"Wikitravel has a speed and convenience the books' publishers can only envy." Time Europe

Difference between revisions of "Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 170: Line 170:
 
: I asked the Immaginario Scientifico to send me an image of museum that we can use free for Wikitravel. Do you need a writing confirm or something other? p.s. sorry for my english [[User:Airin|Airin]] 12:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 
: I asked the Immaginario Scientifico to send me an image of museum that we can use free for Wikitravel. Do you need a writing confirm or something other? p.s. sorry for my english [[User:Airin|Airin]] 12:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
 
:: Sorry for bothering you. I think it is better to add something to the image page on the evidence of IS's permission.<small>p.s. never mind, your English is perfect for me and I'm a nonnative too.</small>-- [[User:Tatata|Tatata]] 04:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 
:: Sorry for bothering you. I think it is better to add something to the image page on the evidence of IS's permission.<small>p.s. never mind, your English is perfect for me and I'm a nonnative too.</small>-- [[User:Tatata|Tatata]] 04:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
::: I added the note that you requested. Please check if it's ok. --[[User:Airin|Airin]] 06:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
  
 
===[[:Image:Galle Ramparts.JPG]]===
 
===[[:Image:Galle Ramparts.JPG]]===

Revision as of 10:56, 8 September 2007

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.

Contents

Nominating

The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

===[[Chicken]]===
* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. If the article or image meets the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.
  3. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  4. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.


Commenting

All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]===
* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page and copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the appropriate archive.




August 2007

Image:Air shows.jpg

Copyright violations. This image is released under CC-BY-ND.[1]

  • Delete. I will ask the contributor to contact with the original creator to keep this image. -- Tatata 05:13, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Herb legnicy.svg

Image:Cheese stand Basel.JPG

  • Delete. Uploaded without license info and seems to be a privacy rights violation. -- Tatata 03:34, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete + notify uploader. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)


Image:Sabugal.jpg

Copyright violations. This image is released under GFDL only.[2]

  • Delete. Is it speedy?-- Tatata 08:32, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete, provided the uploader is notified, so that they don't wonder what happened and upload it again ;) --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Nanow jesús madrid's upload

  • Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The contributor, admin of es:, wrote copy rights appears on the image. and replaced {{dont know}} on 2 image pages with {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}, but it is found at the bottom of images that Todos los derechos reservados..
  • Delete all. -- Tatata 04:08, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I just wanted it to appear on Wikitravel during a couple of weeks till people realise that Wikitravel had appeared on the news. Althoug (I guess) it's possibly a violation of the copyrights, I wrote on the bottom of the image the name of the newspaper and the date of publication, which I though might be enough in order to not commit a copyrights violation. Anyway, do whatever you want. Nanow jesús madrid 13:22, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I just want to know whether it is innocent or not. Do you have any evidence that contents of the site are licensed under CC-BY-SA-1.0? -- Tatata 22:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I agree with the deletion. Just, say the day of the deletion a couple of days before. Nanow jesús madrid 08:18, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Arundel Castle.JPG

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . The lisence of this image is currently not clear; GFDL&CCBY2.5 on Wikimedia Commons[3], All rights reserved on Flickr[4].

  • Delete. I will ask the contributor to contact with the original creator to keep this image. -- Tatata 21:20, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Unless we hear back from the contributor by August 26. -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Sterner's upload

Bonjour Quebec's upload

Broken files in Uncategorizedimages

Image:180px-TeatroAngelaPeralta brightened.jpg

At a uploader's request [6]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete on uploader requests, provided the uploader gives a valid reason, which they have in this case. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Disney rain.jpg

Copyright violations. A link to wikiHow is written as a souce, but the site licenses all content under a CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 license. [7]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 10:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- Fastestdogever 17:38, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:West Quoddy Head Lighthouse brightened.jpg

This file was found in Special:Uncategorizedimages, is duplication of Image:West Quoddy Head Lighthouse.jpg and is not used on the contributor's language version[8].

  • Delete. -- Tatata 06:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Not quite sure what I was doing with this photo, but yes, please delete it. It was one that appeared very dark on my monitor and I brightened it. Sorry about that. 2old 13:32, 24 August 2007 (EDT) Note:I bought a new monitor and I cured most problems. Now, if I get new glasses..........

