Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion/Archive 2008-2009

CC by-sa not-1.0 images

Have I missed discussion somewhere to delete CC by-sa images that are not licensed under version 1.0? Last I checked, there was still plenty of uncertainty about the migration process, and IMHO deleting these would be jumping the gun. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:27, 3 January 2008 (EST)

There was some discussion on Shared. I have been vehemently anti-not-CC-by-SA 1.0, but I think this would be an excellent issue for IB to step up and offer their resources (lawyers) to settle the matter. I understand Evan's thinking on the subject about upgrading the site's license, but the legality of that seems unclear too. Not to mention the hassle. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 05:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)

There is also discussion at Project:Travellers'_pub#GFDL_and_Creative_Commons. I'm becoming vehemently pro CC-by-SA 2.0 or 3.0 for compatibility with others. (WT-en) Pashley 08:37, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Moved to Wikivoyage_talk:Copyleft#GFDL_and_Creative_Commons. (WT-en) Pashley 10:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Probably the best discussion to date is at Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#CC_by-sa_1.0_and_CC_by-sa_2.0. To quote Mark:

The reason that you can use CC by-sa 2.0 images in a CC by-sa 1.0 work is that the 2.0 version imposes no restriction on re-use that the 1.0 version does not impose. Content owners rights are fully respected when their work is used in accordance with the additional restrictions (however tiny they might be) which are present in the 1.0 version of the license.

This is logically equivalent to us allowing CC by 1.0 images: CC by-sa 1.0 is more restrictive than CC by 1.0, so if you follow the by-sa guidelines, you're also following the by guidelines.

Based on this, I suggest we clarify in the image policy that CC >1.0 images are allowed. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:21, 5 January 2008 (EST)

...and to cover our legal ass I've asked the friendly folks at CC for an opinion. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:32, 5 January 2008 (EST)

So here's Mike Linksvayer from CC. Basically, my logic was wrong, but the end result is right:

BY-SA 2.0 pretty clearly says *later* version, which BY-SA 1.0 clearly is not. That said, it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image, triggering SA. For example, BY-SA images are used in Wikipedia articles, licensed under the FDL, which is not now compatible. But they do and you would have to provide notice of the license the included image is under.

This is a complicated issue and CC cannot give legal advice (even if it were a simple issue).

So, yes, we can use CC >1.0 images embedded within Wikivoyage, as long as appropriate notice is given. (Which it is: click on the image and it clearly shows the license.) Hell, according to this, we could even use GFDL images! However, no, we can't retroactively change CC by >1.0 images back into 1.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:50, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Khun 203.144.143.4, please read the above and stop VFDing images with CC >1.0 licenses. Since Creative Commons says including images in web pages is OK, and the original license is correctly recorded on the image page, and the community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable, I'm going to suggest amending policy to note this explicitly and a speedy keep on all images VFD'd only for this reason. All in favor, say aye! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:12, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Already read the above, thanks.

OK to display in a web page isn't enough (and they didn't even say OK, only not clear that it isn't OK).

I've read many discussions about this, and "community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable" is bullshit.

But if you can get a consensus to speedy keep all images VFD'd only for this reason, I can take a hint.

~ 203.144.143.4 07:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Sure, there's plenty of debate and no consensus on whether and how to migrate 1.0 to a later version — but that's not the issue. The issue is, can a CC >1.0 image under that license be used as part of a CC 1.0 work? It's a little grayer than I'd like, but if CC and Wikipedia think it's good enough, then it's good enough for me.

I'd suggest adding the following to Image policy:

Images must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC by-sa) or a compatible license. Compatible licenses are:

• Public domain
• No rights reserved/copyright-free (for works in jurisdictions, eg. Japan, that do not recognize the public domain)
• Creative Commons Attribution (CC by)
• Other Creative Commons-certified compatible licenses (presently none)

The preferred version is Any Attribution-ShareLike (v1.0 and above). Use of CC by-sa versions that exclude 1.0 is allowed, but discouraged, as re-use of them requires explicitly noting the different version.

Comments? And oh yes, let's finally merge the en Image policy into shared Image policy as Senor .4 long ago suggested. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)

You say "Sure, there's plenty of debate and no consensus on whether and how to migrate 1.0 to a later version" but just in case you missed it, what I said was "I've read many discussions about this, and "community consensus seems to be that usage of such images is acceptable" is bullshit.".

You say "but if CC and Wikipedia think it's good enough, then it's good enough for me" - good enough to display as a web page, yes - but not for other purposes. ~ 203.144.143.4 08:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

What I'm saying is that I see plenty of debate about migration, but (AFAIK) you're the only one calling for deleting CC >1.0 images.

And the policy here is for the set of web pages called Wikivoyage. The responsibility for reusing correctly is the re-user's problem, not Wikivoyage's. If somebody takes Wikivoyage CC by-sa 1.0 content and doesn't mention the license, it's not our fault, and neither is it our fault if they use 2.0 content and don't mention that it's 2.0. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:39, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Speedy keep all. It would make a lot more sense to gather a consensus to delete <1.0 images somewhere aside from the VFD page before flooding it with nominations – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:16, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Speedy keep all. I think it's clear that CC-by-sa 2.0 and above images can be included in our articles, both legally and within the spirit of the contribution of those photographers. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:26, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Archiving of VFD discussion where the outcome is keep/merge/redirect

Project:Votes for deletion says: "If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then ... copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected." and then a bit further down "copy the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month"

Project:Votes for deletion/Archives says: "2. All vfd discussions are to be archived here, whether the outcome was deletion, keeping the article, redirect/merge, etc."

So just confirming - copy it to both? Or does the above need to be amended? ~ 58.8.10.56 10:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

This bothers me too. IMO vfd decisions to keep/merge/redirect should be archived at the relevant talk page, not on the vfd archives page. The vfd archives should exist only to archive discussions that have nowhere else to go (since the appropriate talk pages have been deleted). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:46, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I disagree. The two archives service different needs, and both should be used. Keeping the discussion on the article's talk page provides useful precedent the next time the article comes up for VFD -- as they often do. Keeping it in the monthly archives (1) maintains a convenient way of ensuring that VFDs have been processed correctly, and (2) allows searches for precedents where the searcher doesn't remember the name of the article in question. The VFD archive is our corporate memory, not just for what has been deleted, but also for how the whole process works. It should be inclusive. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Fair enough, I hadn't really thought of that second argument, but that makes a lot of sense. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Couldn't we have a post-VFD template to pop on the article talk page to explain that the page was VFD'd, that the outcome was to not delete and that the discussion has been archived, and to generate a link to the appropriate VFD discussion archive page? Something like {{vfdkept|January 2008}} - ?

In principle, yes, and if we were constrained on storage space so that we needed to minimize redundancy, that would be the way to go. In practice, we're not so constrained, so why not make the information available directly and easily? Talk pages aren't our face to the world, and it doesn't hurt to have them "cluttered" with stuff like the VFD discussions. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:52, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Archiving of VFD discussion where the outcome is speedy deletion

The guidelines don't currently cover this. Presumably if there's only a deletion nomination, that can also be speedy deleted without being archived. What should the guidelines suggest be done if the VFD page discussion about an article page that's speedy-deleted comprises comments from more than one user? ~ 203.144.143.4 06:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I don't see a problem as long as everybody agrees that it should be speedied. Of course, if somebody disagrees, then it's not a speedy deletion candidate anymore and should go through the full VFD process. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:46, 12 January 2008 (EST)

BUMP! I think the guidelines should be tweaked - anyone have any further input before I propose how to clarify the policy? ~ 203.144.143.4 16:41, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Personally, I don't find the archiving process "speedy". If it's an uncontested speedy, then I say let someone delete the nomination (estimated time: 10 seconds) instead of archiving (estimated time: 90 seconds). --(WT-en) Jonboy 16:50, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I'd rather we archive everything that gets listed on vfd when deleted. This will give the contributer that listed it a record of what happened, regardless if it was deleted after 14 days or speedy deleted. Articles that are speedy deleted on sigh by an admin before being listed don't require archiving. Granted, it does take a bit longer, but collectively we actually do have a lot of time to manage it. --(WT-en) Nick 00:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)

How about this as a compromise (this for anything where the outcome is a speedy delete): if there is no VFD page nomination, then only delete the page and don't archive anything; if there is a VFD page nomination but no discussion on the VFD page (so nothing more than straightforward "Delete" nomination/votes - in other words, there really isn't anything worth archiving, only an unqualified consensus to delete) then delete the page and don't archive anything; but if there is a VFD page nomination and any form of discussion (so there's more than straightforward "Delete" nomination/votes, even if there isn't an outright objection - in other words, there's actually something actually worth archiving) then archive the discussion as appropriate (normally to VFD archive page only, but in exceptional circumstances also to article Talk page at the discretion of whoever is doing the deletion/archiving).

