Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 62

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Icons for GA/VGA (candidates)...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US flag and different color-blind versions

Hello all,

I assume that nothing has happened, and I want to relaunch the discussion on what icons to use.

  • Some people are color-blind; this means that they cannot tell apart certain colors, in the most extreme case the do not see colors at all, but only "shades of grey". For this reason, the distinction between GA and VGA (candidate) icon should be made on shape alone, and not rely on a certain difference in color.
  • I think it would be good if our icons "resembled" those other Wikipedias use for their better-quality articles. Most of our editors come from other Wikipedias.
  • Once we have fully discussed this, I think we should vote on a proposal; in that vote, I would like to see the community agree on a proposed action to take. Once this is done the currently fully protected templates will be unprotected for the change to be implemented.

Thats pretty much all from my side. --Eptalon (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→ Point #1: Agreed. However, isn't the black-and-white colorblindness the most extreme and rare case of colorblindness? obentomusubi 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ Point #2: I've established that the icons do come from the French Wikipedia; I just tweaked the color a bit. obentomusubi 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ Point #3: Sounds reasonable. obentomusubi 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Total color blindness (inability to see color) is extremely rare; red-green color-blindness is the most common, depending on where you go, it affects between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10 men. Read the article on EnWP linked to from above to get the full picture. --Eptalon (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I would much rather have the icons be something that looks professional and would give the readers of the articles the impression that we actually care about or VGAs and GAs. The stars that TOM changed our icons to are not professional (IMHO), and do not give our readers the sense of professionalism that we should be showing to our readers. Heck, that might even get those readers to join our site! I understand that TOM went through a lot of work into making the icons, however, I do not think that those icons are the way to go. I believe that the icons that I changed them to were much better and as Djsasso brought up above, the symbols need to be different for our color blind editors to be able to differentiate between GAs and VGAs. I believe that I accomplished that. The {{support}} image is pretty universal and I believe that that means that it resembles other Wikipedias' versions of this. The gold VGA star that I added is used on one of the Slavic language Wikipedias. Thanks for hearing me out, Razorflame 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only other Wikipedia where I saw the {{support}} image as the good article icon is at the Spanish Wikipedia. The Spanish speakers use . obentomusubi 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about using that image, then, for the possibility of a GA icon? If the image in {{support}} isn't used as a GA symbol, then the Spanish Wikipedia version could be an interesting option. Cheers, Razorflame 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, so I did some digging. doesn't have an icon, but they use the support symbol. Spanish Wikipedia and the Polish Wikipedia use . French Wikipedia uses . German Wikipedia uses . The Swedish Wikipedia uses . obentomusubi 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any ideas for our own iconthen please do tell and I will have a bash on Photoshop GIMP later today/tomorrow. Thanks, Goblin 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian Wikipedia uses this. obentomusubi 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Albanian uses . obentomusubi 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@TOMI don't think that that would be a good icon.
@Bluegoblin7: WP:BOLD. Go ahead and make one yourself :P. Surprise us! Razorflame 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was demonstrating that each Wikipedia is different, and so are we. Your saying that the GA icon is universal is quite fallacious and the logic behind it is flawed. obentomusubi 00:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

New instructions for copying from other Wikipedias

Hi, I've created the instructions how to copy from other Wikipedias to seWP. Editors are encouraged to review it for accuracy. I suggest that this is upgraded from a guideline to a policy due to the legal nature. The instructions are located at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia with shortcuts WP:CW and WP:CFW. Thanks! fr33kman talk 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that the link to the instructions has been added to Help:Contents, Template:Welcome, Template:Welcomeg and Wikipedia:Copyright. Please encourage new users to make use of these instructions as we've had lots of issues with GFDL lately. fr33kman talk 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks fine. Good job Fr33kman! Best, Versus22 talk 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! obentomusubi 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I like instructions :) fr33kman talk 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. Good job!!! Need to remember that...Rockskeeper (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Can everyone stop worrying about stupid icons on articles and start writing them? It's like we're the Icon Wikipedia. I'm quite glad I don't participate much in this project anymore, if this is where it's headed. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! Let's return to the old star and the support icon and leave it at that; I think we've had enough of this now fr33kman talk 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Believe it or not, I don't like arguing about this at all. It's funny how one proposition could be so controversial. I thought the community was fine with my doing this, but people are being so vocal about opposing my ideas. Let's just shut up. I frankly don't care about the icons anymore. Do what you please. Just don't change the idea behind the {{icon}} template itself, because it works better than the previous configuration. You win, Razorflame. Happy now? I cede. I surrender. obentomusubi 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please stop bickering about the icons and get on with our lives. obentomusubi 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TOM, I think that's best for the moment. It's taken up a lot of time just lately. This doesn't mean that it can not, or should not, be picked up later. :) fr33kman talk 01:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have placed an official statement on my user page. It is unnecessary stress on me, especially since I'm supposed to be de-stressing on spring break. obentomusubi 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're feeling stressed!! Remember what my dad always said "unless you are going to worry about it on your death-bed; it's not important now!" :) We do need to put the old icons back in place (star and support) fr33kman talk 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, do as you please. obentomusubi 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda sickening that people are so "fond" of those icons, they're so generic, but whatever, I surrender too.--   CM16  03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of prefence for the old ones at this point, more of the project needing a break from the debate and all that surrounds it. Let's pick it up in a couple of weeks or so. fr33kman talk 03:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I still have my heart set on the ones I've changed it to, but I honestly feel that if it will stop the fighting, I will "wave the white flag". I am willing to compromise to temporarily change the icons back to the old ones until we can get a community consensus at a later time as long as the {{icon}} template stays the same. That is my compromise. Cheers, obentomusubi 03:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be fine with that so long as I have the ability to update {{icon}} with the new images for the new icons. I won't change any of the coding. Cheers, Razorflame 04:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both of you! I'm impressed by the spirit of compromise and the willingness to help the project relax a bit. TOM can you make the undo changes to the templates please to return them to the way they were? Let's pick this up again in a couple of weeks! Thanks :) fr33kman talk 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No can do. They're protected. Any admin who wants to change it, please just change the image. That's all that needs fixing. Cheers, obentomusubi 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made (I think). If we do discuss these again, please consider what we've learnt from this experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The changes were made perfectly. I must discuss something with you regarding those same templates (not the icons themselves, thank God). obentomusubi 19:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{anon}} template

