Wikipedia talk:Management of Commons content

Problem?

Other than the previously discussed image placeholders (which still hasn't been settled one way or the other), this page seems to be a solution in search of a problem. –xeno^talk 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight feeling of this also. However I've nominated several commons images before only for a bot to close the FFD and I've been left wondering what to do. I think this would be useful but not used as much as FFD Gnevin (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples? –xeno^talk 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the bot message says, you need to go to commons:Commons:Deletion_requests and request their deletion there. You can also visit the image page on Commons and click on "nominate for deletion" in the left-hand column. Your Wikipedia account should work there as well. Mike Peel (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under what reasoning As far as I know copyvio is the only legitimate reason for deletion from commons Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if there is indeed consensus not to use these images as they are used here, why do we not simply stop using them? Perhaps the consensus does not exist as you say. –xeno^talk 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because not everyone is aware of consensus or willing to abide by it Gnevin (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also how do I discuss File:Vlag_ontbreekt.svg for example? Gnevin (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPM ? I mean it's not widely used, why not just try removing it from where it is used and see if there is opposition? –xeno^talk 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want to have to discuss with the world and it's mother's wikiproject. A centralised location for discussion is really needed . And even if at the end of that discussion was successful the image would be back in use in day Gnevin (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~So you're looking for a place to avoid discussion with and/or veto WikiProjects? That doesn't sound like a good way to go about things.~~ –xeno^talk 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please AFG, I'm looking for a centralized discussion not to avoid discussion,no one possibly has the time for example to discuss with every wiki project that uses Missing_flag.png that it shouldn't be used. Why do we currently have FFD and not just simply remove the offending file? The same applies to commons images but we can't delete them Gnevin (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing flag and its Nordic equivalent have less than 100 uses all in. Its use on the "List of ... flags", I think is acceptable. It's use on some of the communes (or whatever they are called) is probably not necessary - it could be stripped out from there. And we can see what happens after that. Kind of a 'just do it' solution... –xeno^talk 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the Rugby flag discussion above , it was agreed (now under discussion again) it was and WP:OI and should not be used yet it's still on EN wiki and still OI! Gnevin (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone get a bot to remove it? –xeno^talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I had to use AWB to do it as it was mainly linked by template and required manual intervention .Then Ireland went and won a Grand slam and then we had the file like a weed popping up all over Gnevin (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're starting to convince me. Will see what others think. Thanks, –xeno^talk 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really disappointed to see that Gnevin who is in minority in a discussion on Irish icons for rugby comes here without informing the discussion to try to get them deleted. Precisions:

The removal of these icons was not consensual when you did it. You did not wait for consensus arguing with WP:OI.
You are the only one to mention OI for the Shamrock per se

Most contributors try to find how to get a proper image for Irish teams. If you want to have them removed from Commons, you could have at the very least informed those involved in the discussion. In any case it would be ludicrous to remove the Shamrock which is just a symbol like the Yin and Yang.Gpeilon (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an attempt to Forum shop, I raised this about an unrelated issue which has gone off on a bit of a tangent, I've made it clear above the flag issue is under discussion again. This isn't about removing images from commons. The image in question isn't used by the main space at all and last but not least the adding of this image has stopped and I'm not suggesting it be removed. I was using as example when having a commons image blocked would of been handy as such I felt no need to inform anyone Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless

Why do this? I can't see any point in doing so, only downsides... To go through the "reasons for blocking": * Vandalism, patent nonsense, or gibberish

- ~~So put it through the deletion process at Commons.~~

* Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an File about an advertising-related subject)

- ~~So remove it from pages as it's inserted.~~

* Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

- ~~Not sure where this fits in with Commons...~~
Breeches of original images
- Huh?
Files whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline
- Why block these? I can think of no good reason.
Files that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
- Can you give any examples here?
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
- Again, why block these?

Fundamentally, any talk of 'blocking' another Wikimedia project is crazy talk in my mind. We're all part of the same website, essentially, sharing the same values, etc. Projects are just located at different URLs, and have different tasks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't all sharing the same values . Commons as far as I know cares not for OI , or BLP issues no I could be wrong . Can you link me to where commons deletion guidelines are ? Take for example File:Replace this image female.svg, Imagen a hypothetical where there is con to remove this image and no long use it. How does this happen? Gnevin (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with people using File:Replace this image female.svg, although I know that people have objected to it in the past. Uses can either be removed, or left as-is. I don't see the need to block it. BLP concerns I thought applied to all Wikimedia projects; however it's on Wikipedia that they're most problematic. What's "OI"?

