Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
This image had illustrated the article on Wuerzburg for a long while, and was then removed by an anonymous edit in February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%FCrzburg&diff=9939546&ol...
It was soon afterward listed for deletion as one of hundreds of "unverified orphans" [UOs] listed in recent months. Quoth an enthusiastic UO deleter: "I've been doing this for about a month, and it's been generally well received."
Out of about 100 such images currently listed on Images for Deletion, I found about 20 which were either clearly uploaded by their creators, or seemed likely to have been (by virtue of composition, edit summaries, image descriptions). Some of these could clearly be used productively in articles, even if they aren't at present; in particular the Wuerzburg image and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xi%27an_city_wall.jpg
[ Detailed rant: http://tinyurl.com/4zpyb ]
This kind of careless deletion must stop. It should be unacceptable to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
A cardinal rule of image deletion should be : take every precaution not to irreversibly delete beautiful, free content. Particularly so long as we tolerate foolish debates about the unproven copyvio-status of everyone's favorite autofellatio image.
I do not even see what to add to your mail Sj.
I do not think I can be listed amongst those who generally received it well. And the very idea is making my blood pressure too high.
Ant
Sj a écrit:
Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
This image had illustrated the article on Wuerzburg for a long while, and was then removed by an anonymous edit in February. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%FCrzburg&diff=9939546&ol...
It was soon afterward listed for deletion as one of hundreds of "unverified orphans" [UOs] listed in recent months. Quoth an enthusiastic UO deleter: "I've been doing this for about a month, and it's been generally well received."
Out of about 100 such images currently listed on Images for Deletion, I found about 20 which were either clearly uploaded by their creators, or seemed likely to have been (by virtue of composition, edit summaries, image descriptions). Some of these could clearly be used productively in articles, even if they aren't at present; in particular the Wuerzburg image and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xi%27an_city_wall.jpg
[ Detailed rant: http://tinyurl.com/4zpyb ]
This kind of careless deletion must stop. It should be unacceptable to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
A cardinal rule of image deletion should be : take every precaution not to irreversibly delete beautiful, free content. Particularly so long as we tolerate foolish debates about the unproven copyvio-status of everyone's favorite autofellatio image.
Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com writes:
Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
Maybe it was me, who removed it from the article. Those panoramas are ugly and they give a wrong impression. We can surely keep it on commons but using this picture prominently in the Würzburg article is not appropriate.
Of course I vote to keep all images, even so called orphans. Unfortunately, some admins on the German wikipedia are very proud for all their deletions :-(
This kind of careless deletion must stop. It should be unacceptable to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
Agreed. BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the watchlist, but a deletion is not.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com writes:
Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
Maybe it was me, who removed it from the article. Those panoramas are ugly and they give a wrong impression.
I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.
Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com writes:
I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.
It is distorted or blurred ("sehr verzerrt") - in reality it looks different.
Don't get me wrong, the picture is very good and we should preserve it as an artefact, it is just that I want a "more" realistic on the Würzburg main page.
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Chad Perrin perrin@apotheon.com writes:
I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "a wrong impression" here.
It is distorted or blurred ("sehr verzerrt") - in reality it looks different.
Don't get me wrong, the picture is very good and we should preserve it as an artefact, it is just that I want a "more" realistic on the Würzburg main page.
Maybe it should just be given a label that says something like "not to scale" and left in place until something better comes along, then.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:20:49 +0100, Karl Eichwalder ke@gnu.franken.de wrote:
This kind of careless deletion must stop. It should be unacceptable to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
Agreed. BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the watchlist, but a deletion is not.
Quite right. And, if orphan-status is at all a big deal, you should be able to see on your watchlist whenever one of your images has become an orphan, without having to visit it every few days and say "there, there."
--SJ
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the watchlist, but a deletion is not.
This is a side effect of how the watchlist works and how page deletion works.
The watchlist is displayed by looking up the page records of all pages on your watchlist, and sorting by their last edit times. If a page is deleted, it no longer has a page record, and won't show up in the list. There's no record, so there's no datestamp to sort it into place by.
Similarly, edits to deleted pages no longer show up in a user's contributions history.
There are some potential improvements that can be made here; hopefully I can work this into MediaWiki 1.5 which should be ready sometime this spring (April-May).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I don't mind so much about the watchlist, not using that feature much myself, but the contributions part sort of bugs me.
And why can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?
Mark
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:01:43 -0800, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
BTW, it is very strange that every tiny change is listed on the watchlist, but a deletion is not.
This is a side effect of how the watchlist works and how page deletion works.
The watchlist is displayed by looking up the page records of all pages on your watchlist, and sorting by their last edit times. If a page is deleted, it no longer has a page record, and won't show up in the list. There's no record, so there's no datestamp to sort it into place by.
Similarly, edits to deleted pages no longer show up in a user's contributions history.
There are some potential improvements that can be made here; hopefully I can work this into MediaWiki 1.5 which should be ready sometime this spring (April-May).
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:
[W]hy can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_deleted_articles
Mark
kate.
1) Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
2) Many votes were based on a misreading of the question as indicated by the accompanying comments. The question was "Should non-admins be given access to view deleted articles (except those that Wikipedia is legally required to remove)?", yet many people demonstrated a lack of understanding of the parenthetical in their comments. While this doesn't nessecarily render the vote invalid, I think it raises some questions about the meaning of the results.
3) In addition, many of the "no" votes were by administrators who already have the ability to view deleted pages. While this doesn't invalidate the results, I think it is something to think about and believe that expecting administrators to understand the practical limitations the inability to view deleted content can cause is unreasonable as they never run into that problem.
Mark
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:29:50 +0000, Kate Turner keturner@livejournal.com wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote in gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc:
[W]hy can't normal logged-in users view deleted pages?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viewing_deleted_articles
Mark
kate.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
- Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Please reread #2.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:48:06 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
- Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
To make #2 work, you need to have two separate deletion tools: one for legally-required deletion, and one for generic deletion.
Alfio
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Mark Williamson wrote:
Please reread #2.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:48:06 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
- Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
To make #2 work, you need to have two separate deletion tools: one for legally-required deletion, and one for generic deletion.
Alfio
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Mark Williamson wrote:
Hoi, Given the amount of work that is in need of doing, I think it is a waste of time to discuss it further. When something needs deleling and it is, creating a backdoor to see it anyway is for normal use not necessary. Creating two methods violates the KISS principle.
Thanks, GerardM
Please reread #2.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:48:06 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
- Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
No, you would not.
You would just need a checkbox similar to the "minor edit" checkbox, indicating that it was copyvio material.
Mark
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:26:30 +0100 (CET), Alfio Puglisi puglisi@arcetri.astro.it wrote:
To make #2 work, you need to have two separate deletion tools: one for legally-required deletion, and one for generic deletion.
Alfio
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Mark Williamson wrote:
Please reread #2.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:48:06 +0800, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:02:22 -0700, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
- Since this is a technical issue (isn't it?) shouldn't it have been
put up for a vote on meta rather than en:?
Not really a technical issue. The most prominent of the "no" votes cited legal issues. Anthere put it best:
"Many of the articles deleted are deleted for a very good reason. Some because they are copyright violations or libel. These must stay non visible for obvious legal reasons."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org