I think the {{anon}} template needs updating to have a couple of links to policy added to it. Anons are editors too and since we invite named editors (via {{welcome}}, {{welcomeg}}, {{welcomeq}}) to read the rules and editing help, we should invite anons to do so also. I'm going to update it to add links to Help:Contents, Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia since it comes up so very often. fr33kman talk 04:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This would mean that it gets linked to all of the most commons problems that we have with IP users. The question is now: will they read it? Razorflame 04:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done fr33kman talk 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the answers ... not all! But some will and at least we can say we gave it to them :) fr33kman talk 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the word "edit" to "change" per our convention? EhJJTALK 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is the right thing to do. Ideally we should all use simpler English even on pages such as WP:ST; but we're human after all, so we do tend to forget. :) Be bold! fr33kman talk 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget {{welcome2}}! ;D obentomusubi 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


For those that haven't seen it, don't forgt to visit the above section.--   CM16  19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TASERING. Just leave a quick note with whether you're for, against or don't care about non-free images. The idea is to find out what the community thinks, so we need lots of opinions. EhJJTALK 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for desysoping of Blockinblox

There is a proposal for desysoping on WP:AN. I was going to move it here, but it has alredy begun there. Thanks fr33kman talk 22:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

direct link to the vote; there is a rather long discussion before that vote.--Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of clean up template

Would it be alright if I removed the clean up template from the recipe article? I've cleaned it up, and it looks fairly decent now. I'm planning on adding more information later on though. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 00:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has been removed. For future reference, you don't need permission to remove a tag. If you believe you have fixed the issue, then remove the relevant tag. If someone else disagrees, they can add it back. Be bold! :) fr33kman talk 18:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. :] Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for citing English Wikipedia in Edit Summary

Just wondering if this is possible: to create a tool similar to VandalWarner that would put the following automatically into your edit summary if you clicked the button: "based on [[en:{{{PAGENAME}}}]]." (but would replace {{{PAGENAME}}} with the actual page name that the user is editing, here on simple. My assumption is that most of our articles have the same name as the en ones and that we often copy content from en. I would find such a button very useful but lack the skills to write this tool myself. Thoughts? EhJJTALK 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how easy or hard that would be. The based on en thing is only really for straight copy pastes. If you completely rewrite something in simple english than you are pretty much in the clear. So I personally rarely see the need for it. -Djsasso (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that difficult. I use vandal warner to add my custom welcome message. I suppose you could adapt it for that purpose. See here If you need a hand let me know. Kennedy (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the code that Vandal Warner uses. It would have to be modified extensively so that it works on non-talk pages, etc. I was hoping someone would say "oh, that's easy and will take me 5 min to write", but no such luck. Well, I'll play with it when I have some time. Thanks! EhJJTALK 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh actually I never thought of that... Perhaps it won't be hard to fix: let me look. Kennedy (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Good and Very Good Articles

Hello all. Amongst all this important talk of copyright violation and GFDL attribution, can I take a moment to encourage you all to look at our WP:PGA and WP:PVGA pages where we have quite a few articles which could use an eagle eye, a brief read or even just a glance with some opinions on how to improve them. The foundation of this Wikipedia is Good and Very Good Articles, so please help keep the improvement process running - we need you!!. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Are there any portals here at Simple? If not, could we think of possibly creating a "portal" namespace and creating some? obentomusubi 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think portals would be appropriate here at this time. Portals are for organizing quality articles within a particular area of interest. Right now I don't think we have enough quality articles to fill any particular category. Either way (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To those good with JS: Is it possible to modify my monobook.js to have these on my watchlist page?: (see edit window if you don't understand)

Requests for Deletion

Requests for Help

Requests for Unblocking

I was thinking it may be possible to add them to the top of the window, anyone know if its possible? Thanks Kennedy (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried categories like that, but I think my solution still works. However it adds them to the side of the page not the top if thats ok? See en:User:Djsasso/monobook.js Its the stuff under the //. The first variable is how i want it listed on the side of the page and the second is the actual link. -Djsasso (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it would be good if everyone could place a vote on this, so it doesn't just dry up, and not pass simply for lack of input. Thanks, Majorly talk 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins' noticeboard

Hi there all. I would like to ask people to please give more input to the failing Adminiatrators' noticeboard. People aren't replying to several topics that are somewhat important and I believe that input on these issues is needed. Thanks, Razorflame 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two threads weren't answered, all made earlier today. The other, by Eptalon, was an announcement. We're not robots. Besides, if you're proposing a rangeblock, you need to be talking to CUs, not the community. They are the ones who can determine potential collateral damage. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would only partially disagree with you there. Yes, CUs are needed to determine potential collateral damage from blocking the ranges, but getting input from other administrators on whether or not the block is a good one or not is what I was getting at. That is the kind of response that I was hoping for. In addition, any administrator can make rangeblocks, not just CheckUsers, and I know that you aren't robots. Cheers, Razorflame 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. The block can be determined as good or bad depending on collateral damage. A block which affects a number of active editors (for example, a few UK IPs are used by up to 7 or 8 editors; bear in mind we don't have IPBE) is not going to be good. A large /16 block could potentially affect a number of active editors, so you should go to them before asking anyone else. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't miss your point. I knew that checkusers could check for potential collateral damage, and yes, they can, to an extent determine if it would be a good range block or not. What I meant by my earlier statement was that administrators could check over the contributions from the range to make sure that the range block is appropriate to even bring up to a checkuser. That was what I was getting at with my last statement. Cheers, Razorflame 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By this point in the discussion, the main CUs should have independantly looked at the contributions of the range and decided for themselves if there is enough of an issue to warrant using their access to check further into collateral damage and range blocking. Trust in your CU's should apply to trust that they are doing much more work behind the scene than you will ever see (unless you have/will hold that position) and are dealing with things like this on the first notice of your bringing it up. Admin discussion is rarely needed as they both have other issues to deal with and do not have the intel to make the call the CU's do in these cases. You may or may not ever notice they took action and have to trust that your choice in them was right. If you make someone a CU, have faith that they will do what is best, tell you what they can, and remain totally silent but still keep a vigilant eye when WMF policy and common decency dictates they do. Relax and have faith in those you chose to protect your wiki. (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Page requests"

