From Wikitravel Shared

We need a vfd process. Image:Krakau01.jpg was copied from Wikipedia commons where it is erroneously tagged with a PD license. We've also had problems with the user who uploaded to WP Commons.

So now what? -- Cjensen 21:44, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

I tried to use a vfd template, but that didn't work either. Sapphire 22:01, 17 May 2006 (EDT)

Any templates use in /en (or any other language) will have to be created/copied in /shared to be used here. (I've copied the English Template:vfd, though it still needs an infrastructure to go behind it.)

As for process, I think images that are straightforward copyvios should be damn-near-speedy deleted (both here and over in the language sites). Unlike your typical article deletion where Opinions May Vary, an image that matches an image on a web site without a compatible license declaration is an open-and-shut case. It might be a good idea to require that the person tagging the image for deletion not be the one to carry that out, as a second-set-of-eyes precaution, but we don't need a bunch of people saying "Yup, that's a copyvio" over the course of several days before we can be sure we want to delete it. (And in a worst-case scenario where an image was wrongfully speedy-deleted because the submitter had actually dual-licensed it or whatever, it's easy to get the file back.) Handling copyvios quickly would also help point out to repeat copyright violators that what they're doing is unproductive, because they'd be more likely to notice the image disappearing if it happens promptly. To say nothing of better-securing Wikitravel's legal status. - TVerBeek 11:24, 21 May 2006 (EDT)

I'd appreciate very much getting a discussion going on this. We may need a somewhat different policy about VFDs. I'm going to move this discussion to Wikitravel_Shared:Deletion policy. Thank. - Sapphire 02:28, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Undeletion

Correct me if I am wrong - but does really the MediaWiki software allow undeleting of images? Text, yes - but images, no. If so, we need to adjust the section regarding undeletion. Riggwelter 12:19, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Orphaned images

Orphaned or unused images are subject to deletion as per our policy. Wikitravel Shared, however, does not show links from other languages to its images. AFAIK, that means we cannot possibly find out whether the image has been placed on any Wikitravel articles or not, unless we do a text search on every language version, which would be riduculous. Is there any easier way to do that or should we consider dropping that rule at least for Shared images? --Ricardo (Rmx) 12:36, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

Bump. I just posed a similar concern on Talk:Votes for deletion. We need to find a way to deal with this. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:38, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I suggest we just drop this part of the policy. There's zero harm in having extra images sitting around if they're otherwise usable. Jpatokal 01:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to make it more specific rather than just a drop. That is to say, ignore orphaned or unused images until the new feature provided which makes it possible for us to find out them easily through the all laungage versions. As for confirmation of usage before deletion in VFD process on shared:, admins should confirm only on shared: until the new feature provided. -- Tatata 00:01, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] New discussion

I'd like to reopen discussion on this bullet point. I agree with what Jani wrote -- I see no reason to remove potentially useful images that aren't currently being used. Having a collection of useful images around is great for when someone starts work on an article and goes to see if there's any images that can be used. LtPowers 07:50, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. Even in addition to the fact that we don't at present have the capability to check, if it's a valid image per our image policy, then there's no benefit to deleting it. There are two benefits to keeping it that I can think of. The one identified by LtPowers, and also that the more size and depth Shared has, the more seriously it will be taken as an image repository, and hence the more contributions and maintenance it will attract. --Peter ^Talk 23:12, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

[edit] "Images that do not help the Wikitravel project"

This differs from the language that is used on the English-language deletion policy page, and it is not obvious to me that it is appropriate here. I'd agree that guilty-until-proven-innocent is the only way we can address copyvios, lack of license agreement, and model release problems, but is it clear that all of the different language projects have the same expectations from the standpoint of utility? I have seen (indeed, have deleted) images that were proposed for deletion simply because they were alleged not to be "useful" -- didn't illustrate anything significant about a destination, couldn't be sensibly incorporated into an article, or were just plain so ugly that you didn't want to use them. However, to assert that because an image isn't helpful on the English-language wiki, it isn't helpful on any of the wikis, strikes me as a stretch. Could someone more familiar with the various language versions than I address this? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with the basic idea behind the policy, but I also agree with you that the wording is too loose for comfort. I don't think there are huge differences between language versions though: about the only thing I can think of is that on Japanese WT, it's standard practice to add in pictures of individual restaurants and hotels, which isn't generally done on English WT. But I've never seen anybody try to VFD those pics. Jpatokal 01:26, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, this is true on ja:, because good seller travel guidebooks published in Japan insert many images even if they are bed of hotel room or entrance of eating house. I think, people including me who have experience of using such guidebooks regard those images as helping us. -- Tatata 00:01, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Speedy deletion of spam/touting

This already kinda-sorta falls under "blatant copyvio", but I'd like to add an explicit note that blatant spam is also speedily deletable; for example, some random guesthouse in India just uploaded some pictures of a tiger, with 50% of the image covered by the guesthouse's name, address, phone, fax, website, carrier pigeon coordinates, etc. Proposed wording: Jpatokal 05:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)

• Images that are blatant touting, with (for example) the business name and contact information superimposed on the image, such that the image is not usable for anything other than advertising the business. (Note that a clean, usable image of a business such as a restaurant or a hotel is not touting.)