(PS: apologies if this is coming across confrontationally. It isn't intentional. I've had a stressful day, though, so am not taking the usual care over how I phrase things. Please don't take anything personally.) Mike Peel (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your not coming across confrontationally if you are I'll give you a gentle poke in the eye to stop :) but I know a thing or 2 about stressful days .

OI is WP:OI and as such Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_11#Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg is a prime example (see WP:RUIRLFLAG) . Maybe BLP applies to wikimedia, I can't seem to find any deletion guidelines on Commons. In the hypothetical I gave above how do we prevent reuse (sorry for hypothetical as no commons image has ever been removed I can't give a real example). Gnevin (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gap in policy I am attempting to highlight

Why can we discuss if Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_26#File:Ocarina_range.png is WP:OR/WP:OI but not Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_26#File:Vlag_ontbreekt.svg. Also why if I moved File:Ocarina_range.png to commons would the discussion automatically stop? I know with files with ten's of links this isn't a major issue but when we are discussing or attempting to discuss files used across thousands of pages surely we shouldn't have a bot tell us to stop talking? Gnevin (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum closures

I've reviewed 3 month for FFD's and found a number Wrong forum closures .Most where attempts to deletes orphans which where on commons but the following where interesting Wrong forum closures. As you can see we aren't snowed under

As a side issue i'm worried about the number of copyvio claims that bot has closed with out human review such as

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_November_27#File:Spix.27s_Macaw.jpg

Should I ask the bot's owner to review the copyvio issue? Gnevin (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those still need to be taken up at commons. –xeno^talk 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest here

MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list Gnevin (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is one possible way to implement a "block image" ruling. –xeno^talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Files whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline"

This could be problematic. For instance, the infobox image on Human depicts non-notable subjects and yet is of great encyclopedic use and value, but sounds as though it could be jeopardized by said requirement. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire proposal makes no sense. Appropriateness of an image depends on the context, so a blanket block only makes sense when an image is widely and overwhelmingly used inappropriately, and we already have MediaWiki:Bad image list for that. Paradoctor (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bad image list doesn't deal with the likes of OI or other problematic images. Also where is the guidelines for the bad image list? I can't find them maybe could come under the scope this proposal? Gnevin (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"list doesn't deal with the likes of OI": It isn't meant to be. It used to block images that would otherwise see "widespread" misuse (vandalism, generally). If the misuse is limited to one article or three, the usual mechanism is: Inappropriate uses are deleted manually, like every other forms of OR. Paradoctor (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've modified the proposal to state images with 1 or 2 links can be dealt with locally but where does one discuss the likes of File:Replace_this_image_female.svg or deal with images that keep reappearing ? Gnevin (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for the bad image list are currently documented on the talk page (poorly, IMO). If nothing else then this could be the policy page for that, although it should be reworked/rewritten specifically with that in mind. Has anyone posted a note about this on MediaWiki talk:Bad image list by the way?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should also put a note up at Template:CENT. –xeno^talk 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave Cent to someone else, because I don't think that it's really a good idea to post it there until we've nailed down the proposal a bit more. Anyone is obviously free to post it there regardless, but it's usually best to have the general issue somewhat resolved before trying to attract the big audiences (not that we're hiding it, but there's no need to make a splash with an unfinished product).
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Gneven already posted it to cent though. *shrug*
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "blocking"?

What do you mean by "blocking", technically? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically to prevent the commons image being used here. –xeno^talk 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prevent how? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either the bad images list or by uploading a local version of the image (a 1x1 transparent pixel). –xeno^talk 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I general, I do not like this because whether to include an image is best decided where it is used. I actually like that Commons is separate from Wikipedia because it keeps the control freaks here from meddling with images. If an image should not be used on a page here, then just remove it from that page. Discuss it on the talk page of necessary. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is proposed only for special cases. –xeno^talk 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC)Gneven's original idea is to technically block the image somehow, and Xeno offered/suggested that the way to accomplished that would be to have a 1x1 pixel file with the same name here on Wikipedia. Personally I think that's overkill, and it's best to simply mark them somehow and people can run around and police their use. It's been pointed out that we're already doing this for some Files through the use of MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list, and this seems to me to simply be a more formal extension of that process.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Management of Commons content

I think I understand the purpose of this. I agree that Commons policy in what files are allowed is quite different from Wikipedias, and a lot of files violating Wikipedias policies will not be deleted from Commons. The same way as many files stored here do not meet Commons license standards but are allowed to to stay. Aas someone already pointed out Commons is a repository of media for all Wikipedias and sister projects, not just English Wikipedia. Even factually incorrect files are not deleted (see here) and frequent edit wars for example related to "correct" borders of countries are usually handled by creating 2 versions of the file (see for example File:Christianity percentage by country.png) and asking each wikipedia to choose by themselves which one to use.