In our Wikipedia:RecentChanges table, we seem to always have at least two wrestling articles. This is out of five articles most requested missing from this Wikipedia. Is this useful? Is it genuine? Do we really need 40% of our most requested pages to be related to Wrestlemania? Can we have some perspective applied to this, and request pages that are relevant, useful and that would actually improve the reputation of this Wikipedia? Just an idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's definitly a wrestling bias there. I suggest we add a couple hurricane redlinks! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the issue Julian. If it was up to me, I'd add half a dozen English footballers to the list. So. What can we do to make this request thing (a) more relevant to all readers of Simple English Wikipedia and (2) more likely to get regular (or even irregular) editors to think, "yeah, I'll create that stub but hopefully it won't be speedily deleted...".... ? We can make this place tick over nicely but right now we're in a bad way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could vote on the requested articles, but that seems like a lot of trouble for few positive results. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not enough interest for voting on anything here, let alone most needed pages. We should take a stance and go for "significant" pages. Not just Wrestlemania. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tudor?

Isn't Queen Elizabeth I of England Elizabeth Tudor? I want to make sure before I create a redirect to the Elizabeth I someone has create an article with the name Elizabeth Tudor... I looked on Google, and it came back with Elizabeth I, but as I said before...I just want to make sure. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 16:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also en:Elizabeth_Tudor. Barras (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that just confused me...again. :] Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically the most well-known Elizabeth Tudor is Elizabeth I, but there are more minor members of the Tudor family to bear that name. It's up to you whether you want to create a stub of en's Elizabeth Tudor or redirect to Elizabeth I as a placeholder. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, alright. I guess it's better left alone to avoid confusion. Thanks again. Papercutbiology♫ (talk)) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for uploading images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, could I invite some more of the community to take part in the discussion for the proposal? There seems to be a fair bit of support for the idea but we really need more of the community to discuss the proposal. Discussion is taking place at User talk:Fr33kman/Non-free content proposal and the entire proposal can be reviewed here. Thanks! fr33kman talk 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think simple is ready for this. Synergy 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point when you can upload them to commons? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't upload non free content to commons. This is why has the ability to upload other images that aren't on commons. Synergy 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed non-free content being uploaded here before, and I'll oppose it until we have a sufficiently big community to monitor their use. Absolutely not yet, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a proposal for all editors, just trusted editors. fr33kman talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the trepidation here but I think we can overcome this. I personally see the benefits as; a) allows the expansion of articles needing non-free images, b) encourages the creation of said articles, c) gives editors who aren't good at writing articles the chance to contribute more to mainspace pages. People might keep saying that we're too small for this, but I hear someone say "I don't have any thing to do? What can I do today?". This implies that we are large enough that editors (some established ones) don't know whatto do next. Uploading and checking images could help here. fr33kman talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- I see the two basic opposition positions as 1) legal and 2) not enough editors. I don't think that legal issues will be a major problem here. No one is going to be sued because they uploaded a non-free image that didn't meet the criteria; the worst that will happen is that the lawyers for the copyright holder will make a request that the image is removed. We would then, of course, remove the offending image. Regarding not enough editors; the upload flag would not be given to everyone, you'd have to show that you can use it wisely and I think that there is enough editors now to support the limited amount of images that'd be uploaded on a day-to-day basis. enWP has issues with non-free content because it has so many people who are able to upload, restricting the number of editors doing uploads would fix this. I only ask that editors ignore their prior reasons and deal with this proposal as if it were a new idea. Think on it and then tell us where you are opinionwise. Thanks !! fr33kman talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you propose we determine if someone is qualified enough to upload images? Either way (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple ways could be used. Firstly all editors getting the flag would have to agree to have read the rules and criteria, and to agree to abide by them. We could then give the flag to any user who requests it and who has been here for a certain period of time (say two-three months) and who is active (say 25-50 edits per week on average). The average active and established editor has likely shown that they follow rules already and has much more to lose in the revoking of the flag than a new editor. We'd have a three-strike rule in that if an editor abuses the flag three times, they have it removed. Admins who abuse the right would be censured and not permitted to exercise the right to upload; those who ignore that censure are likely not fit to retain the mop period and could go through a desysoping. We could also have a page such as WP:RFRB where the rights grantor reviews the requestor and determines if they are a trusted editor. Since we haven't been using non-free images we'd have to initially trust people based on their other contributions to the project. People who have abused the non-free upload on enWP repeatedly could be excluded from having it here, or given only a one-strike rule upon getting the flag. fr33kman talk 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three strikes seems like far too many for me. And how would a "rights grantor" be determined? would it be a 'crat or what? Either way (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said three to be kind, but I've no problems with a one or two strike rule. If we take rollback as a case-in-point, we wouldn't take rollback from a user for a first offense. I think that the say should hold true here. As for who grants the rights; ideally it'd be a crat for gratning and revoking, but on seWP I think it could be an admin to both give and take away; we'd need to discuss that futher as a community. This would also cut down on the overhead. fr33kman talk 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the level of trust is about the same as for Rollbackers. I've modified requirements as shown below (as a suggestion).
The primer would explain which images are acceptable (i.e. free goes to commons, non-free must be properly tagged, etc.). EhJJTALK 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to limit the number of uploads a user could perform? I think we could realistically allow autoconfirmed users the right to upload 1 (ONE) image per days (24 hours) and not be overwhelmed. After they have shown to upload properly, they could be permitted to upload more than 1 per day (by the flag). Just a suggestion. In my opinion, we should try to set the standards as low as is reasonable and then increase them as needed. This is akin to the idea that blocks are not pre-emptive and that ANYONE can edit wikipedia. EhJJTALK 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against any automatic granting of the flag. We need to approve people to be uploaders not simply wait a few days for it to happen automatically. The level of trust here is more than that required for rollback. Rollback is powrful but is unlikely to cause a legal conflict when used; uploader is much more likely to come into conflict with law. fr33kman talk 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support this idea, but might I suggest experience with uploading fair use images at en be a possible criteria for getting this user right? SteveTalk 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to tell you, but this community is simply not big enough, and the benefit added by allowing non-free (read: non-commons administered) images is simply too small. --Eptalon (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and sorry to come to the party late on this one. This would simply lead to carnage - has hard enough time dealing with the illegal uploads, we simply ought not expose ourselves to this kind of danger. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times are we gonna chase our tail with this? He said it would only be given to trusted editors. And and the legality, well actually read, instead of just skimming. I hate having to reiterate ourselves.-- † CM16 t c 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point, what is said above isn't going to work. You are reiterating something that just doesn't work trusted editors or not. -Djsasso (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you knowit not going to work how? I've never heard of this idea before nevermind it failing.-- † CM16 t c 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For all the reasons that have been stated above, and on that other page, and in the other threads that have talked about adding fair use. Whether the user is trusted or not does not negate the legal issues, nevermind how you decide who is trusted or who is not trusted etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that fear is a poor reason not to improve the project. What legal things do you think are going to happen? If copyright is infringed the lawyers for the copyright holder inform the offending website who then takes the image off the site. Copyright law doesn't work in such a way that people go to prison without first being given a chance to rectify the offense. I think that is people are so scared of the legal ramifications we should contant the WMF legal counsel for advice? btw: I can point to textual copyright violations on seWP, I don't see them being removed, nor do I see the lawyers banging down the doors. A copyright vio is the same whether it is text or images. fr33kman talk 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.-- † CM16 t c 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un)I'd support if the following were true:

