Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 23

< September 22	September 24 >

September 23

File:The Woodlands High School.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in use at the school's web site and appears ti be used for announcements and whatnot like this. OTRS confirmation that the uploader is the copyright holder is required. Whpq (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Nikon.Z-series.logo.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. The logo is reasonably considered public domain in the US, so the only argument here is around whether to keep a local copy vs. using the copy on Commons. Historically enwiki is open to keep local requests for a variety of reasons. If there is a desire to tighten that, an RfC seems more appropriate than a single FFD. RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is lacking an author and a source. Note that there is a duplicate on Wikimedia Commons which is unused. When I asked the uploader the reason for the keep local tag, they refused to tell me. I've "no idea" why do we need to keep a local copy. Masum Reza^📞 18:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, {{Keep local}} emphatically lists the "Reason" as optional. Further, this editor automatically assumed my reasoning was invalid on my user talk page before he even knew what it was. I disengaged, and this editor is now harassing me because he feels I am obligated to provide him a reason to keep the file local. From Template talk:Keep local:

What makes the tagging editor so special is that they have some reason to want a copy kept local, and have gone out of their way to tag it as such. That's it. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything else with the file. You can copy it to commons, you can put the image on a hundred-foot-tall billboard in Times Square. But someone asked that we not delete the file from en.wiki, so don't.

I would further note that the unused copy on Commons was not uploaded by me, and it's lack of use there is not my problem. It is used here. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing you. I know that the reason parameter is optional. I was curious, so I asked you the reason "politely". I know that you are not obligated to tell me the reason. I listed the file here to discuss the purpose of it. Note that the keep local template also states that it is allowed to nominate this file for deletion (not PROD or SD) provided the nominator notifies the tagger. Masum Reza^📞 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are adding keep local tag to files when it is clearly not a valid reason?. These are your words. They were not polite. And I am done here. You have no valid reason to delete this image beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your attempt to harass me will fail. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am sorry. I should have chosen better words. But that won't make me withdraw this nomination. As I've said I am here to discuss this file's purpose, if WP:IDONTLIKEIT was the case, I would have proded it. If you do not understand what is harrasment is, give WP:HARASS a read. I am following the right procedure here. Masum Reza^📞 10:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring Locke Cole. You are not an uninvolved editor, so you should not close/blank this discussion. Also please take a look at WP:NAC to see the proper procedure of non-admin closure. Why you are fixated on closing this request anyway. I've nothing against you, so please stop blanking it. Let the community decide. Masum Reza^📞 13:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've had enough. Stop falsely accusing me of harrasment. That is not the proper way to close a discussion. Please let the discussion going. Masum Reza^📞 21:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Keeplocal isn't for personal preference; it's for when there's a reason a file isn't appropriate for Commons. There needs to be a reason to keep a local copy, not a reason not to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what keep local was intended for... —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It does look like there's more of a precedent for this than I was aware of. I'm still not quite sold that is something we should support, but as mentioned, this isn't the venue to talk about the practice in general. Struck. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. No obvious reason to keep local. Salavat (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, besides me asking that it be kept here and it not depriving anyone of using it anywhere else? Are we really going to start being openly hostile to content uploaders like this? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How Salavat's comment is "hostile"? You are again falsely accusing other editors. Masum Reza^📞 02:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree, there needs to be a reason not to keep it locally, if the uploader asks to. A lot of people do not trust Commons, and the uploader is not notified of changes made to the file there; refusing to honor a harmless {{keep local}} request just discourages them from contributing images. This simple courtesy is provided to most editors on request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: What gave you the idea that the uploader isn't notified on Commons? This file looks very much like a text logo and to delete this file one needs to start a deletion request because it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria on Commons. Also deletion discussion starters are required to notify the uploader. AjaxDelete gadget automatically notifies the uploader and the importer by default. Masum Reza^📞 02:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's not a deletion discussion, it's a speedy deletion. Sometimes the file is overwritten by someone else. I don't know if the notification of the uploader happens on Commons or on Wikipedia, but if it's on Commons then you'd have to be active there to get the notification. There are all kinds of things that can happen to an image on Commons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a file meets CSD, it gets deleted on a Commons. Those who tag/delete the file are required to notify the uploader. There are guidelines on overwriting existing images on Commons and uploaders are supposed to abide by those rules. Even if someone isn't active on Commons they get email if someone messages them. So argument about notifying isn't much helpful. My point is if an image meets the licensing requirements and under the project scope on Commons, it should be transferred there. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an image hosting website. And Commons is the Wikimedia projects that hosts free files. That's why we have the F8 speedy deletion criteria. refusing to honor a harmless {{keep local}} request That's the same rationale as WP:HARMLESS. We have some alternative tags for example {{Do not copy to Commons}}, which can be used to prevent transferring files to Commons if a valid rationale is provided. I've only seen keep local tag on sensitive files or files are used on multiple templates. Masum Reza^📞 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Floquenbeam, there is really no reason to delete this and and FFD discussion is no place to argue the validity of the keep local template. CodeLyoko^buzz 05:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to argue the validity of keep local tag. My point is that I don't see a reason to keep a local copy. I am here to discuss why we should keep a local copy. Masum Reza^📞 12:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.