Another suggestion: speedy delete nominations which don't need archiving (as defined by the above suggestion) don't need to be (and probably shouldn't be) removed from the VFD page immediately. They should be left there for at least 24-48 hours, and are very easy to clear off the page en masse later. ~ 203.144.143.4 02:10, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Bump. I support 203's compromise suggestion. We often get nominations for articles just before an admin speedy deletes them (e.g., an article named Www.spam.net). In fairness, those probably don't need to be nominated to begin with, since they stick out like a sore thumb on recent changes, but when they are, it would be nice to just remove them from the page once deleted. If anything, they only clog up our archives with stuff that isn't really relevant to anyone looking back through them (no one would have to check why the log says we deleted [[Www.spam.net]]).

An edit summary on this page when removing a clear speedied nomination stating "speedied" should be enough, right? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:44, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

Why the "Don't know" tag does not apply

I can buy the argument for deleting images without explicit license tags on Shared, because there is a license pulldown, and anybody ignoring that clearly has no clue. However, here on en, Special:Upload clearly states:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.

So there is no such thing as a "don't know" on en -- all images are CC by-sa 1.0 unless otherwise specified. Hell, you could even construe that to say that all images uploaded are CC by-sa 1.0 in addition to any other license the user may choose to specify! (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:00, 1 February 2008 (EST)

I absolutely agree. There's no such thing as a "don't know" license on Wikivoyage. Anything that lacks a specific notice is CC-by-sa, so long as the author has sufficient rights to grant. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

CC-by-SA discussion (A)

...continued from Image:Viking ship in Stockholms strom.jpg

What you're suggesting conflicts with the second sentence of Wikivoyage:Copyleft which says: Anyone can use Wikivoyage content according to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license.

Can you provide a link to a reputable expert resource which confirms that non-CC-by-SA-1.0 content can be legally incorporated into CC-by-SA-1.0 content (NB: NOT that the two can be displayed on the same web page, but that they can be merged and the result then distributed as CC-by-SA-1.0)? ~ 203.144.143.4 05:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Jani contacted CC about this and they responded, but that is just about what we can do as a web page and does not touch on redistribution. Again, the main issue seems to be the text of our copyleft, not our practice. Perhaps we should either add caveats about the images and redistribution, or we could come up with a way to have image licensing automatically display in the print-versions of Wikivoyage pages. But I don't think breaking with our years-old practice and mass deleting non-1.0 images is the way to go. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 05:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think Wikivoyage should accept images it can't redistribute.

Creative Commons have confirmed that this image can't legally be redistributed as part of a Wikivoyage article, and it clearly conflicts with both the letter and the spirit of Wikivoyage:Copyleft, so it should be deleted. ~ 203.144.143.4 06:16, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I'm very confused by this last response. These images can be redistributed with our guides. That's not so much an opinion as a fact, the WTP Chicago guide, which should be available shortly, uses lots of CC-2.0 images and properly attributes them. We just need to 1) explain how and 2) make it easier to do, rather than rush to delete useful images. And I certainly don't see how you say that this image conflicts with the spirit of the copyleft—that Wikivoyage guides be reusable by anyone for any purpose, provided that they are properly attributed and shared-alike. And where did CC "confirm that this image can't legally be redistributed as part of a Wikivoyage article?" --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 06:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Are you suggesting that separately licensed text and images can be combined on the same printed page and the result not be considered a derivative work? ~ 58.8.240.57 07:39, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I suppose you could either consider it a single derivative work, or simply a print out containing several original works. But I don't think that matters, so long as whoever prints it out for redistribution does include licensing information & attribution information for whatever is on the page.

Speaking of which, our current "print-version" pages do not include any attribution information (in addition to licensing information) for images. This is in violation of licensing requirements (for anyone who prints them out for redistribution) & we should fix this. File attribution & licensing information should automatically appear on print-version pages that include the file. But following the logic by which you are arguing to delete this image, we should instead delete all images?!, since our current print-version format does not properly attribute them. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 08:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever about this - if you take some text describing a place, and some pictures of the same place from another source, and combine them, print them, and sell them as a guidebook - that guidebook is a derivative work. Agreed? ~ 203.144.143.4 08:57, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Now, you've neither responded to my points nor explained why this is relevant, but no, not agreed. There most certainly is doubt—the very response from CC, which I linked above, says word for word, "it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image." I don't see the difference between a print-out version and the web version. And ultimately, as I've said at least twice above, what is important is that all content is accompanied by proper attribution & note of its license. We do that on the web, regardless of image license—that's what is required by any CC-by-SA license. We don't do that in print, regardless of image license. So again: we do not need to delete these images. We do need to fix our print output to include image licensing & attribution info. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 09:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of derivative. Switching media itself will probably qualify as derivative. I'm not sure why that is germane to this discussion because it doesn't address the licensing issue but a printed guide book that is an amalgamation of many articles here would, I think, automatically qualify as derivative. Also, by my reading of copyleft, every contributer to the original pages would need to be acknowledged in the print version. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:26, 23 January 2008 (EST)

There is a difference between web and print. For print, the entire derivative can only be distributed under one licence (or one set of licences, each licence covering the entire derivative), and that licence (or set of licences) has to be compatible with the copyrights on the work that comprises the derivative. ~ 203.144.143.4 09:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Says who? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 09:48, 23 January 2008 (EST)

This is all very confusing. Peter's edits notwithstanding, it still seems to me that the ONLY proper license is 1.0 and any contribution that is not made under 1.0 should probably be deleted because the contribution was not made according to the terms and conditions set out by wikivoyage. How can we say that contributions not properly licensed will be deleted and then keep them anyway? If many images have to be deleted then that is too bad but the number of incorrectly licensed images should not be a factor in figuring out licensing issues. Even if we make changes to licensing down the road, I don't see how those changes can apply to contributions made in the past so, IMHO, we should delete the images, fix the licensing, and move on. If you've used improperly licensed images in your Chicago book, I wouldn't worry too much because, even if they were improperly uploaded on wikivoyage, a license for use exists. I don't see how you can get sued by an unhappy wikivoyage contributer. --(WT-en) Wandering 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I was giving one example of a derivative, not a definition.

It's germane because derivatives can't comprise works with incompatible licences.

I don't understand why it would be OK to use "improperly licensed images" on the basis that "a license for use exists".

I don't understand why the likelihood of being sued is relevant - surely our concern should be to ensure that Wikivoyage is legit? ~ 203.144.143.4 15:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)

OK - about derivatives and incompatible licenses. My point about being sued or not was just un-lawyerly advice. Since Wikivoyage Press has apparently no relation with wikivoyage, the legal position of the producers of the Chicago guide is not for me to determine (unless I think they are improperly using my contributions). My point is pretty straightforward here - any image not explicitly licensed as cc by sa 1.0 should be deleted. --(WT-en) Wandering 15:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Perhaps we should have a separate discussion on the implications of the current licensing scheme and printed guide books in the wikivoyage press pages. I think there are a number of issues that need to be clarified - including, but not limited to, the definition of a derivative work, the rights and responsibilities of the person who reuses the works, the rights of the original contributers and how they will be protected, and, though this is not associated with licensing, making it a responsibility of wikivoyage admins to declare a commercial interest in wikivoyage material.--(WT-en) Wandering 15:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, we will need to move this discussion as well.

Now lets try and clarify this discussion, as a lot of what is being discussed is frankly irrelevant. In particular, I have no idea why 203 is making assertions about definitions of derivative works—definitions are decided by the existing text of the CC licenses, not by us, and anything left unclear is open for pragmatic interpretation. Also, the statement "I don't understand why the likelihood of being sued is relevant - surely our concern should be to ensure that Wikivoyage is legit?" indicates a profound misunderstanding of the legal issues under discussion. As Mike Linksvayer from CC said, "it is not clear that merely including an image in a web page causes that entire page to be a derivative of the image, triggering SA." Because the license does not address the issue under discussion, we are in a legal gray area and therefore there is plenty of room for interpretation by interested parties. Ultimately our goal in dealing with such an undefined legal area is to make sure we do what is best for Wikivoyage, meaning a) what makes sense for running the site, and b) what keeps us (or IB) from getting sued. Deleting all non-1.0 files would clearly make no sense for running the site, and there is little if any chance that anyone would sue us (particularly if we make the changes under point three below), and even if they did, it is extremely doubtful that they could win, since they would have to show damages, which would be a task of Kafkaesque levels of absurdity.