  • Autoconfirmed users are not allowed to upload at all without the flag.
  • Image upload rights can be removed easily. i.e. one strike and you're out.
  • The legal position is clarified by someone in the knowledge. (From someone representing Wikipedia)
  • Proper terms and conditions, and the legal position is properly noted.
  • Only crats can give out the right. I don't think admins should be able to.

If all this is sorted, you have my support. Kennedy 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed users can't upload at all? That seems nonsensical; I'd be unable to upload spoken articles. Besides that, I frankly have no inclination to upload images, and I wouldn't really need the flag. No reason to give me power that I don't want/need. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, there was a discussion above to allow autoconfirmed users to upload 1 images per 24hours. Thats what I was meaning. If they had the flag they could upload, if they don't they can't upload at all. I've changed my comment above, thanks Kennedy (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. So just to clarify, will this apply specifically to image files, or will I need to get the flag to upload my spoken articles? The spoken articles go in the Image namespace, so that's somewhat concerning to me that editors would need to get an imageupload flag to upload a spoken article. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit users with <50 edits from uploading a spoken article.
Just something to think about. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics for a moment. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" If non-free images are allowed, this project will not meet the whole purpose of the project Soup Dish (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When many many users hear of Wikipedia (certainly true for the press media) they think of one place, enWP. They are able to do it; we'd be able to do it even easier than them! Also, just because someone can't upload an image doesn't mean they can't edit the page. An IP would be able to remove it from use, or even add one they find under non-free content that is already uploaded, they can also ask for an uploader to upload on their behalf. :) fr33kman talk 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legal opinion hopefully on the way.

I've asked Mike Godwin, Esq (the WMF legal counsel) to chime in on the discussion from a legality viewpoint. Thanks! :) fr33kman talk 05:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official legal position of WMF

The following is an email I received from Mike Godwin, JD the WMF legal counsel. He indicates that the project, the uploader and the WMF have negligible legal worries in allowing fair-use image uploading.

Basically, the Wikimedia Foundation has significant protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The general procedure is that a copyright holder will contact us with a complaint if an image is claimed to be infringing, and we'll remove it. We normally won't raise the defense of fair use -- we get complete immunity if we simply remove the image.

This leaves the uploader -- few uploaders are going to be worth suing, especially if there has been a removal of the image under the DMCA takedown provisions, which immunizes WMF and reduces or eliminates damage to the copyright holder. Since the community is typically pro-active in removing copyrighted material in response to a complaint, we usually don't even see the formalities of a DMCA takedown notice.

Overall, it is ordinarily the case that if there is a credible fair-use justification for use of material in any project, the risk of liability for WMF is very low, and the risk for an uploader isn't much higher.


I personally think this closes down the legal objection to fair-use images. fr33kman talk 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that burns up just about any excuse not to give it a trial run.-- † CM16 t c 05:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really like the idea of doing this to begin with, but with the Wikimedia foundation behind us I don't see any point in not giving it a test run. If we can get a consensus going, I have no further objections. Cheers! DefenseSupportParty 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I've been around long enough on simple.wp to be trusted with the "uploader ability", but I've helped out a bunch at en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and am quite well versed with non-free content guidelines on en (presumably ours would be similar) and the requirements to comply with them. I'll be glad to offer advice to our uploaders on the proper way to tag images. As far as I see it, unless we actually block users from uploading, the best way to do this is to change the current QD definition (I1) to exclude non-free images uploaded by authorized users. Otherwise, all other image uploads would still be immediately deleted by the first available admin. There is technically no need for a special tag, as these users would not be doing anything they can't actually do now. We'd still have to agree on a way of selecting who should be allowed to upload non-free images and not have them immediately deleted. EhJJTALK 00:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that legal issues were only one of many reasons put out for why it won't work. Its not even the biggest issue. I still think the project will be irreperably harmed if we switch to allowing images. People keep arguing why should such and such limit our ability to make the wiki better, but I still don't see it as a given that images would make the wiki better. We could limit it to trusted users as mentioned above, but what would constitute a trusted user...and the other option as mentioned with speedying if its not by someone allowed...well that just increases the workload of admins which was the whole point of not allowing images in the first place. -Djsasso (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your objection about increased workload for admins: currently, any autoconfirmed user can upload an image to this wiki. That is not a proposition, that is how it works RIGHT NOW. I'm just saying that we'll need to think about how this would be implemented. My point is, that if we choose two or three people who are permitted to upload images, an admin just needs to look for any username that is not one of those three. Anyone could tag an image also, but we'd need to change the definition. A bot could easily do this: Check uploads and tag all images uploaded by someone who does not match a short list of approved editors. Admins would just need to delete them, which would take a matter of minutes per day. As it is, I don't think we're going to have a problem with being overrun by non-approved image uploads, since the upload page is well hidden in Special pages. EhJJTALK 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A perhaps very simple question: Counting benevolently, we have perhaps 30 people editing here; who do you think is going to run this? - The old DYK is history, and did not neede any new privileges...--Eptalon (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that images have a lasting impact on an article. That's largely the reason I'm not interested in DYK. Too much work for something that only stays up for a week and then disappears into oblivion. I'm sure we could find a few editors who would be interested. EhJJTALK 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll never know if this can work unless we try it. I'd suggest a 60 day trial run and an assesment at the end of it. fr33kman talk 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on proposal to allow uploading images