I do not understand the blocking mechanism proposed here, and as far as I can tell I can link to any file on commons and there is not much you can do about it except reverting my edits. Also many files not meeting Wikipedia standards in the main (or template) namespace would be fine in the user namespace (for example File:Tripeman legend.jpg). The solution I would propose is to create a "black list" of files which do not meet wikipedia standards and in the past were used in main namespace and had to be removed. Than create a process which allows fast check if any of those files are used in Wikipedia main namespace. Some of those tasks could be even done by a bot. --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking criteria

I have been thinking about this proposal, and I have to reject it as a whole. I fail to see circumstances where such blocking may be applied: some of them are not clear cut and, even if unadvisable somewhere, may be correctly used somewhere else; while others would have to be deleted from Commons to begin with.

First of all, the relation of "No original research" to images is highly overrated. Unlike Wikipedia, which works mainly with text and where sources can easily be read, interpreted and re-written in a completely new original way that may be freely licenced, there's no such freedom in images. Modification of copyrighted images constitute a derivative work, and can only be done when the original was already in public domain. So, Commons actually encourages people to create and upload "original" works, such as photos or diagrams. Using just images with expired copyrights (which would not be "original research") would leave without images most articles of topics from the last century.

Second, something that fails specific notability may not have an article of its own, but may be legitimately used at more general articles. As pointed, random unknown people can be used to ilustrate articles like human. Random buildings may be used to ilustrate articles about building styles or the city where they are located. Even more, wikipedians themselves fail (in 99,99% of cases) such notability, but may upload a picture of themselves and use it at their user page. On the other hand, a file of a non-notable garage band whose article wouldn't be acceptable, and which isn't used anywhere, can be proposed for deletion on Commons itself.

Not surprising, Commons does not have a "Biographies of living people" policy. it does not host biopgraphies to begin with. But, within its own scope, it has Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Images that may be themselves violations of BLP (such as a paparazi photo of a famous person being nude at his home, taken with far-distance shots, hidden cameras or something of the like) can be deleted from Commons itself.

Content unsuitable for an encyclopedia may still be freely used at other namespaces. What use can an encyclopedia have for an image of Jimbo Wales posing as Uncle Sam, or a Wikipedia logo with christmass decorations?

Before this proposal gets any further, it should clearly set a valid criteria for blocking. Without it, it would be useless to go on talking about alternatives or process. MBelgrano (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but I'm at least willing to give it a shot. If the original proposal is softened, so that there is not real "blocking" (such as through the proposed use of a 1x1 image), then it becomes simply a means for us to manage at least some interwiki use, which is why I renamed the article and rewrote the lead. Personally I don't put much value in "policing efforts", which this will become if adopted, but it does have some value, and I'd rather give those with the interest in doing that guidance on how to avoid the wrath of people such as myself then to simply try to ignore them and pretend that it's not important. I definitely agree that there needs to be much more refinement of what this is going to mean, and how it's structured, before going any further.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transparent pixel blocking is only one possible way of closing a discussion about Commons content. It doesn't necessarily have to be the solution used for all nominations under this proposed process. –xeno^talk 16:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rejecting the project as a whole just for the sake about being against. I reject it after a detailed analysis and finding all it's reasons to be flawed. Besides, I see a potencial problem as well with it: it may be used to bypass Commons when a user may want to delete a file and gets rejected in there.

As for the transparent pixel, as I said, you must first come up with strong reasons to "block" a file before thinking in ways to implement such blockade MBelgrano (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too still question the necessity of this process, but see above at #Problem?, where I was somewhat swayed. –xeno^talk 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, although I probably support it slightly more then Xeno does. If it ever is adopted then it definitely needs to be reworked in order to address the "bypass Commons" concerns, but dealing with the use of Commons and our other sister projects is just something that I believe to be worth some effort.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this page seems to be a solution in search of a problem

As xeno said right at the top. Where are the examples of problematic files that aren't adequately covered by current practice? Section "Reasons for blocking" lists established policy handled by established procedure. If this is not to be WP:CREEP, then there must be significant improvement offered by this proposal. Paradoctor (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you delete with and OI commons image? Gnevin (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't delete them, but you can undo attempts to add them to wikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit much to ask a user to keep removing an Image which is appearing non stop all over the place. If we could agree to a bot to monitor there usage this would be fine Gnevin (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I've edited the proposal so the main thrust is that be establish a centralised discussion and that images should only be blocked as a last resort. Gnevin (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it...