First, our copyleft is not a piece of legislation, it is a policy we create. If it contradicts something we are doing, we can simply change it—the only thing that could prevent us from changing it is if the change would undermine what we understand to be the rights of previous contributors and users. Changing the text of the copyleft to allow non-CC-by-SA-1.0 files does not undermine anyone's rights, since it does not affect anyone's contributions at all. It merely conforms the text to a practice that has been used throughout pretty much the entire history of the site.

Second, to keep our site "legit," all we need do is ensure we are complying with the terms of the licensing of material on our site. We already do this, as we provide attribution & licensing information for all material on Wikivoyage.

Third, There is one legal wrinkle that we need to work out, because although we have kept to the terms of share-alike in listing the appropriate licenses for individual files, we have also given the impression in our Copyleft & elsewhere that all the content of the site is available for re-use under CC-by-SA 1.0. This is not accurate and is arguably a violation of the share-alike clause for files licensed under share-alike versions >1.0. More importantly, we should be clear about this to help downstream users re-use wikivoyage content, in line with our basic goal of print re-usability.

To fix that third point, we need to 1) alter all text advising down-stream users that they can re-use all WT content under the CC-by-SA license to indicate that they should also include image-specific licensing; and 2) optimally, alter the code by which print-version articles are generated to automatically grab licensing & attribution information from the Image credit template.

While some of the discussion may be irrelevant wrt whether or not to delete this particular image, I wouldn't call it irrelevant by any means. The collective work/derivative work distinction arises because, according to the license, derivative work has to be licensed cc-by-sa-1.0 while collective work can be from multiple sources, each with a different license, as long as each component is correctly attributed. It would seem to me, and I could be wrong, that improperly licensed images in derivative work would render that derivative work to be not in compliance with the terms of the cc-by-sa-1.0 license. Since the definition of collective work includes 'unmodified form' and the definition of derivative work includes "any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted," I would assume that print (as opposed to web) is a modification. Of course, an easy work around for this exists by ensuring that, at any single point in time, the web version matches the print version (unless a printed guidebook is itself considered to be recasted - but that's best left to lawyers to hash out).

I also disagree that the problem is with copyleft. The problem is that wikivoyage has explicitly informed contributers that all material is cc-by-sa-1.0 and can only be cc-by-sa-1.0 and then allowed the selection of other licenses when uploading images. cc-by-sa-1.0 says "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You." Seems pretty clear to me. Unless there are legal opinions on equivalence between the different licenses, I still don't see how we can keep images not properly licensed. If pragmatism were the only constraint, there would be nothing to stop us from copying text from wikipedia and then waiting for a lawsuit. Obviously, we don't do that here. --(WT-en) Wandering 21:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Your first point, if I understand correctly, is that the print version of Wikivoyage articles is a derivative work comprised of the images & text on the page, while the web version is a collective work. If this were true, we could not include images in the print versions that are anything other than CC-by-SA 1.0 because that would compromise the essential promise of our copyleft—that anyone may print out & redistribute our guides provided they include attribution & share-alike. If this were true, then we could also just solve the problem by simply adding image tags to the thumbnails in question telling our software not to include them in the print versions. So even if this were true, as you argue, it would still be a bad idea to mass delete all non CC-by-SA images, since there is a more practical way to deal with the problem.

But I don't accept this argument at all. Why on earth would reading a WT guide on paper rather than online turn the exact same body of collective work into something derivative? The act of printing out a WT article does not somehow negate the fact that it is a collective work, created by the collective contributions of all the contributors to that article. To make it a collective work, under the broad wording of the CC-by-SA licenses, all one needs do is assert that they have not changed it substantially to warrant a claim of ownership over a new form. In any rate, that decision (and it is an easy decision to make) is, as you say, up to the re-distributor to make, not for us. We do, however, have an obligation IMO to make it clear to downstream users that our work is a collective work that sometimes does include works with different licensing than 1.0 Attribution-ShareAlike, which will require proper attribution and licensing.

I disagree completely with your second point. The problem is not that "wikivoyage has explicitly informed contributers that all material is cc-by-sa-1.0 and can only be cc-by-sa-1.0" while allowing files under other licenses. That betrays nothing to the contributors who either decided to contribute text under CC-by-SA 1.0, nor does it betray anything to the contributors who uploaded files under other accepted licenses in violation of the outdated text of our policy which did not match our practices. The problem is that Wikivoyage has explicitly informed re-distributors that they could redistribute our guides without citing any licenses beyond CC-by-SA 1.0, when in fact we do have images in our guides under licenses that require ShareAlike under non-compatible later versions of CC Attribution-ShareAlike. That has already been done and we cannot undo it, we can only set about correcting it in the future.

There are two options for correcting this problem. The first, as has been suggested in this thread, would be to delete all images on site that require ShareAlike for licenses other than CC-by-SA 1.0 (that would be all CC Attribution-ShareAlike licensed files 2.0+). The second, as I've proposed, would be to clarify our instructions to down-stream redistributors of Wikivoyage content. This would entail rewording several of our MediaWiki files & adding clarification to our copyleft. I argue that we should go further than this and also rework the way in which print version articles display attribution & licensing to make it easier for downstream users to comply with the terms of CC Attribution-ShareAlike. But it seems to me very obvious that the second option is superior, because it allows Wikivoyage to continue to cooperate with other open-source licensed projects on maps, images, and other media, rather than painting ourselves into an archaic and incompatible licensing trap. Comparing these two proposed solutions, I see only disadvantages to the former, reasonable and surmountable challenges to the latter. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I disagree completely with your disagreement re my second point. Whether our practices are outdated or not is not the issue. The issues are (1) what does the license say, (2) what licenses do we say we accept and (3) what conclusions will a reasonable person draw from what the license says and the way we describe what our license says. For example, a reasonable person would draw the conclusion that material submitted by him/her will be reused only on other web sites from the phrase "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!" while the terms in the license makes it clear that the work can be reused in any media. This is the sort of thing that lawyers love and could go to court on and argue about intent, deceptive practices, reasonable conclusions, etc. till the cows come home. As long as there is no money involved, no one cares but add money to the equation and all sorts of issues of intent, deception etc. arise and these are best avoided. So, the question re the images is what will conclusions will a reasonable person draw from the license and from what we say about the license. We say - only cc-by-sa-1.0 (and very clearly at that too). But then we allow people to submit stuff under other licenses. While I can't see how that can be used to sue wikivoyage that doesn't mean that someone won't find a way to do so and, IMHO, it is better to just delete non 1.0 images and be clear about what we accept going forward. The license talks about derivative works and collective works and uses words like "unmodified form" when describing collective work. You say taking an article from a website, combining it with others, and repackaging it as a published guidebook for sale is not modifying the form. I suspect the courts could easily draw a different conclusion partly because of three things: the re-used on web sites disclaimer above, the change in media, and the addition of money. In fact, what cc intended when writing the license is no longer the issue but rather it is what a reasonable person can conclude from the license and from information provided by wikivoyage about the terms of the license. My suggestion is, and I think these are fairly simple, (1) dump images not cc1.0. (2) either clarify the terms of the license, or remove all descriptions and replace with a pointer to the license and (3) remove all other licenses from the list (why do we have other licenses listed anyway?). We also need a code of conduct for admins who intend publishing guide books - something simple like a declaration of intent or something - so that conflict of interest doesn't become an issue for the admin publishing the book.--(WT-en) Wandering 11:50, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I find the implication that I am somehow making disingenuous arguments here because of my WTP affiliation about as offensive as it is baseless. No outcome from this vfd proposal will affect my work on the printed Chicago guide in any way—there simply is no basis for such a conflict of interest. If there were, I would not let it stop me from advocating what I honestly think is good for this site, as I have always done. If you are interested in creating a conflict-of-interest policy, the appropriate way to do that would be to either write a draft policy & see what others think, or raise discussion about it in the pub or on a Wikivoyage_talk:Conflict_of_interest page. Not here. In any rate, if my insight is unwelcome, I will no longer contribute. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I find the implication that I am somehow making disingenuous arguments here because of my WTP affiliation about as offensive as it is baseless. I don't think I've implied that anywhere (and I reread my arguments carefully). You seem to be drawing an implication that is not intended and I am certainly not accusing you of making disingenuous arguments. Quite the contrary, I should think, since I'm discussing things openly and clearly here and am reading and responding to your insights and arguments. Why would I bother if I thought your arguments were motivated by self-interest rather than by reason? About the conflict of interest policy: My experience is that a conflict of interest policy is always a good idea wherever conflicting objectives exist (which is not the same thing as saying that the conflicting objectives are actually affecting policy). It is in the interest of members who have conflicting interests to have such a policy in place - I, and other wikivoyage users not using wikivoyage material for-profit, have no interest in such a policy because it does not help us in any way. If you think you don't need one, that's your call.