Well, I think that all the arguments have now been stated and it's time to hold a poll and see if we can establish a consensus or not. This is a poll, not a !vote. It's merely to see if there is a growing consensus or not. No action will be taken on the results. It's a sort of plebiscite and not a referendum. Right now, where consensus lies is hard to determine. More discussion will take place after this poll. People can close it early if they disagree with it.

Support uploading images

Support Kennedy (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose uploading images

Neutral about uploading images

  •  Neutral - I see both the pros and cons. I would be more than happy to help out with this project and I think it can be done right and would be a benefit. That said, I like the idea of a "free" encyclopedia that doesn't use fair-use images. EhJJTALK 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm of a split mind and partly with EhJJ at the moment. I see the benefits of Fair-Use image, indeed I was originally for them, but the atractiveness of a completely free encyclopedia - that could also be published on CD, DVD, printed etc - pushes me closer to oppose. I wouldn't support non-free image uploads either because I see no reason why they should be uploaded here when they can go to commons and be of much more use. I need to think more on this. Goblin 18:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per Either way (partially), though I'm leaning oppose at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about uploading images

Do we really need a !vote for this? It's completely unecessary... consensus should be looked at through discussion, not !voting... Goblin 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a !vote; it's merely a means of seeing where we stand. A plebiscite rather than a referendum. The discussion is all over the place and at multiple pages. Nothing will be done based on the outcome of this poll, it's just a means of seeing which way opinion is swinging. Right now, to me at least, there seems to be more support for fair-use than against with quite a few silences whcih can mean anything or nothing; others might see it another way. A poll could be useful in determining which way the wind is blowing. Feel free to close it if you disagree fr33kman talk 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My silence was that I didn't notice we had a poll going lol. -Djsasso (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of proposal?

I think that unless objections are raised by others, we can close this proposal at this time. Reasons for and against have been given and the debate seems to lean towards not going forward at this time. Personally, my reasons for allowing fair-use have all been given in the proposal and I am personally unable to offer more valid reasoning than what I have already offered. I think that we can call the debate a success however as legal concerns were raised and were addresses by way of official WMF opinion and this will make success more likely in any future proposal assuming other objections can be addressed. I think another admin (one who did not take part perhaps) should consider whether or not the debate is exhausted at this time and if so to archive wrap the discussion. Thank you to all for taking part. fr33kman talk 12:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remarks

It's clear from the discussion above that there is still no clear consensus for this proposal. It's been a useful discussion, but something that we are apparently still not ready for here on Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

FlaggedRevs Extension?

Could someone please explain to me the FlaggedRevs Extension and why it would (not) be good for Simple English Wikipedia? I think the German Wikipedia uses it, and I just saw that en.Wikibooks uses it too. obentomusubi 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on why it's not a good idea here in the archives (it was only a couple of months back) and at as to what it does. Just 'cos other wikis use it, doesn't mean we do. Goblin 18:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, I went to Wikinews and tried it out. I don't like it. XP obentomusubi 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes Wikipedia more responsible, hence why so many on EN don't like it! To be honest, it's not as essential here as Simple gets a low Google ranking and few visitors Soup Dish (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, to me, it seems a bit like (just like the VGA/GA thing) a few people get the power to approve edits and the people without FlaggedRev powers lose out. They have to be monitored constantly, even if their edits are in good faith. obentomusubi 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this holds true here. I don't think people monitor established editors. I personally never check on the mainspace edits of any named editor who I recognize, and I think that the same holds true for most people here. I don't think I've ever approved an edit here or marked a new page as patrolled. I, like most people here, simply watch RC and act accordingly. It's a small community, we all know each other and we all know who are the strangers. I wouldn't be concerned if I was you :) fr33kman talk 20:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be impossible to sustain yet another process with such a small community of editors. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia is doing a poll right now about using "Flagged Protection". It may be useful here. Techman224Talk 15:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no FlaggedRevs. Wikipedia would no longer be "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone one can edit." I metioned in my "Strong Oppose" vote on en, this system on the deWP, is very annoying. Wikipedia truly loses its "free-ness". --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definately agree. I tried it out on the Its very annoying. I knew the edits I was making were fine (typo, capitalisation) but still had to wait until someone else agreed... Its a very, very, very bad idea. Kennedy (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Week

This is not updating on Recent Changes, Tetraphobia has been there for a month. Goblinbot1 is supposed to update it - is there a problem? Can we fix it? --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can just change it with an edit...I actually started other articles they had up but never thought to change that page. -Djsasso (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - sorry for the inconvenience. If it happens again, you can just edit {{totw}} manually. Thanks, BG7THAT'S NUMBERWANG! 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a request

Thank you: instead of spamming everyone again, I just want to thank everyone who contributed to my RFCheckUser which passed (17 hours late, but better late than never, thanks Eptalon!) today 25/3. I have received notification from The Wikimedia Foundation that my "legal age" confirmation has been accepted and I have been given the flag.