Image:DSCF0033.JPG

This file was found in Special:Uncategorizedimages and is impossible to be used in articles without an appropriate rotation.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 06:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Also a privacy vio. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Gobbler's upload

Image:Rangpur.PNG

Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted and I couldn't find that the map is released into public domain.[11]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:07, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. Appears to by copyrighted.[12] --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

AboutGaoyou.com's upload

Image:Buncombe.gif

Copyright violations. The site is copyrighted and all rights reserved.[14]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:40, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Allow plenty of time for uploader to respond. These uploads seem legitimate (and the photos are quite nice), but some evidence is needed, given that they are presented as under copyright elsewhere. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Trieste science centre.jpg

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations. Immaginario Scientifico[15] is written as a souce, but the site copyrighted and all rights reserved.[16]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:49, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I asked the Immaginario Scientifico to send me an image of museum that we can use free for Wikitravel. Do you need a writing confirm or something other? p.s. sorry for my english Airin 12:21, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for bothering you. I think it is better to add something to the image page on the evidence of IS's permission.p.s. never mind, your English is perfect for me and I'm a nonnative too.-- Tatata 04:41, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
I added the note that you requested. Please check if it's ok. --Airin 06:52, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Galle Ramparts.JPG

At a uploader's request [17]

  • Delete. -- Tatata 02:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Speedy delete, as uploader has given valid reason. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:Peredeniya.jpg

Duplication of Image:Peradeniya.jpg. It is not used in uploader's language version because of wrong file name.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 03:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Image:DaytonaBeach-Pier.jpg

No creator = never a correct licence 85.1.93.225 02:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Leave note first. Possibly just an uploading mistake. Then delete if the issue is not fixed within the voting term. --Peter Talk 04:52, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

September 2007

Image:Picture 011.jpg

Duplication of Image:A street in Brajčino.jpg. It is not used in en: ( maybe uploader's language version) because of wrong file name.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 23:57, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete, and perhaps we could speedy delete duplicates that are not used on the uploader's language version? --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Kleftiko_in_milos.jpg

Doubts about license; potential copyright violations . Image comes from http://www.travel-to-milos.com/gallery.php, which states: "You may not use these Milos images for any commercial purpose without the permission of www.Travel-to-Milos.com." (Too bad, nice picture) Promeneur 04:26, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. Copyvio. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- Gobbler 18:27, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Fishignet.jpg

per Wikitravel Shared:Image policy#People in photos ~ 203.147.0.48 05:03, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete -- Gobbler 18:25, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:Complex_Map.JPG

I'm guessing that the same applies to this as with en:Wikitravel:Votes for deletion#Image:Golden-Triangle-Map.jpg - i.e. that if whoever made the actual map (i.e. whoever created the "original work" that this is a photograph of) has not licensed it, then it's a copyvio? ~ 203.147.0.48 10:42, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

The picture depicts only a small portion of the entire sign -- in particular, the code key that links the numbers to building names is omitted, making it useless as a map by itself -- so I'd argue that it's not a strict reproduction, but a "form of material expression" akin to taking a picture of a statue. Jpatokal 10:20, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
A photo of a statue isn't a direct copy, it's a derivative work created with a camera. Complex_Map.JPG is a direct copy - it's been reproduced with a camera. A person who reproduces someone else's work is not the author of that work. The fact that the copy is cropped doesn't make it an original work, and doesn't change the facts that it's a direct copy, and that the person who made the copy isn't the author. The only way this can be kept is if the "Original Author" (the individual or entity who created the work) licences it. Even if you were to argue that the photo is somehow a derivatave work (for example, if the original was three-dimensional) you'd still need the permission of the (original) copyright holder. ~ 203.147.0.48 13:59, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not a reproduction, it's a derivative work because it's a different medium. The barrier for this is very low: for example, photos of paintings in museum catalogs, which are designed to reproduce paintings as faithfully as possible, have been held by courts to be derivative works and thus separately copyrighted by the photographer.
The second question, then, is whether the painter retains the right to restrict creation of derivative works. In most countries, including the US, works permanently displayed in public are free for all, and according to my non-lawyerly reading of Article 32 of the South Korean Copyright Law this applies to South Korea as well:
(1) The owner of the original of a work of art, etc. or a person who has obtained the owner's authorization, may exhibit the works in its original form. If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso of Paragraph (1) may be reproduced by any means,, except those falling under any of the following cases:
1. Where a building is reproduced in another building;
2. Where a sculpture or a painting is reproduced in another sculpture or a painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.
The painting creator has obviously consented to displaying it outside (1), and my reproduction of it (2) is not, IMHO, banned by any of the exceptions. Jpatokal 02:06, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Individual pictures (including photographs) of two-dimensional works of art (including paintings) are reproductions [18]. "Reproduction" shall mean the reproduction of works in tangible media of expression by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording or other means [19]. Derivative work: A creation produced by means of translation, arrangement, alteration, dramatization, cinematization, etc. of an original work [20]