I can't really come up with any instances of Commons images that violate enwiki policy so egregiously as to justify blocking it from the site. Any sexually explicit images used for vandalism can go on MediaWiki:Bad image list. The last thing we need to do is create further separation between WMF projects... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I suggested this I wasn't aware of MediaWiki:Bad image list but this doesn't cover the likes of File:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg. Which was major pain to keep removing every day when Ireland won the grand slam but blocking should be a last resort of problematic issues like this Gnevin (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this doesn't cover the likes of File:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg": How do you know? Paradoctor (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the bad image list just seems to be for "vulgar" images plus I'd never heard of it in 3 years on wiki editing till yesterday Gnevin (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? If any content is being used disruptively, we have ways of dealing with it, including page protection, deletion, or blocking. Proposing that we block certain images from Commons seems like a very ill-considered idea to be perfectly honest. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really ,where are these ways of dealing? I couldn't find them , either could the other users I asked . Can we get over the blocking idea for now ? We need a process which acknowledges that fact that commons files can be used on 100's or 1000's of pages , we can't reasonably expect a user to discuss the removal of a commons image with 10's or 100's of wiki projects , as such I'm modified the discussion to be about discussion first and foremost Gnevin (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...if they're used on 100s of pages, presumably they're supposed to be? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say who, de facto usage? In the past why used flags in text,until someone said wait a minute. We've had templates used on 1000's of articles until someone said wait a minute. But files are above discussion? Why can't we discuss them ? Gnevin (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a discussion and deal with it. Again, you haven't identified a problem that we can't solve through standard editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion where? Once again I'm not saying blocking should be our go to. It should rarely be needed. I am suggesting that of the small number of commons files that need to be discussed centrally most will result in a remove back links sort of ruling. However if it's discovered that after a central discussion the file is still problematic, a other discussion could result in a block or automatic bot removal or something like this ruling Gnevin (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you're edit-warring over a picture, that's the perfect time to protect the article, and if there's one person who's causing a problem by adding the picture, it's time for a block.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why simple editing can't solve most problems, why blocking of contentious editors wouldn't solve most of the rest, and why the bad images list (of which I've never heard before now) can't be used in the remaining very few instances. Commons was created to host material for various Wikimedia projects in order to help them; I don't see why we should try to reduce its usefulness. To address specific issues:

Violation of original images — can't we simply remove these images from articles on which they're being used? An original image (if you mean original research with images, not simply images that I've created) isn't likely to be useful for an education purpose, so it fails the scope of Commons and is a good target for deletion there.
Files whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline — does this mean that I can't use this picture of a very nonnotable post office and a very nonnotable postal customer to illustrate any relevant article? Why would we want to make any extralegal requirements (other than consensus at individual talk pages) on which images belong on a page?
Files that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons — again, why can't these be removed by normal editing? Commons doesn't permit any and every file; problematic images are likely to be seen as problematic there, so they're more likely to be deleted.
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia — how do we determine that, other than on a case-by-case basis?

Overall, I see this as a rather unhelpful proposal. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen! This is about a forum or a centralized discussion area. How do you expect a user to deal with File:Sin bandera.svg it's used of 1500 articles. As I've repeat several times these can be remove on case-by-case basis but expecting a user to discuss in 10's or 100's of wiki projects i just not feasible.

Expecting a user to get his way on the removal of an image without discussing it with all the people who are using it is unreasonable. If you insist, then get some policy about flags or whatever to add a note that No flag images shouldn't be used and get a legit bot owner to add removing these images to his or her bot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable? Are FFD,CFD, AFD, TFD and MFD unreasonable processes?. These allows us to remove stuff without discussing it all with the people who are using it . All I am asking for is this gap in policy be closed Gnevin (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion processes, unlike this one, are cleanup tasks, not people control tasks, and all of those processes are designed to bring the people who are using the stuff to the table in the discussion. Not only that, the smaller of those processes can be pretty problematic at worst, when things get deleted on the say-so of the couple people who frequent that forum. You want to create a new forum that will only have a very few people who care to follow it so you can stomp on images that are used in 1500 articles? Unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FFD could be exteand or transclud a Commons for discussion .You want to create a new forum that will only have a very few people who care to follow it so you can stomp on images that are used in 1500 articles? Yes and then I want to delete the letter K. I wanted to have a discussion about Management of Commons content but clearly that is not possible. Gnevin (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For discussions of such topics that involve a large scope of articles/pages/sections/whatever of wikipedia, the Village Pump will suffice. I don't advise spliting it into several topic-specific village pumps, it would make it less likely that a great number of users notice the issue, which is supposed to be the idea of the Village Pump. And yes, image placeholders have been discussed before in there, and there was no clear consensus on removing them MBelgrano (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in a nutshell

I contend File:Replace_this_image_female.svg is an example of WP:OI and I want discuss this. Where do I do this?