In any rate, if my insight is unwelcome, I will no longer contribute. There are many contributers on wikivoyage and, IMHO, you shouldn't take negative implications (whether meant or not), or even personal invective, from one person to heart. Have some faith in the quality of your ideas and your contributions (which are excellent). Disagreements are valuable in any open venture like this one because they bring important issues out onto the table for discussion and, as a valuable member of the community, you should wade into them rather than withdraw from them. (If this sounds a bit patronizing, I apologize. Couldn't frame it any other way but that is not my intention!) --(WT-en) Wandering 12:42, 29 January 2008 (EST)

There was absolutely no reason to bring up a conflict of interest policy in this discussion beyond that of maligning me personally. This is clearly not the place for such a proposal. Although I realize that your comments are in good faith, I think you have both misunderstood most everything I have said here, clearly misjudged me as a person, and stepped outside of the bounds of appropriate discussion and wiki-etiquette. And I am insulted by this patronizing, presumptuous, and unsolicited advice, and for the continuing attacks elsewhere, and for the continued misrepresentations, and for the continued lack of a proper apology. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Me and my buddie Forrest Gump have been following this conversation and all we can say is Gollleee. Two of our favorite contributors are having a disagreement. Neither of you are responsible for this problem, and it seems far from resolution. Me and Forrest think you should sit down and have some shrimp and beers, and discuss this a bit further. You are talking way over our heads and we are not much help. But, please resovle it in a peaceful manner, like big people. Forrest and I would miss either of you if you quit contributing. Maybe we should somehow move on in another manner. Or you could just go shrimpin with me and Forrest, that would be fun. (WT-en) 2old 13:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Well Forrest and I reread these comments and we are as confused as ever. Since I have contributed a few photos, I think I have an interest in this conversation. By no means do I want anyone to think I have a clue about the interpretation of these licenses, but as a contributor, I think I may want clarification a couple of things. 1.)Most of my photo contibutions are under the 1.0 or higher choice and I am hoping that covers everything and is not a problem, if not please advise. 2.)When I contributed to wikivoyage, the intention was to contribute to a web based travel site. I had no thought of supporting a print project like WTP. While I do not object to the use of anything I may contribute, I do not know if I really care, or if it is a concern of wikivoyage.com that images are not compatable to downline users. I see that as their problem, and no concern of wikivoyage.com. So, if the subject photo conforms with the use of wikivoyage.com (and the rest of them so licensed) my vote is to Keep. If the subject photo does not conform to wikivoyage.com license requirements then Delete it and all other photos so licensed now and go on. This project will last a loooooong time and the current administrators and contributors have a responsibility to get it right. We owe nothing to downline users and it is their problem, let's not make it ours. 65.24.110.210 12:18, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Images automatically licensed as cc-by-sa-1.0?

...continued from Image:Asia 2006 156.jpg

Guidelines? What guidelines? But as far as I know, no periods of time are mentioned anywhere, and going through the {{dont know}} tag stage seems to be optional. I've been adding {{vfd}} tags to images that already have {{dont know}} tags, and adding {{dont know}} tags to images with no licence. ~ 203.144.143.4 18:21, 31 January 2008 (EST)

No reason - but then my conclusion that the incorrectly licensed images should be deleted doesn't seem to be universally acceptable. Not sure if there is some plan afoot to somehow legitimize the 'no license' images as well. --(WT-en) Wandering 18:29, 31 January 2008 (EST)

It doesn't matter that it's not universally accepted. All that matters is that after 5 weeks of debate they have not, by any stretch of the imagination, been "proven innocent". ~ 203.144.143.4 18:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Since you seem to be flitting around more than everyone else, do you get a sense that there are huge numbers of images that are licensed by cc-by-sa other than 1.0? There seem to be three or four listed in this page which is not a huge amount (I assume, no one wants the unlicensed ones) and I'm wondering why we have this panic (we are headed for disaster) thing going on. I get the feeling that there's a subtext here that I'm missing and wonder if you have an insight into this. (Insights from other admins seem to be in short supply.) --(WT-en) Wandering 22:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Could be that most of us are feeling the same way, what are we missing?. I for one don't see any huge issue here, we have always removed invalidly licensed material as we come across them and as far as I can see we have been doing a good job. If this vfd page contains all (or most) of the invalid licensed material in wikivoyage then we have been keeping it quite clean. I can't see any reason for doom and gloom and a sudden rush to clean all up at once, but since Tweak (If I may use the name (WT-en) Sapphire assigned to 203.144.143.4) feels the need to list all now, I'm happy to work through them as usual. Even if all these are deleted, the impack on WT as a whole is minimal. --(WT-en) Nick 02:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Relatively speaking, no, there aren't that many with incompatible licences. I'm going to VFD them all now: #CC-by-SA-2.0 (13 images), #CC-by-SA-2.5 (67 images), #CC-by-SA-3.0 (2 images). ~ 203.144.143.4 04:37, 1 February 2008 (EST)

To put that in perspective, 8,349 files have been uploaded (Feb.1st 2008). Also bear in mind that of those 82 images, some are not linked to from anywhere, some are only linked to from Talk pages or "joke" articles, some are only linked to from User pages (presumably it's not unreasonable to expect that they be re-licenced), and some are copyvios; and some are just really bad photos. Of the rest, many have been uploaded by their creators and it would be simple enough for the uploader/creator to re-licence them. ~ 203.144.143.4 07:11, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Well, let's try to put some closure to this. It seems to me that there is some sort of consensus that we should delete the improperly licensed pictures. To summarize the discussion above: (WT-en) Jpatokal wanted to keep the pictures but only because there was no consensus. So, let's set (WT-en) Jpatokal aside for now and see if we have a consensus. 203.144.143.6, 61.7.183.208, (WT-en) Wandering, (WT-en) Nick, 203.144.143.4 (assuming .4 and .6 are different) feel that these images should be deleted if we've done our bit in trying to correct the license. User 65.24.110.210 feels we should keep them if the licensing requirements are met and delete them otherwise. I think it is quite clear that higher licenses don't satisfy our requirements because only (WT-en) Peter has argued to keep them and even his options require a change in our licensing system which implies that these pictures do not match our current licensing requirements. I'd say there is a consensus to delete improperly licensed pictures (pictures with licenses other than cc-by-sa-1.0). Agreed? --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

You misrepresent my arguments above, presumably because you did not understand them. I argued that we clarify the text of our copyleft to match our day-by-day practices, not to change our site's licensing, which is a different issue altogether. You are conflating discussions and have not understood the issues at hand here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I also assume no one will argue that we should keep unlicensed ones. I notice that some of the pictures posted without a license are copyrighted elsewhere and due diligence says we should remove unlicensed ones post haste. Agreed? --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

No, not agreed on any of that. First, it's not an issue of "improperly licensed" images, it's an issue of whether some correctly licensed images can be used on Wikivoyage. Second, there is no such thing as an "unlicensed" image, there are only CC by-sa 1.0 images without explicit tags. (Everything I uploaded before we even invented license tags, for example.) Third, the proper place or venue for this policy discussion is not VFDs, but the Talk page, where eg. Cacahuate has also expressed his support for keeping CC >1.0 images. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:01, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Could someone put a link from the Viking discussion above to this section so that everyone knows we're reaching a consensus? Thanks! Trust a picture about Vikings in a Storm to cause a storm! --(WT-en) Wandering 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Regarding Wanderings suggestion that we delete all unlicensed images:Old farts like me may pop up again, knowing NOTHING about wikiways, but willing to contribute comments on a lifetime of travel as well as a few photos'. Those of us in the old farts club as well as others may not have a clue about licenses. So, if you do mark one "Dont know", give it 30 days for the contributor to figure it out before a deletion. As far as other ill licensed photos, I think it best to get rid of them and clean up the project. Jani contibutes some of the best images on the site, and is one of the more wikiways informed. For some reason, a number of his photos have no license nor have had a license. I would not want to loose any of them. Maybe he could comment on why he does that. (the new one on the front page is about as good as we get, but has no license????????) (WT-en) 2old 11:11, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Makes sense to me (the 30 days part). Perhaps, at least for recently added pictures, we could drop a note in the users mailbox (a template would serve for this) letting them know that the image will be deleted in 30 days if cc-by-sa-1.0 is not selected. --(WT-en) Wandering 12:01, 2 February 2008 (EST)

OK, I'm starting to get pissed off here. Here's what it says and has said on Special:Upload for as long as I remember:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.

