Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1-A

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

I1 (images on WikiCommons)

Speedy deletion criterion I1 should be reworded to "Any image that is a duplicate of another image on Wikipedia or on WikiCommons (if allowed on WikiCommons by their license), in the same file format and the same or better in image size and quality"

• Presently, the criterion reads, "An image which is a redundant (all pixels the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained. This does not include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. For the time being, this also does not apply to images that exist on the Wikimedia Commons."
• Specifically, WikiCommons does not allow 'fair use' material, while WikiPedia does, and the WikiPedia license allows for 'disclaimers' while the WikiCommons license does not.
• Links to the image should be changed (if necessary) before the image is deleted.
• Obviously, this does not apply to a different image with the same subject, e.g. a picture of the Big Ben from a different camera angle. If you feel an image is redundant, please take it to WP:IFD.
• If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/I1-B, which is a reworded version to address Dragon's Flight's concern.

Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

Support

1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 17:05 (UTC). To let you know, some images on the Commons have the same file name as on here, so sometimes, links do not have to be changed.
3. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
4. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
5. Sounds good — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
6. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I object primarily because the wording of this item was changed by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. Also, images moved to Commons may be GFDL violations because they were copied without revision histories, or they may be later found to be ineligible for inclusion on Commons meaning we lose everything. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
2. Strong Objection. This includes no exception to consider images where the image description page may be substanitally different here than on Commons. For diagrams and scientific plots, the image description page is often used to describe the source, how it was prepared and sometimes what it shows. At present Commons is very awkward at this because it may use a large number of languages explaining what the labels on a diagram mean, whereas a local copy on en only needs one. At the very least this proposal should require that the image description information at Commons also include any information present here. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 21:09 (UTC)
3. We need IFD to determine whether the image is suitable for the commons or if it's going to be deleted from there. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
4. Per Dragons flight. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
5. Rephrase and rerun the vote. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
6. I am very close to supporting, but per Dragons flight I believe something should be added to the wording to exclude substantially different image description pages. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
7. Per Dragons flight. I understand some of the other language Wikipedias delete the image and then undelete the image description page; I'd have no objection to that. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
8. Per Dragons Flight. Xoloz 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose, as per Dragons Flight. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
10. WP:IFD seems to work just fine as it is. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
11. Solution in search of a problem - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
12. Problem as described by Netoholic--Mononoke 5 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
    • Mononoke's 250th contribution was at (or after) 03:29, 10 July 2005, so (s)he may not have suffrage. See caveats. —Cryptic (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. There doesn't seem to be a strong need for this, and Dragons flight has pointed out a significant problem with it. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
14. Oppose, supporting I1-B. — Asbestos | Talk 6 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose. The original image version history may be needed for author accreditation, and to show who is responsible for what work. zoney ♣ talk 6 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
16. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)
17. Oppose, likely to cause accidental GFDL violations galore. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Dragonsflight. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
19. Oppose because of possible licensing problems whereas this change would not solve any urgent problem. Sietse 6 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
20. Nail on the head by Dragons flight. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
21. Oppose; anything that requires fixing links shouldn't be CSD. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
22. Oppose. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:33 (UTC)
23. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:52 (UTC)
24. Dsmdgold 15:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Among other issues, these allow the annihilation of fair use images. Someone could transfer them all to commons, delete under this criterion, and then wait for commons to delete them as a violation of their policy. Superm401 | Talk 13:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)That was incorrect reasoning. I will oppose because I prefer the latter proposal. Superm401 | Talk 13:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)