather small number of fits, which could be printed onto one website. So one of us only needs to look if the ship is indeed the same.] I do see only one big disadvantage: If all IMO categories were to be sorted into the existing (name) category system, the superordinate categories (e.g., "ship" :o)) would be overcrowded. Not sure if we want that... but I for one wouldn't mind as long as there's at least one image per category. ... though that is a point that we should discuss no matter what.
- I should add that I somehow didn't understand what you meant by these two sentence: Putting an IMO number on files in a later stadium creates the fact that files are found here loose and in their name-category. It is extra work to skip those loose files and I spent more time on adding IMO numbers to the Commons fleet than deleting files where the don't harm. Sorry, could you explain? Do you mean "files" like "images" or categories... or what else? Sorry to be so slow... Warm regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mostly in the IMO category a single image (file) is first. The IMO number groups the images (files) and the name category was created afterwards, when more files are found, and also put in the IMO category. --Stunteltje (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The extensive use of IMO numbers is relatively new, that's why a lot of people are not familiar with it. However it is becoming compulsory in a number of activities and applications (like AIS), so more and more people will want to search with it in the future. Regarding "lots of work", if most of photographs in Commons are categorized, it would be relatively easy to add new ones to the proper category by IMO number. I have also added quite a few IMO numbers and IMO number categories to photos, so Stunteltje is not alone. Sv1xv (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I already found out that the number of IMO categories was increasing without my presence. My person isn't important at all to maintain them, people like Sv1xv and others are helping already. Thanks !!! By adding information of the ship and history to the IMO category it is all the same for each ship by her name. @Ibn Battuta has a point, that I am not scheduled to maintain the information for more than 40 years. My impression is that somebody will, as it is useful. Main problem in my view in his proposal is the renaming. The suggested names are too complex for users not aware of IMO and ENI systems, the majority I assume.
- But uploading by name: no problem. Extra value is creating an IMO category and linking the name and IMO categories, if not done it is a pity, not a problem. Expert and uploading by IMO number and by name categories: no problem at all. More extra value is adding information on the ship in her IMO category, if not done it is a pity, not a problem. Very flexible, no renaming needed.--Stunteltje (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I take your word that you're not the only IMO worker. Still it seems like a "waste of time" for me that you are working on one system while other people work on another system. If we used a shared system, we'd be clearly more efficient. ... Two more thoughts: I'm not sure I've understood your most recent response. I'm sure it was some thoughtful counter-criticism, but I'm not sure... And second, given that this discussion has changed to a renaming rather than deletion discussion, I'd suggest to continue this discussion somewhere where renaming or generally category trees/systems are discussed. Are you okay with that? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- As Sv1xv's comment shows, it's probably a bit difficult for any newcomer to keep track. This is an attempt of a summary so far... please add what you find useful. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed and my respons added. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Attempt of a summary (by protagonist and antagonist together)
[edit]current situation:
- 1 category tree ("category system") of ships categorized by ship name; these categories are sorted into all the normal ship categories. Only a small (unknown) percentage of all ships can be found in Commons, as e.g. Miramar gives more thar 400.000 entries on shipnames. Less than 600 ships in Commons have a category by alphabet (name).
- 1 extra category ("category system") per IMO number of a ship, approx 1350. These categories contain preferably further technical information on the hull and machinery, all her names, history etc., to group the pictures and information per ship in Commons, concise information as starting point for Wikipedia's per language for each ship
Ibn Battuta's criticism of the current situation:
- 2 identical category trees/systems are additional work (as compared to one)
- two identical categories per ship have to be created
- if images are not directly sorted into the category, they later have to be moved twice - once for each category tree/system (e.g., at the moment: Category:IMO 8811986 contains both the identical category Category:Nadieżda (ship) and image:Rotation of S2010024.jpg, which (along with half a dozen other images) is also in Category:Nadieżda (ship) - so someone needs to take it out etc. Check a few categories to see that this is by not an exceptional case, but happens all the time. I've left it in there as an illustration for the time being.)
- most people will not find the IMO categories => so they don't have access to the additional information provided there
Stunteltjes respons:
- creating description pages per ship is seldom useful in Commons, unless things are to be extra described.
- the IMO categories were intended to group pictures of a ship. In many cases finding more pictures of a ship with the same name resulted in a category by alphabet afterwards. The IMO category contains subcategories of ships by alphabet (and the pictures of the ship in that subcategory can be easily withdrawn from the IMO category) together with (a) picture(s) of that ship under (a) different name(s).