Request: we have a bunch of articles sitting at WP:PGA and a couple at WP:PVGA. It's been mighty quiet over there in the past few days, so please, please, let's get the Wikipedia up and rocking. Go read a PGA/PVGA, make suggestions, give comments—get involved!. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating pages and "based on en wiki"

Hello all. Yesterday Synergy deleted around half a dozen articles I created under the G12 criterion, i.e. as copyright violation. Each article was a stub and each was created to satisfy a higher purpose, namely that a PVGA (in this case Ipswich Town F.C.) should not have a single red link. While each article was similarly worded to its en wiki counterpart, each article was also stripped to a minimum, perhaps two sentences, which contained the most important facts such as name, birth date and place, and profession (these stubs were biographies by the way). Within the English speaking Wikipedias, there is a generally accepted style for such biographical articles, and as such there will be the inevitable looky-likey issue.

So, that's the background. I restored the articles and reworked them further, making them less useful, to ensure they didn't fall foul of this implementation of G12. But when I started thinking about it and looking around I found dozens of well-established articles, all of which are clearly "based on en wiki" but offer no attribution (which I believe is the crux of the issue to satisfy GFDL). My test case at the moment is Ronald Reagan whose opening sentence is pretty much identical on this Wikipedia and en wiki. No template exists on the talk page stating a dependency on the en wiki article. Another case, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, created yesterday by an admin, Peterdownunder. This article once again is clearly based on en wiki, and in fact Peter has said as much when he created the article, with an edit summary of "Started page from enwiki". Is this sufficient attribution?

Late yesterday, Eptalon changed WP:COPY (to which I was directed by Synergy), adding a section of exceptions to the policy. This change exempts "very short texts" (which could very well be used to describe the articles I created which were deleted under G12). Are we sure this is the correct thing to tell people?

With admins speedily deleting other admin's stubs, we've once more found ourselves in drama. I don't want to make the situation worse, but I also don't want new editors here to have their work summarily deleted if it really isn't the correct approach. After all, the time taken to determine that a Simple article is "based on en wiki" is a little less than the time taken to then add a template stating that's the case, rather than just speedy deletion. If it is determined that it's okay to G12 stubs created like this, we should seek to include a serious warning banner on our "Create this page" telling people about how exactly to attribute such work. I would be interested in the community's comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a copy and paste of the first sentence of biogrphies is ok. I think there aren't many possibilities to change the sentence. If you don't look at en and write an article, then the first sentences look similar. If you look at other wikipedia languages so you can see the same start. The start: Name (born - death) was a ... is under the level of creativity. Most time it is the easiest way to describe a subject. In my oppinion is that ok. Barras (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I think it is good that we come to discuss this here. Since then I have again reworded WP:COPY. I am not a law-person, but please note:
  • To my knowledge, the stubs we have here (usually a few sentences from enwp intro, which more often than not are indentical to enwp) do in my opinion not fall under copyright:
  1. We write about people of public interest; their date of birth/death is public knowledge, as well as their profession or career.
  2. The sections we have are very short (as pointed out above: a few sentences at most).
  3. As Barras stated, there is not really any height of invention
In short, in my opinion, such "stubs" do not fall under copyright, and therefore do not need attribution. On the other hand, it would be good if we came up with (at least) a guideline, that clarifies the following:
  • When do we need to attribute to another Wikipedia and how should this be done. Bastide is largely translated from French, therefore would probably need attribution.
  • At what level of difference from the original source can we stop attributing (because what we have is totally different)
I feel when it comes to describing chemical procedures, or mathematics, attribution is really problematic (because the proof by ... really works that way, same for the reaction changing X and Y into Z, with A and B as by-products). --Eptalon (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like Adjacent which has just been created without attribution? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should have an attribution --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often create pages starting with the en-wiki page as a starting point. I will take out all complex words, simplify etc to get it into simple english. This will mean that the page will often look the same, uses the same pictures etc as the original. I always put an attribution in the edit summary, and a note on the talk page. Copyright should not be a problem with this process as the the GDFL rules allow copying between wikis as long as there is attribution (saying where you copied it from). Pages copied in this way should only be deleted if they do not meet our simple english standard. We need to be able to create simple stubs to remove redlinks while bringing some articles up to standard. I always try to get back to them and add to them, but this process takes time. But if you have copied the stub it should be attributed, even if you have then simplified or changed it. There is a template to use, it's not hard, just an extra step. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not difficult, but it appears that very few articles have attribution this way. Should we therefore delete them all under G12? Like Reagan? And if, as Barras suggests, you are simply calling a spade a spade and there is no other way of expressing it, should attribution necessarily apply? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Peter, what you're saying contradicts our current WP:COPY policy. Something's not quite right... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia:How_to_copy_from_another_Wikipedia considered accurate to the policies at present? And if so, is it possible for admins to perform step 15, with an edit, if a new user has failed to do it? Obviously, if someone's sticking around they need to learn about things like that, but scaring them off by deleting their work seems like something that should be avoided if possible (as long as they've followed enough of the other steps) -Kingreaper (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if it's done soon enough anyone could perform step 15 rather than simply G12ing and speedily deleting. Especially since observing admins will have already checked the article against the current article. Just copying and pasting the permalink into the enwp based template on the article talk page may take an additional ten seconds. This is far preferable than just speedily deleting articles with one minute's warning.
One other thing, by the way, the article you link to is a "Guideline", not a policy, and as such does not have to be enforced word-for-word. Maybe another loophole that needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should become a policy. When I wrote it I did seek community input and received things like "good job" etc., as such and after speaking with Majorly, it was decided to make it a guideline for now. I think it would need more community input to become a policy and perhaps also the review of someone like Mike Godwin at meta (the WMF official lawyer). Mike is pretty quick to respond if you email him and his opinion should be sought here and on what is and is not a copyvio. fr33kman talk 18:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to attribute