Comprende? All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0. There is no such thing as a "Don't know" image, there are only untagged CC by-sa 1.0 images, and all these VFDs are null and void. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:53, 3 February 2008 (EST)

(WT-en) Jpatokal, I'm sorry to hear that you're starting to get pissed off (though, I must admit, it is not at all clear to me why a fair discussion should make you angry). Anyway, the point is that wikivoyage has an obligation to its contributers (as well as to downstream users of content) to take at least minimal steps in ensuring that images are not copyrighted elsewhere and that their use under a common cause commercial license is fair. If a user does not select a license, wikivoyage should not blithely assume that it can be made available under a common cause license. If we accept your argument, then nothing in wikivoyage should ever be deleted (all those copyvio deletions of text, etc.) because, again by your definition, everything contributed to wikivoyage is automatically cc-by-sa-1.0. I could add the text of an entire book, upload songs perhaps, copy pictures freely from the internet, and you would assume that all this is kosher because we say that everything is cc-by-sa-1.0 by definition. That, I should think, is not a very responsible way of treating this enterprise. BTW, thanks for the tip on User:(WT-en) Cacahuate's contribution in the talk page. I'll take a look at it and add his views into this summary. I've also reduced the size of the quote above, it detracts from the discussion (makes this part look like a separate section). --(WT-en) Wandering 11:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)

That's not at all what I'm saying. If any image is a copyright violation, then it's a copyright violation regardless of what tag is placed on it, and can and should be dealt with as such.

So one more time. When any user uploads an image, they certify that it is available under the Creative Commons license. If there is reason to believe that this declaration is not true, whether out of malice, ignorance or stupidity, then the image should be deleted. However, for images like Image:IMG_0156.JPGs and Image:DSCF0039.JPG that have been VFD'd above, there's absolutely no reason to believe that these personal snapshots are not the work of the uploader.

You'll note that this is exactly the same thing as we do for text. Contributions are assumed to be legit by default, but we keep a close eye on dubious additions are promptly nuked. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)

If in fact (and I have no reason to question) Jani is correct that uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-sa 1.0, then when contribtors upload images, the images should be automatically tagged CC-by-sa 1.0. In my non-wiki life I have to deal with lawyers on a reular basis. They have advised me numerous times, not to create arguable situations. (WT-en) Jpatokal as a community leader needs to have a bit more patience with this sort of situation and act as a counsel in these matters and others. If he is actually getting pissed off, anger management classes may be in the future. Remember, creative people are always the first to go crazy. If we can not automatically tag untagged photos, then I support the idea to tag them Dont know, advise the contributor, wait 30 days and then delete. I think the tagging should be a voluntary action of the contributor, that would eliminate the arguable element from the situation/transaction.

You are welcome to suggest we change policy so that, in the future, images uploaded without an explicit license specified are deleted. I would even support you, as long as there's an easy way for that license to be specified while uploading, and all existing untagged images are tagged first. However, retroactively deleting thousands of images when they already have perfectly valid licenses is beyond senseless. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:40, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Did you have an idea how to tag all existing untagged images are tagged first ? And, at this point I am still thinking Delete. Reason: I do not think an arbitrary license is valid. ( Guess it depends on where also.) (WT-en) 2old 12:06, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Easy-peasy: give me a list of untagged articles, and I'll run a script to tag them all.

And can you please explain to me what is unclear or arbitrary about All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0? Why is this any more unclear or arbitrary than All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0, which is what we require for text contributions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:46, 4 February 2008 (EST)

The text is clear, but when one finds an image unmarked for license as in Image:PLO FlagShop.JPG , one of my favorites, I would think it better if it was licensed rather than guessing. For me it would be a perfect POM, but may have been avoided due to license fears/questions. On wikivoyage shared, it is common practice to mark unlicensed images VFD and for them to be deleted, (I have even been notified as such) so I thought the same applied here. Above you said "list of untagged articles" did you mean photos?. The dont know tag states Wikivoyage cannot keep images without a statement that licenses them under terms permitting us to use them. That is in conflict with your side of the debate here, that All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0. My personal preference would be that I could contribute images to wikivoyage, that could not be used by others, but that seems impossible. When it comes to photos, I really do not consider owning anything. It is simply something I have seen and I am sharing the view with others. That simple. Others may want to control the use, but in reality it is so difficult that even the thought is not worth while. So I guess one of my questions is, why even tag the Dont knows and why have they been deleted in the past under the same circumstances? (WT-en) 2old 14:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Wikivoyage Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images.

However, here on en:, the upload wording is unambiguous and there's no requirement for users to place a license tag nor are there any instructions for doing so. The "don't know" tag is a fairly recent invention and, based on a quick Google of the archives, it has never been used as a reason for VFD until Tweak came along.

So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:

• All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
• Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
• After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

(WT-en) Jpatokal, I'm sorry, but the discussion above is completely at odds with your proposal. There is a lot of discussion above and it may be hard for you to read through everything so let me make it simple. The following users feel, and they have all made substantive arguments in favor, that images that are unlicensed or incorrectly licensed (cc-by-sa>1.0) should be deleted: 203.144.143.6, 61.7.183.208, (WT-en) Wandering, (WT-en) Nick, 203.144.143.4, and (WT-en) 2old. The users who want to keep the images are (WT-en) Jpatokal (though initially you did not express that view) and (WT-en) Peter. (User:(WT-en) Cacahuate's reasons for keeping are related to the need for a consensus and I assume he hasn't seen this discussion so I won't include him in the keep column.) Of the two in favor of keeping, (WT-en) Peter's view seems to be that the images are not properly licensed but should be kept for expedient reasons. You, (WT-en) Jpatokal, are the only user who feels that we have no responsibility towards our users in the matter of licensing.

Again, you completely misrepresent my above arguments, again presumably because you don't understand them (much less the issues being discussed). I do not think that >1.0 attribution-sharealike images are not properly licensed, that doesn't make sense to begin with, because all one needs to do to properly license a file as CC-by-SA is to indicate their intent to do so. Besides, that discussion has nothing to do with this one (again, because you don't understand the issues we are discussing, you have conflated several distinct discussions underway). This is a discussion merely of whether saving a file on a page where it says that you agree to certain terms by saving the file, actually does mean that the person agrees to those terms. It seems evident beyond reasonable objection that this is the case. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I find that comment genuinely offensive, and I expect an immediate apology. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry (WT-en) Jpatokal, but no apology is forthcoming. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Now I understand that you are a community leader but I hope you will see that the community is better served by discussing things (without shouting - I noticed that you, without comment, restored the big lettering in the quote above - and without aggression) and by being accepting of a viewpoint that may be at odds with your own. The success of wikivoyage should be of more importance to you than the presence or non-presence of a few (or many) images that have been loaded onto wikivoyage without a license and that wikivoyage is then redistributing under a free common cause license. In case after case the courts have ruled that websites cannot hide behind 'we don't know' when it comes to copyright infringement and I ask you to consider how it will look when a downstream user, Project:Wikivoyage Press is a good example, is sued for publishing copyright pictures and then Project:Wikivoyage Press sues wikivoyage for claiming that the picture was available under a free license and then wikivoyage says "hey, we don't ask our users to choose a license we just assign them, sometimes years after the fact!" Project:Wikivoyage Press will be fine but where will wikivoyage be? I, for one, believe that I have a responsibility to wikivoyage because my intellectual contributions are embodied in it. And, if you stopped shouting, getting angry, and being generally dismissive of other viewpoints, I hope you'll see it that way too. --(WT-en) Wandering 11:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

The reason you think I'm "dismissive" of your arguments is that I find them completely and totally irrational, your renderings of other peoples' comments are tendentious at best, and you're conflating two completely separate issues (untagged and CC >1.0) to boot. But let me try asking you two questions.