Please don't reply with why the image isn't OI . Please just provide me with a link to a place where this image can be discussed or does wiki expect me to discuss it on over 5000 talk pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the letter k is evil; please don't reply with why this letter isn't evil, just tell me to where we can discuss the replacement of this letter with ख over all Wikipedia; do you really expect me to discuss it on over 1,000,000 talk pages? (I've seriously seen the proposal on the Unicode list.)

Seriously; if it's in use on 5000 pages, then it's probably not WP:OI. Nor is trying to casually smack it down a wise thing; delete this image on some tiny page that a half-dozen people will know about, and you'll stir up a hornet's nest of pissed-off users. If it has to go, make policy the hard way, and preferably in such a way that it covers replacement pictures too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about the letter k is not helpful. I asked you not to discuss the OI issue as I wanted it to highlight that we've no where to discuss commons files not if the file is OI or not .Of course ,you want to discuss it here but no one wants a legitimate Commons For Deletion/Removal/Whatever process. Also you say probably isn't OI has anyone discussed this? No! Why because there is no where to discuss it. We've CFD,FFD,AFD,MFD and TFD but no where to discuss commons issues. When I use hypothetical no one takes it seriously . If I use a real example every starts voting keep. Also if we ever got a process for this sort of image I know nominating the place holder would most like result in a snow close. Gnevin (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that examples need to be serious ones? Offer one, then. You can discuss it on the article talk page. If it's on 5,000 article pages, then thousands of Wikipedians have seen no serious problem with it and since WP:OI is a major problem, it's not WP:OI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Ireland rugby.svg was on 1'000's of articles for 3 years before anyone questioned it Gnevin (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The place for such thing is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Time to remove placeholders? MBelgrano (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VP told me to go to FFD Well, if you want to fight that fight, go ahead. If you're right then you shouldn't have any real issues with WP:FFD... Gnevin (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it was noticed later in the thread, Files For Deletion is not a valid venue for files hosted in Commons. Neither Commons is the place to solve an issue that belongs to wikipedia (using placeholders or not). Then, go back to square 1: go ahead discussing the topic itself on the village pump. However, the thread should be restarted: it developed too far ahead into discussing how to remove placeholders from articles without getting before the needed consensus to do that (the action itself, not the technical way to implement it) in the first place MBelgrano (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the placeholders any more this is meant to be a generic Management of Commons content discussion . Which I no long care about either Gnevin (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't try and manage Commons content on EN Wikipedia without a good reason. If all realistic problems have other solutions, like discussions on the talk page or on the Village Pump, then we don't need this new policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jmabel

BLP issues are more or less the same on Commons as on en-wiki, so that appears to me to be a red herring.

Something like the Irish rubgy flag issue: it doesn't seem from what I see above that the point is to ban it from en-wiki: it's to avoid having it use for a particular purpose on en-wiki. That could be largely accomplished by having a brief, prominent remark near the top of its Commons page and possibly using the "Bad image list" to limit it to articles where there might be a specific reason to use it. This proposal is overkill for that.

The one thing where there is a deep difference between en-wiki and Commons is NPOV. A single image is often not neutral. It may easily represent the views of one side in a contentious area. But in those cases, the issue on en-wiki would be to contextualize/balance it properly in any article, not to block the image entirely.

For the few cases of issues like placeholders, the Village Pump is probably a good place to try to develop a consensus.

In short, this seems like a solution to which there is no known problem. - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that above someone had a similar thought and called it "a solution in search of a problem". - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, which is why I've been saying all along that this should be reworked. The issue is obviously important to Gneven, and I think that he has a bit of a point, so I think that saying this is a solution in search of a problem is a bit harsh. Aside from that though, the bad image list really should have an actual policy/guideline document associated with it. The minimal and obscure instructions on that talk page are hardly proper policy documentation. So, there are problems to be addressed, just not in the way that Gneven seems to most desire. I don't think that we need to throw the whole thing out just because the first draft is too rough to be useful right off the bat.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What links here

Since this relates to files fo discussion, I'm 'What links here' linking this page to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]