Okay, so our guideline (not policy, note) about pages from other Wikipedia says that to adequately attribute pages copied, we need to clearly state "where and when you got the information from on the other Wikipedia (eg:"started article using information at exact revision of the article used at the other Wikipedia)". I see a number of instances of pages being created with just a link to the English Wikipedia article, not a version of it. Is the guideline wrong? Can we simply attribute an article without saying what version of that article we used? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it isn't a problem because none of the users from the English Wikipedia that created the articles have come over here and stated that it has been a problem. I think that it is good enough at this point in time to direct users towards the English Wikipedia's article with just a link to the article itself, not the exact revision. If people have a problem with this, then I am willing to just start importing articles directly over here using the Special:Import page, therefore giving the best possible attribution to the article :P. Cheers, Razorflame 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So would you agree that none of the articles that were speedily deleted by Synergy yesterday were a problem either because none of the users that created those articles came here stating there was a problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes and no. The articles created yesterday could have easily been fixed in terms of attribution if you just added the {{enwp based}} template to their talk pages. Otherwise, if you didn't, then they would not have been attributed appropriately. Cheers, Razorflame 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but adding that template adds a direct URL to their exact instance. It's not the same as the attribution you (and many, many, many others) have made over the past few years. And it's certainly interesting that Eptalon has modified WP:COPY to take into account shorter articles, making them exempt from this kind of attribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that only articles that have parts of them directly copied and pasted should need attribution. Pages such as the Asteroids and Romania River articles should be fine with just an interwiki link to the English Wikipedia article. Cheers, Razorflame 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But more importantly, what about the changes Eptalon has made which now exempts the stubs I created? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should probably be undone, because no article is exempt if it is directly copied and pasted. Razorflame 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: The guideline is brand-new. I wrote it; I'm not a lawyer (I'm a doctor) but I do have a post-grad diploma in law so do know a little bit about the subject. I have asked Mike Godwin, JD (WMF legal counsel) for an opinion on the guideline and the issue of GFDL attribution. When he gets back to me; usually pretty fast, I'll post it verbatim here. As it will be the official WMF position, it should provide us with a solid solution. It is true that many articles are in violation of the guideline, that is because it is so new. Regards, fr33kman talk 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that everyone is just making up whatever policy they think is right. We should base our policies on the actual text of the GFDL (Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License). If you're going to write "Short articles are exempt", then cite the law that says that! I'm not a lawyer either, but I think we need to find a long-term solution that will stand up to scrutiny. EhJJTALK 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I personally think attribution should always occur (it's only a few keystrokes ya know!) Even if GFDL would allow for something else it is better to attribute, it's polite to the copyright holder also. We'll have an opinion soon (perhaps tomorrow) and this will solve the issue. fr33kman talk 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. These changes to policy are impossible to keep up with... –Juliancolton | Talk

More clarifications

Hello all, this is just to clarify the changes I made to WP:COPY. Please note I am not a lawyer either.

  • Ideally, we write about people of public interest. Most of them are dead, their dates of birth and death (as well as their curriculum) are public knowledge; In most cases this is not subject to copyright. Benito Mussolini was born 29th July 1883, and died 28th April 1945. How many different ways are there to express this? - perhaps three or four; For this reason, a sentence that expresses this is not subject to copyright; It also does not take a very bright mind to create one of these. Copyright is there to protect the works of bright minds. No copyright - no need to attribute.
  • Most of the stubs we worry about, are made of a few of the sentences, as described above. Most of the time, short texts cannot be copyrighted. The exception to this are jingles and slogans. So if you come up with a jingle saying Benito M. was born in 1883 then you could probably copyright that - It would not apply in our context though, because we are neither a radio station nor do we sell washing powder.
  • There is little height of invention in what we do; even less in short articles (please don't ask, I don't know what a short article is supposed to mean, and from what point a short article is no longer short) - For this reason, I added the short texts cannot be copyrighted.

Of course this is all very vague, as a real-world example, does Kilogram need to mention en:Kilogram, as a base? -Our article is much shorter and not a verbatim copy, yet was probably written with another wikipedia article in mind. It will really be good to get (at least) a guideline which clarifies those things. — This unsigned comment was added by Eptalon (talk • changes).

Agree with just about all of that. We need to work this out rather than jerk knees. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nameless User has created dozens of templates, all clearly based on templates. I suggested he may wish to provide some level of attribution to prevent them being speedily deleted. He responded, rather reasonably I think, with "The list of these the participation player is clearly objective data. The problem of the copyright does not occur." The sooner we can resolve this problem, the better. A lot of time and effort may be being wasted... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't err, the templates made by Nameless User are only with a little height of invention. So in my opinion it should be OK. Barras (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Barras, but please consider that the addition of that clause to our "copying from other wikis" guideline was only made a day or so ago, and we're not even sure it's correct. Or was the deletion of my stubs per G12 incorrect as well...? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The delation of your stubs per QD G12 was incorrect. That's right. But the communication between two admins doesn't work correct. Regards, Barras (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I could have used more than one minute to respond to Synergy before he started deleting the articles. But okay, there seems to be a few people in agreement that some of our shorter, more "objective facts only" based stubs are not copyright violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) When I posted the comment above (which started the section), my intent was not to get to an admin-bashing scenario. If the articles is question were really wrongly deleted, they can be restored easily enough (and no, please don't restore to afterwards quick-delete for another reason). Our main aim here is to find out 'what is effectively a copyright violation, and what isn't (because it is either attributed sufficiently, or does not fall under copyright provisions at all). When we have clarified this, and the articles that now look like they are wrongly deleted are still so, we can restore them. But before we do that (or delete anything else as copyvios) we need to agree on this thread here. --Eptalon (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted the 6 or 7 articles, I apparently forgot that templating the talk page could easily fix it. For that I apologize. I've been developing a zero tolerance attitude for these types of creations, but will wait until this is all hashed out to delete any other pages per copy vio. Mind you, I didn't delete any pages per how to copy, but per WP:COPY (which is in fact marked as policy), or more specifically, the Moving things from other Wikipedias section. So if we can get back to firmly grounding and drafting a policy that is satisfactory for simple, while compliant with GFDL, I would appreciate it. As I would like to get back to cleaning up our pedia. Synergy 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I too would appreciate moving on and making some clear and unambiguous statements as to what is required to ensure we adhere as best as possible to GFDL. I hope between you and I, Synergy, and the other Wikipedians "dragged" into this debate, we can assemble something of use that is easily implementable and Simple. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think our G12 copyvio notice should provide evidence of exactly which copyright has been violated. On, if I recall correctly, we normally provide a URL to the page which has been infringed. Right now it's hard to know if we're dealing with poorly attributed Wikicopies or just plain copy-and-paste from external sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the G12; added one for external sites. I think we all agree that if the external site contains copyrighted content, and the license there does not permit copying, this cannot be included here. Please do not use that for other Wikimedia sites (which are supposedly GFDL or similar, which we are still discussing). --Eptalon (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