(WT-en) Jpatokal, you can hold whatever opinion you like about the rationality of my arguments just like I can hold whatever opinions I like about the rationality of your arguments. However, neither of us own wikivoyage, we are both contributers to this site, and it is NOT conducive to a meaningful discussion to shout, to show aggression, and be dismissive. I'm sorry you can't see that.--(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)

A) Are you satisfied with text contributions licensed by users hitting the "Save page" button below the text "All contributions to Wikivoyage must be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0"? (yes/no)

B) Are you satisfied with image contributions licensed by users hitting the "Upload file" button below the text "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0"? (yes/no)

Do what you want down the road. I feel that the user should ALWAYS explicitly select a license or, at the least, agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license (with one of those agree/disagree check boxes). However, that does not address the issue at hand, which is, what to do with images that have been previously uploaded without a license, or uploaded with an improper license. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)

<plants hand on face, drags it down slowly, takes deep breath>

The user does "agree that the work is free of copyright and that he/she agrees to release it under a clearly specified common cause license" — that's precisely what the text on Special:Upload quoted above in big bold letters means.

Can you please explain to me why you feel that the wording of A) is sufficient for this permission, and the wording of B) is not? Or should we delete all text ever written on Wikivoyage as well? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Also, let me spell out once more that any images that are copyright violations or are reasonably suspected of being copyright violations must be deleted. But whenever a user uploads a file, that user has certified that it's available under a compatible Free license, and we have to AssumeGoodFaith — in precisely the same way that we presume text contributions to be innocent until proven guilty. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Have you actually read the article you point to above (AssumeGoodFaith)? It makes for interesting reading even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the context in which you have quoted it. Lots of good stuff there. Some extracts:

Sometimes you really are being ribbed the wrong way (pun intended). Even so, it is still better to assume good faith — the question is not one of accurate perception, but of appropriate action. It may be more helpful to see the other person as a challenge to overcome rather than a personal enemy to be vanquished.

However, some times a person's goals may directly interfere with your life. They could be in direct competition with you, and there could be a limited number of resources. You may disagree at some fundamental level of morality. You could have something they want. They could even be completely unreasonable, knowing they have some sort of power over you, like a spammer that subverts technology against you. Conversely, you might engage in strategic conflicts to get what you want. PoliticalAction is almost by definition this kind of adversarial approach in the West. Remember to not make these conflicts personal, and never engage in conflicts that will accomplish nothing. Don't win a PyrrhicVictory by burning bridges you may have to cross in the future.

Well, worth a read. Clearly, I don't want a conflict with you. I was being tendentious and irrational well before you entered the conversation with your "I'm starting to get pissed off" remark. But, in the spirit of the article, I'll withdraw the remark you got so upset about. I don't really care what you think of my arguments (I am pretty close to being as long in the tooth as (WT-en) 2old so young whippersnappers don't easily bother me). Now, if you are willing to tone down your shrillness (what's with all that comprende? and "let me spell it out" and entering a discussion with "I'm starting to get pissed off") we may actually get somewhere toward a consensus on what to do with all those images out there. If, that is, you care about a consensus. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:20, 5 February 2008 (EST)

You accuse me of not caring about consensus and having no responsibility towards licensing. Now, I disagree with you very strongly about this topic, but have I personally attacked you? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Currently I am in favor of Jani's last two proposals 2)* Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared. * 3)After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD. And I would like it completed ASAP. However keeping unlicensed images does not set well with me at this point and I would like to se further discussion. Many may not agree, but take it from an older (in age) contibutor, this site is very new and if it is accepted by the travel community as I think it will be (Route 66 looks dead), it will be around a long time. Lets work towards making it as unquestionable as we can with the content. People are always looking for an opportunity, someone could actually set us up under the current situation and calmly wait for an opening to sue. Lets close any loopholes. This is not the voice of paranoia, but experience with opportunists. On another point, Jani, you may want to inform Evan that some of us appreciate him and the wife founding this site and participating in discussions in the early days and until he and the current owner split. They retained ownership of the rights to publish and contributors keep adding to the value of this site with very limited input from Evan. I for one would welcome his comments more in these debates, for the benefit of all. As with Thomas A. Edison, who also was an Ohio native, Wikivoyage is not his last invention (we hope) as with Edison who went on to found General Electric did not stop with the long lasting light bulb, nor the repeating telegraph key which was one of his earlier works. (WT-en) 2old 12:09, 5 February 2008 (EST)

It looks to me as though license tags are causing a great deal of confusion. We should probably get rid of them.

All images without image tags are CC-by-sa 1.0. This is stated very very clearly in the upload form, and has been for 5 years.

If for some reason we decide to keep the license tags then we should immediately add cc-by-sa tags to images for which the tags are missing as so to avoid future confusion. -- (WT-en) Mark 13:02, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Greetings all, I just want to voice my support of the view that uploaders of images without tags have declared (by using the site) that all contributions are licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 and as they have declared that, they also agree per the terms of the CC-by-SA 1.0 license that the materials they have submitted are available under CC-by-SA 1.0 or do not infringe on the proprietary rights of another person. Thus, there's no need to delete any images without a CC-by-SA 1.0 tag, unless you truly expect it to by a copyvio. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 13:32, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I was accused by (WT-en) jpatokal of conflating the two issues (cc-by-sa>1.0 and unlicensed) so I went back and looked at this rather long and Hamlet-ian thread (to delete or not to delete, that is the question) and, would you believe it, the scream was right! If only he would talk like a normal person perhaps I would have heard him earlier. So, going back to first principles, here is my position:

cc-by-sa->1.0 images. "Keep" We should delete them because we've been giving the impression that they are not legit, but, I don't see how wikivoyage can be legally called to task for a choice that the user has made when uploading (our responsibility to the downstream user) or why the uploading user would care (our responsibility to the contributing user). On rereading, I see that we got tangled in definitions of derivative and collective work because (WT-en) Peterfitzgerald has been using these images in the Project:Wikivoyage Press Chicago guide (are there many of these in the Singapore guide as well, that might explain the anger) and the definitions of derivative and collective work. But, that is the business of a downstream user and, as long as wikivoyage ensures that the licenses are appropriate, no business of ours. Any images added to a wikivoyage article would, it seems, qualify as a "collective work" and we should be able to combine images with different licenses on the same page after appropriately modifying the 'content is available under' rider at the bottom of the page. That should be sufficient even though wikivoyage has been combining them as a collective work and displaying an incorrect licensing statement at the bottom of the page. An important caveat is how we do this because it is setting a precedent for misuse down the road.

Again, I find myself thoroughly misunderstood, misrepresented, and wrongfully and ignorantly maligned. To repeat, the >1.0 images used in the Wikivoyage guide are totally irrelevant to any decision made on this site. I believe we at Wikivoyage Press have the right to do so, provided we properly note licensing and attribution, and I have WTP's support in this. A dumb decision here simply doesn't bear one iota on the images in the book. But again, that is a separate issue from this one, which is even more clear cut.

My motivation in making the arguments I have about what images we may keep stems from my desire to make Wikivoyage the most effective open-content travel guide possible, and simply to see that logic and clear-headed understanding prevails against stubborn ignorance. If frustration came across in my arguments, it was simply because I felt that the points I made were not sufficiently addressed in the cascading responses, as my points (and the issues being discussed) were not understood by discussants. That would be a good time for clarification, which I was trying to provide. I got angry because you, Wandering, were repeatedly implying in bad faith that my arguments should be discounted according to a very incorrect and insulting perception on your part that I had a conflict of interest in the matter. I do not, and the fact that you continue in this line of personal attack further demonstrates that you do not understand the licensing issues being discussed, do not understand what I have argued, and are generally bringing down the level of discourse. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk

unlicensed images. "Delete" I am uneasy about keeping images that have not been explicitly released with a free license by the uploading user. Wikivoyage has followed the practice of deleting them for quite a while (See: Project:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and presumably many others) and I don't see why we should suddenly decide we need to keep them. --(WT-en) Wandering 14:52, 5 February 2008 (EST)

I hope you don't take this badly, but I simply must disagree. We have been very clear from the begining that anyhthing uploaded here is under the CC-by-sa 1.0 unless otherwise indicated. I simply don't understand why this isn't clear. -- (WT-en) Mark 15:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)

(I don't take anything badly, I just find it hard talking to angry people.) If it was so clear then why were we deleting unlicensed images all along? A quick look at the deletion archives seems to show that deleting unlicensed images was a no-brainer. Anyway, I do think that there is a difference when a user explicitly makes a selection (of the license as well as indicating that there are no copyright issues) versus when the selection is implicit. That is one reason why many websites have the Agree/Disagree check box that users check off. --(WT-en) Wandering 16:08, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Can you point out what images have been deleted in the past for the sole reason of not having a license tag? I just looked through both Project:Votes_for_deletion/May_2006, Project:Votes_for_deletion/June_2006 and as far as I can see all deleted images are suspected copyvios, duplicates, advertisements or violate privacy rights. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:58, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Keep all images with no license marked. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:12, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Keep. This seems cut-and-dry to me. It's made clear - right out front and out loud, not buried in fine print - that anything uploaded here is under CC-by-SA 1.0. We don't require people to tag the text they enter in these here boxes, and we all seem content with the implicit understanding there. Some admins here do an impressive job of catching mis-licensed copyvio photos, but this ain't that. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 23:01, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Jeez Louise. I'll start by saying that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Jpatokal has said. While I give 203.144.143.4 kudos for actually getting more of a conversation to take place about this than we've been able to in a while, as Jani says, the VFD page isn't the place to do it... clogging it with all these images isn't really helping solve our problems.