I still disagree with you -- it's not a reproduction if it's not effectively identical -- but this doesn't actually matter, because section 32 specifically allows "reproduction by any means", derivative or otherwise. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
www.copyright.gov says: To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
You're still barking up the wrong tree. The issue is not whether I have a copyright to the picture, it's whether the original work may be legally reproduced.
But for the record, even in the US (which is the wrong country here), the issue is hotly contested: here's one opinion that found in your favor for "substantially exact reproductions", but cites half a dozen other cases that state, among other things, "change of medium is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work" ... "there must . . . be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work." Does taking the picture at an angle and cropping the result suffice? Or how about I slap a Wikitravel logo on top, in which case it's unquestionably materially altered? Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
Change of medium (photographs of two-dimensional works being a notable exception) is likely to amount to a material alteration from the original work. Photographs of two-dimensional works are likely to amount to copies (i.e. reproductions, not derivative works). ~ 203.147.0.48 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

On the second question, (2)-3. applies: "Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place, as prescribed under Paragraph (1);" / "...permanently exhibited in [any] place open to the public" (any publicly accessible Internet website). ~ 203.147.0.48 07:19, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

That "any" is your own gloss, and it's inappropriate: the original text says "an open place". I don't think Wikitravel qualifies, as this is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use. Also, for that exception to apply, you'd have to claim that I took the picture "in order to" exhibit it publicly, that is, on commission from somebody, which obviously wasn't the case. Jpatokal 09:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
The full original text is "If the work of art is to be permanently exhibited in a street or park, outside the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the consent of the copyright owner shall be obtained." - in other words, ...place A or B, or C, or other place open to the public... which is clearly "any" place open to the public - because it covers all places open to the public, and no place that's open to the public is excluded.
The fact that Wikitravel is a privately owned and run site with its own terms of use is irrelevant . All that matters is that it's publicly accessible.
It doesn't say "to order", it says "in order". Nor does it say "with the intention". ~ 203.147.0.48 03:45, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
First, the full original text (1) you're quoting above is regarding the original work of art, not the reproduction. That is, the temple needed the painter's permission to put the original painting on public display, which was obviously granted, and we're now discussing section (2) which states that reproductions are allowed with no prior permission from the copyright holder in certain situations.
Section (2)-3. refers back to section (1), and would appear not to be a list of things the copyright holder isn't allowed to do.
Second, these sentences are quite different:
Where the reproduction is exhibited permanently at an open place (what you claim it says)
Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place... (what the law says)
So you tell me, what does that mean then?
I didn't make any such claim.
I'm sure it doesn't mean that you can say "I'm never going to upload this picture to any publicly accessible websites", press the shutter button, then five seconds later say "I've changed my mind", consider yourself the sole author, stick any copyright notice you want on it, and legitimately upload it to publicly accessible websites on that basis.
Instead of all this pseudolawyering — we're arguing about a translation here anyway, not the original binding Korean — maybe it would be easiest to just fire off a mail to Cheontae and get their permission though =P Jpatokal 04:25, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
The translation issue had crossed my mind too. ~ 203.147.0.48 09:12, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. The Korean law that Jpatokal cited seems to say that it's ok – cacahuate talk 04:01, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:KabulAfghanistan.jpg

This image from USAID is extremely bad in terms of quality and size. It also cannot be verified. There are many many nice photos available of the same area (view of Kabul), I think we should delete this one because it is not used in any article.

Speedy delete--Creative 18:27, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Delete. It isn't really necessary for the article. However I don't see it as a copyright violation... User:Jake73 is/was a great contributor, and was well aware of our image policy... I think in the midst of uploading so many images around that time he simply forgot to select a license for this one... he was bulk uploading PD images, and this one should also I think have been PD-US gov. – cacahuate talk 04:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep. I don't think we need to delete images just because they are not presently being used in our guides. First, shared is in my view something of a CC-by-SA compatible travel image directory, which has value independent of our guides. Second, who knows, maybe someone will find a use for this image on Wikitravel one day. In any rate, I don't think the lack of a compelling reason to keep an image should be cause to delete it; we should spend our efforts on more productive activities. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Template:Boulder

This is a useless template.

  • Delete. -- Tatata 22:11, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Delete. --Peter Talk 12:40, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Image:SGSSI-flag.png

This 2007 version file is a duplication of Image:Sx-flag.png (2002).

  • Delete. I replaced 2002 version with 2007 version by using "Upload a new version of this file" link. -- Tatata 02:31, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

In other languages