According to our current deletion policy, pages that "should be discussed for seven days before deletion" include "Pages directly copied from other Wikipedias". It is not entirely clear if this encompasses portions of pages copied directly from other Wikipedias. If it does then G12 currently should never apply to transwikied articles. Either way, we need to revisit this in parallel with redefining G12. And we ought to check our policies and guidelines actually agree with one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now another interesting article, Norton Internet Security. It's been proposed for deletion using the WP:RFD process. As I've said there... "If it's a complete copy and paste then it will suit speedy deletion criterion A3, copy from another Wikipedia with little sign of simplification. Or, under one interpretation of G12, it's a speedy delete due to copyright violation. Our deletion policy says it should be brought here for discussion, as Techman224 has done. What's the right answer?"... (derived from this)... we're in a confusing situation here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time right now, but we really do need to get this streamlined. We need a speedy criteria, and a fallback for RfD requests (when speedy is not applicable). From there, everything needs to match existing guidelines. Synergy 23:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple proposal

I'd like to make the following proposal, which I believe would solve the problem of content being copied from the English Wikipedia (including "based on" and complete verbatim copying). That is, we include the following information in Wikipedia:Copyrights (which is linked from every page).

This blanket statement provides attribution for content taken from any WMF project (each article would have to have the right interwiki link). I believe this satisfies our obligations under the GFDL as indicated at en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. EhJJTALK 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -Djsasso (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. If this really meets our GFDL responsibilities then this solution is close to perfect. We will need to check it against our deletion policy and other associated pages to make sure we have a consistent project. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I concur. Synergy 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposal. If it does meet the GFDL requirements, then this would be a perfect fix to our problems. Cheers, Razorflame 05:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This won't work unfortunarely. According to this from meta GFDL requires that at least five primary authors of a work be attributed, if there are that many or more. The only practical way to do this is to use the edit summary and permanent link URL as outlined in WP:CW. If this is done, an editor can review the history and find who are the primary authors of a work. Since providing attribution in this manner is such an easy thing to do, I don't really get why it is a concern for people to do this. This can also be done with the {{Enwp based}} template on the talk page using the permanent URL link. Each individual article (and any additional additions copied) must be attributed seperately. Incidentally, GFDL also requires that the full, unmodified text of the GFDL be included with the copied document, but that's a more difficult prospect. I am still waiting for a response from Mike Godwin, I think he might be on holiday? fr33kman talk 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the interwiki link to the page would have the 5 original authors. -Djsasso (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original document may have changed since it was copied. It could have a complete and major rewrite since it was copied and the newer version could have different primary authors. The only way to do this properly is to link to the exact version that the document here is based on. fr33kman talk 14:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that actually matters, because the authors are still in the history list. It doesn't say you have to use the 5 most recent. But thats probably a questions for the legal guru. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up another interesting point. We actually (as a different website) have to add text to the bottom of each article (not the talk page) that is transwikied and we have to have a full, unmodified copy of the actual GFDL text on our site and link to in each article. This further indicates that the only valid way of complying with GFDL is to import the document rather than a copy and paste. It seems that until CC-BY-SA is brought in, we will legally be in violation no matter what we do. Hopefully Mike will comment on all this soon. fr33kman talk 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do already have a link to the full GFDL licence on each article (take a look: Special:Random). I agree that a notice on the talk page is not sufficient. Based on the letter you provided, I think we can satisfy our obligations by putting that information on Wikipedia:Copyright (which is also linked from every article), which could point out both the source of the content as well as how to access the history. This should follow the directions at en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Given WMF's stance on copyright violations of their content from en.wp (very lax), I think they are just looking for some degree of attribution, but mostly, that people know that this content is freely available (i.e. relicensed under GFDL). To be honest, following the exact wording of the GFDL is not feasible and, in fact, is so cumbersome as to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Linking to the article is all that should be needed; not having to transwiki the whole history (which is what is technically required). Many websites that use Wikipedia content (i.e. don't actually do that. EhJJTALK 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a template ({{GFDL attribute}}) to help cite our articles to other language Wikipedias. This is what they are doing on en.wp when citing other GFDL sources. Here is what it looks like:
It defaults to English Wikipedia but can be used for any language. Furthermore, the oldid is optional. The idea would be to put this in the References section or elsewhere appropriate. I'm open to renaming the template or changing the wording (it's not simple, but it's precise). EhJJTALK 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great possible solution. It seems to cover all aspects of GFDL attribution that the WMF has asked for (WMF has seemingly allowed us to violate certain aspects of GFDL [which is a poor excuse for a license for an encyclopedia in the first place!]). I'd suggest that we go with this for the moment and place it on the talk pages of any articles that we create that are based on another WMF site from this point onwards. Any articles that are currently in possible violation should just be left; it is unlikely that either the WMF or the originating author (at the original WMF site) would take legal action or issue a take-down notice. Hopefully, WMF will move to CC-BY-SA soon and this will all become a moot-ish point. (Although content originally licensed under GFDL will still be licensed under GFDL, only new content, and new derivative content, will be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0). I think we can all see where the lawyers make their money from this bag of snakes called copyright! :) fr33kman talk 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]