I'll pitch in my support of the Special:Upload text, I agree it will cover us in the event of an unlikely lawsuit, and I vote to keep anything uploaded without a license for reasons specified by Jani and others, with the obvious exceptions of copyvios, etc.

Re: >1.0 images, what a couple users here seem to be taking as a given is that 2.0 and 3.0 images are improperly licensed.... this has been discussed many times, and we clearly don't have a consensus that that's the case... we're still figuring out if they are compatible with us and beyond that whether we can and should upgrade our whole site to 3.0 and beyond, so the real debate should be getting to the bottom of that, rather than jumping the gun and vfd'ing those before a consensus is reached.

As for automatically tagging images, we've discussed it in a few places, I've been pushing for a while to figure out how to either default to 1.0 on the pull down menu in Special:Upload so that if anyone desire other than 1.0 they have to take action, OR to leave it as "select a license" and give them a non-ignorable error message to select a license before it will let them upload. Either way, I'd like it if it wasn't even possible to not select a license or to select an incompatible license, just as a double reassurance.

Lastly, if I can defend Jani for a moment, I do slightly understand his agitation... we've been slowly discussing all of this calmly in several spots around the site, and the mass vfd'ing of images like this was more than a little sassy, especially given the vfd'ers awareness of those other conversations, Jani wasn't jumping into a conversation agitated, this conversation has been ongoing for a long time in some form or another. But, to come full circle, I'm glad 203.144.143.4 sparked the conversation that he was trying to spark, and I'm glad we're nearing a consensus – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:17, 6 February 2008 (EST)

A quote from Jani above: Wikivoyage Shared has different wording in the upload box plus a license selector that forces the user to explicitly choose a license, and there was a fairly lengthy argument there as well about what to do with untagged images. But, they continue to vfd untagged photos. Why is that and should both site not ne the same? And, for those getting angry, when I was much younger someone informed me that anger was a form of temporary insanity, after I pondered and reflected on that for many moons, I had to agree. (WT-en) 2old 09:32, 6 February 2008 (EST)

The logic — which I don't personally entirely agree with, mind you — is that on Shared the user can easily select a license from the pulldown, and if he doesn't, then he doesn't know/understand licensing in the first place and the picture is suspect. But on en:, there's no obvious way to tag images at all. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)

And I agree that en: should be upgraded to use Shared's system. However, this discussion is about what to do with the old images. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:52, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Jani's proposal to reform the :en system is sensible. Mass deleting images which clearly were uploaded in accordance with our copyleft, at a time when awareness of licensing documentation was lower among our contributors than it is today is not. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:39, 6 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, this discussion turned into a real barn-burner. With passions running pretty high it might be good for everyone to step back and look at the star articles, featured articles, (WT-en) maps, and other great things here and remember how much fun it can be to work together on travel articles instead of arguing about contentious issues like licensing.

That said, with regards to the current debate, my take on it is that existing images on en: with no license are fine - it's only been in the past year or two that we asked people to specify licenses, and before that all images were considered implied CC-SA due to the text on the Special:Upload page (see my first talk page comment for this same discussion in 2005...). It probably makes sense now that we have shared: to redirect upload links on en: to shared:, which would prevent this sort of confusion in the future. With regard CC-SA > 1.0, I think it's clear that the spirit of the license is that any version of CC-SA is fine, although the letter of the license doesn't state that; it's probably worthwhile trying to start a separate discussion about mass-updating the site to CC-SA 1.0+ - I'm sure we're not the first site to be faced with this issue, so it would probably be easy to dig up precedents from other sites on how it could be done. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:34, 6 February 2008 (EST)

On 02/04/2008 Jani said:So. I'm going to propose that we do the following:

• All old untagged images are tagged CC by-sa 1.0 and removed from VFD (unless there are other reasons to suspect they're copyvio etc).
• Special:Upload is modified to have the same license pulldown as Shared.
• After these changes are done, any new untagged images will be tagged with "don't know" and listed for VFD.

All in favor? Jpatokal 23:12, 4 February 2008

And the problem goes on. And, (WT-en) Wandering seems to have wandered off (darn it). I am in favor of Jani's suggestion and would like to see it implemented ASAP with one change. The suggestion to add a check box, saying they understand and accept the terms, should be included. You should always try to create a situation that is not arguable. In addition, the text regarding images being sent to shared, should be in red, bold, larger print, so even an old, blind, dummy, like me can not miss it. Then, they can not ARGUE that they did not see it, without being required to take an eye test before driving or contributing images to Wikivoyage. (WT-en) 2old 10:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)

I've altered the box on Special:Upload, can you read it now old man?  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 22:37, 15 February 2008 (EST)

For some reason, I intuitively knew that you would be involved in the resolution of this problem. What you have done is a good start. Now, how about the check box to confirm the contributors action on how the image is licensed. I will see that you get a 10% raise in your Wikisalary. (WT-en) 2old 10:35, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Whether a checkbox or forcing the selection of a license in the pulldown menu, I agree it would be nice to force one of the two, I'd vote for the latter as with a checkbox it's still possible then to not select a license. However that's not something (I don't think) that we can implement, I think it's something Kevin at IB would have to figure out... and we should probably move all of the pieces of this vfd discussion somewhere else soon... and maybe start a tech request for a non-ignorable error message if a license isn't selected. And furthermore, as I've suggested in the past, I think special:upload on all language versions should redirect straight to shared – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 13:02, 16 February 2008 (EST)

I've been staying out of this debate, but will chime in now to say I'd support Jani's suggestions. (WT-en) Pashley 08:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also stayed out of this for a number of reasons, but I fully support Jani's suggestion. I'll clean up the untagged images vfd later todaysometime this week, by tagging them cc-by-sa-1.0 and archiving the vfd. It seems totally legal since the it was explicitly stated on the upload page that all content will become cc-by-sa-1.0. --(WT-en) Nick 09:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Policy question: presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Policy question: Just how far should the presumed guilty until proven innocent guideline reach?

We currently have quite a number of images on vfd tagged with PD claimed, but presumably a copyvio. vfd submitter has however not made any attempt to find and list the source of the origional that is presumably being copyright violated.

After some rather extensive internet searches for the sources, I come up empty on most of those (where I have found copyvios, I have deleted and archived the vfd).

I would like to cancel the vfd on those where no source of a violation can be found with a reasonable amount of internet searching. It may also be a good idea to require link to source if a photo is listed as copyvio, else ALL our photos can be listed as vfd.