Ibn Battuta's "solution" (= work in progress):
- rename all ship categories to "ship name, IMO number" (or similar), then categorize them into all the normal ship categories and have all the information available to all users
Stunteltje's criticism of Ibn Battuta's "solution":
- as it is done so far, users will find the IMO number in the categories and are by then aware of the IMO existence
- not all people know about IMO numbers and/or understand how to name them => users may create categories, which would have to be renamed
- E-facts (as a new shipname) are to be changed in or added to an number of categories by alphabet, not in single IMO category
- in case of a new name on a ship: the category by alphabet is not only to be renamed, but all gathered technical and historical information of a ship is to be added
Ibn Battuta's response to Stunteltje's criticism:
- It won't be much more work (if any) than the current work of linking name and IMO categories
- Besides, we have far more IMO than name categories, so chances are that not so many users ever have to create new categories... because the correct categories will often pre-exist.
Restart
[edit]Not deleted nor transferred to renaming, so awaiting further action I started adding IMO numbers with descriptions again. We have 1450 ships in the IMO category by now. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Conclusion
[edit]- I would say it's safe to conclude on this. There is a was majority for 'keep'. If somebody should think that a exact vote should be cast, this of course can done, but i really don't see a need for this and think that the delete template should be removed in a very near future. --Hebster (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the proposed compromise does not bring improvement, simplification or less work, so I would suggest, as the majority I presume; keep. --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the proposed compromise does not bring improvement, simplification or less work, so I would suggest, as the majority I presume; keep. --Foroa (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then some Administrator should close the deletion request and archive the discussion. Sv1xv (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I have relisted this topic in "categories for discussion" as that seems to be the more appropriate place by now, and Stunteltje agreed above. Please feel free to voice your same opinions there. As some of the original voices did not concern the latest suggestion (and to keep the discussion a tiny bit shorter), I will not copy people's opinions into the new discussion unless they ask me to. Regards, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept as the further discussion has been moved to Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/04/Category:Ships by IMO number by Ibn Battuta and Stunteltje. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Bausch pictures
[edit]- File:Cravos01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cravos02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Cravos03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted from speedy deletion. Deletion reason given:- This file is a copyright violation because the original photographer was not authorized by Tanztheater Wuppertal Pina Bausch GmbH. The photographer had no right to take pictures during the performance. Original proposer User:Martiny Simonxag (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep The Commons (and the media in general) contain many examples of photographs of performances from all over the world, with and without the performers' permission. Performers do not seem to be able to be able to assert copyright over simple photographs of them. Even if the photographer broke a contract with the theater, this does not give the theater copyright over the pictures. I think it is up to anyone wanting these images deleted to point to some law actually implemented in the relevant country giving Tanztheater copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, probably delete, because according to COM:CB#Concert photography, the design of the stage can be subject to copyrights. Cropping the images to show the artists only could be an intermediate solution, but I think it would lose all its interest (I could be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the performing artists are not famous, and the pictures are meant to show the choreography and stage set). –Tryphon☂ 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Flower arrangements and stage clothing - I do not see anything copyrightable here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Whether the photographer was authorized or not by Tanztheater Wuppertal Pina Bausch GmbH does not concern us. The only question is whether these images constitute a derived work of a possibly copyrighted stage design. Does anyone know where this performance took place? Finally I would like to point to this discussion according to which still photographs of public performances are not considered as a derived work in quite some jurisdictions. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete The choreographer of the piece owns its copyright, in this case Pina Bausch and if the photographer did not have permission to make these pictures, they are illegal. And you can endlessly discuss whether to keep them or to delete them, they still will be illegal. --Martiny (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the policies before making such assessments. Whether someone has the right to take a picture or not has nothing to do with the copyright over the picture, so we (Commons) do not care about that. The only important question is whether the subject is eligible for copyright or not, which is arguable. –Tryphon☂ 18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to tell me that wikimedia policies have priority over law? --Martiny (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia policies follow the law. Please get informed. I recommend to read this and this (both at de-wp). In addition, it would be very kind of you if you could tell us where this performance took place in case you know this. Thanks. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read the links you gave me and they didn't have any use for me. I don't know, where the performance took place and it doesn't matter as, wherever it was, it will still be Pina Bausch's choreography, Peter Pabst's stage design and Mario Cite's costumes. As German articles seem to be ok for an argumentation, I want to cite German law: “Der Urheber hat ferner das ausschließliche Recht, sein Werk in unkörperlicher Form öffentlich wiederzugeben (Recht der öffentlichen Wiedergabe). Das Recht der öffentlichen Wiedergabe umfasst insbesondere (...) das Recht der Wiedergabe durch Bild- oder Tonträger (...).” (Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. September 1965 (BGBl. I S. 1273), zuletzt geändert durch das Gesetz vom 7. Dezember 2008 (BGBl. I S. 2349), §15, Absatz 2, Punkt 4)--Martiny (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is about film, not about still photography. The German law also mentions "wiederholbaren Wiedergabe von Bild- oder Tonfolgen" - sequences of images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Luckily, I also found an International law, basically with the same content: “Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form. (...) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.” (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886; article 9, point 1 and 3) --Martiny (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- This DR was filed for still photographs, not recordings. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read the links you gave me and they didn't have any use for me. I don't know, where the performance took place and it doesn't matter as, wherever it was, it will still be Pina Bausch's choreography, Peter Pabst's stage design and Mario Cite's costumes. As German articles seem to be ok for an argumentation, I want to cite German law: “Der Urheber hat ferner das ausschließliche Recht, sein Werk in unkörperlicher Form öffentlich wiederzugeben (Recht der öffentlichen Wiedergabe). Das Recht der öffentlichen Wiedergabe umfasst insbesondere (...) das Recht der Wiedergabe durch Bild- oder Tonträger (...).” (Urheberrechtsgesetz vom 9. September 1965 (BGBl. I S. 1273), zuletzt geändert durch das Gesetz vom 7. Dezember 2008 (BGBl. I S. 2349), §15, Absatz 2, Punkt 4)--Martiny (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia policies follow the law. Please get informed. I recommend to read this and this (both at de-wp). In addition, it would be very kind of you if you could tell us where this performance took place in case you know this. Thanks. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to tell me that wikimedia policies have priority over law? --Martiny (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Yes, "works protected by this Convention", the question is which works are protected. In the case of actors performing on a scene, the actor himself is not an artistic work protected by the Convention, he's just a person with no copyright on him, so anyone can take a picture. That leaves us with the stage set, which may or may not be eligible for copyright. But nothing in what you quoted backs up the idea that taking a picture of someone on stage, even if cameras are forbidden, makes the image non-free. –Tryphon☂ 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Before posing questions, one may read the given sources, because maybe, questions can be answered that way. Citation: “The expression ‘literary and artistic works’ shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.” (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886 (...), article 2, point 1, font format is not part of the written convention)--Martiny (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I'm saying, parts of a performance are eligible for copyright (a specific choreography, elements of the stage set, etc.) but when you say the photographer had no right to take pictures during the performance, that has nothing to do with whether the picture is free or not; that's why I'm saying we don't care about that. So in these images, some parts (the stage design) may be copyrightable, and should probably be cropped out; but saying that a still picture of three actors infringes the copyright of the choreography is a bit much. –Tryphon☂ 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to say, that a choreography is less copyright protected than a picture or a stage design? And do you want me to change the reason of the deletion request to something like “This is an unallowed reproduction of a copyright protected piece of art (choreography)”?--Martiny (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, if I may respond, we want to say that still photographs do not infringe the copyright of a choreography. This is possible through a film sequence but not by taking some snapshots. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- How comes I state a law for everything I write and you just write what comes to your mind as if it was a fact? People have reconstructed whole ballets just with the help of some pictures. People have reconstructed whole ancient cities just with the help of some earthenware. If you see a picture of the Statue of Liberty, you may know exactly where it stands and can tell its history. You put some details together and add knowledge and you have a whole puzzle solved. Just because a choreography may be not as concrete as a statue is, it doesnt mean that it's less protected by law. And the law says NO reproduction of ANY kind.--Martiny (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, a certain minimal threshold of originality (deutsch: Schöpfungshöhe) must be met before this is considered. And we are not concerned here with the originality and copyrightability of the whole choreography but consider just that what is depicted by these photographs. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- If this would be true, then movie stills and modern literature excerpts would be in the public domain. But they are not. --Martiny (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your conclusion is wrong as a photograph itself is in most cases eligible for copyright. But we are not talking about the copyright status of the photograph itself (as it was published under a free license) but about the copyright status of the depicted scene. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- How comes I state a law for everything I write and you just write what comes to your mind as if it was a fact? People have reconstructed whole ballets just with the help of some pictures. People have reconstructed whole ancient cities just with the help of some earthenware. If you see a picture of the Statue of Liberty, you may know exactly where it stands and can tell its history. You put some details together and add knowledge and you have a whole puzzle solved. Just because a choreography may be not as concrete as a statue is, it doesnt mean that it's less protected by law. And the law says NO reproduction of ANY kind.--Martiny (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, if I may respond, we want to say that still photographs do not infringe the copyright of a choreography. This is possible through a film sequence but not by taking some snapshots. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you want to say, that a choreography is less copyright protected than a picture or a stage design? And do you want me to change the reason of the deletion request to something like “This is an unallowed reproduction of a copyright protected piece of art (choreography)”?