--(WT-en) Nick 15:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree... if it's a copyvio, then prove it... or as you say, our entire site is 90% suspected copvios – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:17, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If the same user has uploaded other images around the same time that are copyvio, then the presumption should be that the other images in that set are also copyvio. --(WT-en) Inas 17:44, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I agree with Inas. Most of the time I have vfd'd an image on a suspected copyvio, it is because the same user uploaded a batch of other images that were demonstrably violations. (WT-en) Texugo 23:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Unused images

Swept in from the pub:

Holy schmoly, I just discovered Special:Unusedimages, all kinds of madness, copyvios etc... even a McDonald's logo... VFD'ing these would be monstrously tedious. Would anyone object to at least a first round of hacking by admins to clear out obvious things that aren't within our scope or feature portraits of people that aren't linked to from user pages? The copyvios are obvious speedy-deletion candidates anyway – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea to just speedy the obvious ones first without going through vfd. Maybe we should also create a Wikivoyage namespace page that link those we want to keep around(svg, wikivoyage logo compitition submissions etc) , that will clean up Special:Unusedimages and make it a useful tool for us to find deletion candidates in the future --(WT-en) Nick 01:27, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Both ideas here sound like a good idea to me. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 01:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Me too. (WT-en) Pashley 03:37, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Me, too :) -(WT-en) OldPine 07:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I have create Project:Links to images that should not be deleted and started adding some of the old logos there. --(WT-en) Nick 06:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to hold of on doing futher deletions for a short while, there seems to be a technical issue. The images do delete, but the image pages does not and I receive a Warning: chmod() [function.chmod]: Not owner in /var/www/wikivoyage/mw-1.11.2/includes/filerepo/FSRepo.php on line 425 error when deleting. --(WT-en) Nick 06:48, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Weird. Hey thanks for jumping on this, I forgot all about my proposal  :) I just deleted an image and also saw the same error, strange... the image page does stick around, but only in the cache, if you purge it then the page is gone – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 09:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

speedy deletions

Can admins please delete the request also when they speedy-delete images, rather than leaving red links on the vfd page? Thanks! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 04:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Redirection

The following was a comment I made to (WT-en) Huttite's talk page. I decided to copy it here because it involves multiple votes, and some other users seem to be backing his side. Here goes:

Hi. I couldn't help but notice on the Votes for deletion page your tendency to vote for redirection even for less likely search terms. I just want to point out the slippery slope some of your votes imply. For example, if it became standard policy to allow redirection for things like Antique Shopping in San Diego, how could we then disallow the inevitable overzealous user who would sit and create hundreds of permutations of redirects to their favorite destination?:

• Antique Shopping in San Diego
• Antique shopping in San Diego
• Shopping for Antiques in San Diego
• Shopping for antiques in San Diego
• Antiquing in San Diego
• Where to buy antiques in San Diego
• Where to Buy Antiques in San Diego
• Where to buy Antiques in San Diego
• Bead Shopping in San Diego
• Bead shopping in San Diego
• Shopping for Beads in San Diego
• Shopping for beads in San Diego
• Where to buy beads in San Diego
• Where to Buy Beads in San Diego
• Where to buy Beads in San Diego
• Handicraft Shopping in San Diego
• Handicraft shopping in San Diego
• Shopping for Handicrafts in San Diego
• Shopping for handicrafts in San Diego
• Handicrafts in San Diego
• Where to buy handicraft in San Diego
• Where to Buy Handicrafts in San Diego
• Where to buy Handicrafts in San Diego
• ad infinitum...

If it were policy, your vote to redirect a hotel name would be opening an even bigger can of worms, allowing for tens or even hundreds more redirects per city article. This one is already explicitly against policy, and I, for one, do not want to go there, because I don't want to have to police the messy results. Please reconsider your stance on this. I'm copying this to Project:Votes for deletion, so that others can comment as well, so please reply there. Thanks!(WT-en) Texugo

The relevant section of the deletion policy is:

Redirecting non-articles, when possible, is usually preferred to deletion because a) anyone can make a redirect and b) redirects may help with search engine optimization. The rule of thumb is, if it is a real place, redirect rather than delete. Major attractions and geographical areas can and should be redirected, but articles about restaurants, bars, hotels, and other such commercial establishments should be deleted rather than redirected, in order to curb touting.

If someone is creating articles for the purpose of search engine optimization (touting) as in the "ad infinitum" example above then they should be deleted, as per policy. If an article was created by a user who just didn't know or understand the Project:What is an article guidelines then I think a redirect is useful to help guide them to the appropriate place for that information, and prevents others from making the same mistake. Defensive redirects don't hurt Wikivoyage and help us avoid dealing with invalid article subjects re-appearing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Call me a preservationist or a conservative, if you like. I fail to see the need to ever delete any wiki page that is not either (i) totally off topic and has no hope of redirection, (ii) spam, (iii) a copyright violation (iv) is offensive or (v) causes a technical issue or problem. The deleted pages are still kept in the database and can be recovered at any time, so deleting them doesn't save any database space. Making them redirects could improve the chance of anyone finding the San Diego page in response to the search term, as it gets more links to it. Redirect also reduce the chances of people finding the other articles. Also, a quick check of the English language will show that there are only so many permutations of words and spellings before things become quite stupid, by the time things reached that point I would conceed that it is probably spam intended for search engine optimisation, and deletion would then be justified. If things got to the stage you suggest then deletion would start to be an option, but just one or two links are not near that stage, yet. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:48, 2 February 2009 (EST)

PS: I see xxx Shopping as being an attraction, so redirection is justified by the policy. If it was a Shop name in San Diego, or any other place, then it is spam. - (WT-en) Huttite 04:55, 2 February 2009 (EST)

So, how do we tell a entry created to tout, against a hotel entry created in error? How do we tell the tout that we are going to delete their article, when there are other similar ones as a precedent? --(WT-en) Inas 07:27, 2 February 2009 (EST)

The way I read it, it doesn't matter if the original article was created for touting purposes; the policy Ryan quoted recommends deleting articles on individual establishments to avoid future touting. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I'm very much with Texugo here. In fact, I came to the talk page to raise the issue and was pleased to find it had already been raised. As I see it, things like "Papua new guinea holidays" or "Amazon_hotel_hanoi" could be speedy deleted. They are obvious touting; the sooner we're rid of them the better. A redirect in these cases serves no useful purpose.

Redirects are needed for:

• Famous attractions like Taj Mahal.
• Alternate or obsolete names, such as Bombay. See User talk:Pashley#Test_old_names for more examples.
• Mispellings likely to be repeated by searchers, for example Candy might be created as a redirect to Kandy.
• Places too small for an independent article. For example, perhaps Fuqing and Changle should be redirected to Fuzhou; half a million is small for China.

However, as a general policy we should not clutter the place with redirects from things that meet none of the above criteria. (WT-en) Pashley 22:40, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Un-archive

moved from User talk:(WT-en) Wrh2

Just checking before I revert — did you un-archive the EEArchive discussion based on private email discussion? I don't see any reasoning given by the user who undeleted it from the main Votes for deletion page, and I'm not inclined to let him or her overrule Colin. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 00:44, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I archived the page after (WT-en) Colin removed it from the VFD page as a speedy keep, and removed the archive (for the second time) after User:(WT-en) Wandering re-opened the discussion. The VFD guidelines indicate that 14 days of discussion should take place, so even though it seems that there is a consensus to keep the article in question, since a few users object strongly to that opinion it seems like it would probably be best to let that 14 days run its course and then close this issue once and for all; doing so follows the standard process and will hopefully remove all doubt about whether this issue is being handled fairly or not. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:09, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Strange Bug

This is really odd but whenever I try to edit anything on the Votes for Deletion page, it leads me to a random nomination (not the one I clicked). Is this happening to anyone else? I tried to edit so many times, and sometimes it took me to nominations that I don't even see listed right now... It's kind of trippy. I don't even remember what I even came to this page for in the first place... Anyone else having this problem? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:14, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Try refreshing the page. If you're getting an old version of the page, the section numbers will be off from what the server thinks they are, so you get the wrong section when you click an edit link. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:55, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Merges

Is this really the place to be proposing merges? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

If you propose a merge on the Talk page of a city, it is unlikely that someone will actually go there and comment. I think mergers end up here simply because it is a place that we all know others will check and make comments, so decisions can be made faster. They probably don't actually belong here, but it does prevent articles from hanging in limbo for months/years without anyone commenting... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:26, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

They definitely belong here if the merge requires a deletion of the target page (usually a redirect), since only an admin can perform that operation. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:33, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

If the target page needs to be deleted, then it's a move, not a merge. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:22, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Agreed in full with Peter. I can't see any practical benefit to maintaining a separate Project:Votes for merger page. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:39, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

I have taken to proposing merges here for exactly the reason stated by (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus above. (WT-en) Texugo 19:39, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

I have no problems with people proposing merges here, if they wish to solicit broad opinion on what is effectively a removal of the original article. However, I don't think there should a requirement to do so, discussion on the talk page and a merge notice should be sufficient in general. --(WT-en) inas 21:41, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

I guess my point is that this page is here because deletion is not an operation that non-admins can perform. Or at least, that was my impression. Merges, redirects, and most moves can be performed by anyone; do they need any more discussion than any other editorial decision? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:07, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

I would agree that not all merges necessarily need to be here, but the type for which the does-it-merit-its-own-article question is iffy essentially leads to the same type of discussion that we normally have on the vfd page. (WT-en) Texugo 22:53, 24 September 2009 (EDT)