--Martiny (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I'm saying, parts of a performance are eligible for copyright (a specific choreography, elements of the stage set, etc.) but when you say the photographer had no right to take pictures during the performance, that has nothing to do with whether the picture is free or not; that's why I'm saying we don't care about that. So in these images, some parts (the stage design) may be copyrightable, and should probably be cropped out; but saying that a still picture of three actors infringes the copyright of the choreography is a bit much. –Tryphon☂ 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Before posing questions, one may read the given sources, because maybe, questions can be answered that way. Citation: “The expression ‘literary and artistic works’ shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.” (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886 (...), article 2, point 1, font format is not part of the written convention)--Martiny (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a similar discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg. See also Commons talk:Licensing/Archive_6#Copyright status of concert photographs. Martiny should quote some case law if he wants to get anywhere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment Users often try to apply abstract philosophical, moral and legal principles. But we don't include pictures because we are for freedom or exclude them because "they are illegal". We are trying to protect users of images from legal consequences. When the law says that toys are sculptures, it may be an ass, but it can still kick. What is relevant here is not how you or I interpret some law, but how courts in the real world (where we might actually get sued) interpret it. Can anyone quote any cases where courts have upheld a claim of copyright over pictures of a performance and the surrounding stage design? --Simonxag (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Pieter Kuiper for showing me this link (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg) as it shows me, how malicious Administrators can become when something runs against their opinion or the project rules. I especially like the conclusion of User:Korrigan: “Maybe amateur lawyers could troll in other places than Commons?” I obviously have a higher respect for human beings and their effort in whatever direction than Korrigan or the people who want to tell me that choreography is not worth being copyrighted. I should have ended this discussion much earlier and I don't want to end up being regarded as a troll. I'm sorry for the effort I have caused to everyone taking part in this discussion. --Martiny (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let it make me clear: I followed that link and was similarly surprised by that rude concluding statement. Copyright law is unfortunately quite sophisticated and there is no problem in discussing this for a particular case. In general, the communities at the Wikimedia projects (in particular at Commons and at de-wp) attempt to follow very strictly copyright law (at US and that of the country of origin). You'll find at Commons and at de-wp quite a number of pages that summarize what is possible and what not including references to case law as far as such cases have been brought to court. Having said this, it would be nevertheless helpful to consider our previous cases and our policies which detail how we handle such cases before we repeat similar discussions at every DR. So please don't be afraid to comment on DRs. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Tryphon, and the policy he cites seems to apply here. I think the murkiness of the consensus here is a product of the fact that COM:CB#Concert photography probably requires some clarification; it seems to me that these images fall under the blanket of artistically designed (and therefore possibly copyright-violative), but the policy on the matter is too vague and ill-defined to know for sure. It may be prudent to ask people in appropriate circles to review the phrasing and make it more incisive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do we know where the picture was taken and what is the normal jurisdiction for this picture? It seems in the US at least, a still photograph cannot infringe the copyright of a choreography (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Horgan v. Macmillan, April 28, 1986): what's protected in a choreography seems to be the "flow of steps". Concerning the stage, I'm not sure it passes the threshold of originality. I would tend to agree, on the whole, with AFBorchert. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The photographer is from Portugal, but those advocating deletion have yet to show any law giving performers copyright over their image, actually operating anywhere in the world. As for the stage, it has a fair supply of props but no actual artwork at all. --Simonxag (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept No copyright violation established. Sv1xv (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Judging by the CoA also uploaded by the same Wikipedia user this is has not been released under GNU. Svgalbertian (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete User Maclean25 uploaded both w:en:Image:Chetwynd Coat-of-arms.jpg & w:en:Image:Chetwynd Flag.png. However for the CoA, he noted the source as the Confidential Secretary of the District of Chetwynd. Given is the the same CoA in the flag, I do not believe the image is properly licensed.--Svgalbertian (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: it's the flag of a city. Numerous flags have their coat of arms in them, such as Minnesota, and Manitoba. RingtailedFox (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The flag (and the coat of arms contained) is copyrighted and cannot be hosted on Commons without a free license. It can however be hosted on Wikipedia if a fair use rational is given (as was done with w:en:Image:Chetwynd Coat-of-arms.jpg).--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The title of the image is wrong. The war time naval ensign of Austria-Hungary was File:Austria-Hungary Naval Ensign1918.gif. The page should be moved to File:Austria-Hungary-flag-1869-1914-naval-1786-1869-merchant.svg
- In case you can provide a source, I'd agree to that move. Gugganij (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a source, but I believe the file name should be better. I would go with File:Merchant Ensign of Austria-Hungary (1786-1869).svg and just add to the text at the bottom (also the War Ensign from 1880-1915). Or just have the image uploaded twice under different names. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kept, no reason to delete. If the file name sucks, use {{Rename}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This was deleted from enwiki recently as a suspected copyvio; it is believed the uploader does not have the rights to this image Stifle (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I took this picture myself....There are other pictures from the set uploaded by me on commons. Corpx (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Given the user's other contributions, I see no reason to doubt their claim of authorship. Anyway, the file that was deleted from en.wikipedia was a different image. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
