Wikinews:Deletion requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
WN:DR redirects here. For dispute resolution, see WN:DISPUTE.

This page seeks to resolve the question whether a page or file should be deleted through consensus.

Articles that are from other news sources, abandoned, minimal, or press releases are generally dealt with by proposed deletion processes and need not be listed here individually.

Listings appear for a minimum of seven days but may be left longer to allow sufficient discussion. After the appropriate period, an administrator looks at the page or file and determines whether consensus for deletion has been reached. If it has, the page is deleted. The period of time starts at the submission of the deletion request on this page.

You may also list tag pages for speedy deletion page by adding {{delete|reason}} to the page to be nominated for speedy deletion.

  • Read and be familiar with the Criteria for deletion before listing a page here, or debating on a page here. Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature.
  • Articles must fall foul of the Criteria for deletion to be listed here. Invalid listings will be removed. Editors may not edit the Criteria for deletion in order to justify their listing.
  • Note: If you have registered an account at Wikinews for the sole purpose of attempting to sway a deletion request, any vote and comment within the voting section will be struck and disregarded.

This page is also the proper venue for discussing undeletion requests. If you object to speedy deletion of an article, or wish to overturn another deletion request, please list it here. An admin may undelete it at their discretion for the duration of the vote, so that users may view the item they are voting on.

How to list a page here[edit]

  1. Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or article page.
    • For suspected copyright violations, instead add {{Copyvio|url=insert_web_address_here}}. The page will be deleted after one day according to the proposed deletion policy.
    • For abandoned articles, instead add {{subst:aband}} to the top of the page, but please be aware that people often forget to request {{review}}. Articles are considered abandoned if after four days no edits were made. Such articles are deleted two days later.
  2. List the link below using the following template:
== Date of nomination ==
=== [[Article title]] ===
State reason for deletion request and sign (--~~~~).
==== Comments ====

==== Votes ====

Note for admins[edit]

To close a Deletion Request, enclose the DR with:

and then delete the article if the DR was successful or remove {{DR}} from the article if it was kept.
  • If the subject of a deletion was a category/image/template and the DR was successful, the closing admin should remove those from the pages on which they appear.
  • The talk page of the article can be updated by adding {{Multidel}} with a Diff to the closed DR discussion to the top of the talk page.


Deletion requests[edit]

January 8, 2018[edit]

Template:Cover[edit]

Honestly, it qualifies for a speedy deletion since it violates the licensing. It has been copied from Wikipedia, and the text is licensed under BY-SA and it is not compatible with that of Wikinews. (And for the part where SVTCobra, who clearly has CoI for being the creator, and falsely assuming they know about the licensing; see Template talk:Cover for the discussion, they say Wikipedia templates are used on other projects — they have compatible licenses.

From Creative Commons, “CC BY is one-way compatible with BY-SA. You may adapt a BY work and apply BY-SA to your contributions, but you may not adapt a BY-SA work and apply BY to your contributions.” Wikinews can not copy text from Wikipedia licensed under BY-SA.
223.237.221.162 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Source — w:Template:Non-free newspaper image.
223.237.221.162 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • ("Nobody understands copyright!" — meant to be spoken in the style of of Monty Python's "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!")

    Wikinewsies I've read and discussed this with over the years have agreed —not quite unanimously, the immediate circumstances demonstrate— that the licensing incompatibility between Wikipedia and Wikinews applies to templates, javascript, etc., not just to mainspace articles. In at least one case, I recall BRS cutting the Gordian knot re some such code-ish material by suggesting it was too trivial to copyright (I think xe prefaced that with an acknowledgement that xyr opinion differed from others').

    That said, I see no need for this template to differ at all from the admirably simple one it started out to generalize, {{TIME Person of the Year}}. If we simply move that template over this one, wiping out the version copied from Wikipedia and providing a suitable {{cover}} template at the same time, that ought to satisfy the generalized need without the controversy. --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I suggest people read Template_talk:Cover as well as the nomination and comments before voting. While I agree that Pi zero's sentiment and vote is an easy workaround, I do believe there is a principle at stake here. Even though, I may have gotten the portablity of licenses backwards in the talk page, I am a firm believer that non-mainspace content, meaning everything other than the text of articles, is not subject to those restrictions. All of that, whether it is java script, python code, a template, or a policy, is fully the property of the Wikimedia Foundation and thus, as a subset of that, free to copy, use, or augment as we see fit here on Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman (BRS as I guess you know him), is a person I respect, but I disagree with BRS on this point. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of templates copied from Wikipedia or another sister project currently on Wikinews. Just think of all the little ones, like {{User Commons}} or {{done}}. These are, just like {{Cover}} not in the mainspace, and that is why we can import and use them. If background things like code and scripts can't be used, how do global bots exist?
    To illustrate my point of the licenses just applying to non-text (actual mainspace content) I give you these links: Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Importing and exporting text from Wikimedia projects. Notice how the focus is on the text as in the actual information in articles, be they news or encyclopedic.
    And when the $%#@ has one Wiki project sued as sister project over copyright? Never! Because we are one legal entity! This template is a non-content template. It is not out there in things we publish. This is simply a silly DR and if it goes through, it will set a bad precedent that will make it harder for Wikinews to keep up with the world. We are already way behind our sister projects, why are we actively trying to set ourselves back even further? Well, that's my two cents. Thank you very much if you read it all. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: WMF does not hold the copyright on those pages; the users who wrote it do, and any use of it by the WMF is subject to permission of the authors, under the terms of the copyright (which I believe are entirely uniform between different namespaces on any given sister project). BRS — whose, er, family background re legal subjects is pretty daunting, really — is not by any means the only highly informed user I've interacted with on this subject, just one I thought of in regards to the cutting-the-Gordian-knot technique, which applies here as a tactic. Regarding the number of templates that may have been copied, two wrongs don't make a right and we've tried very hard to avoid adding to that list over the years. More practically, though, in this particular case I don't think Wikipedia's more detailed template is desirable; they have a very bureaucratic infrastructure, whereas we tend to minimize repeating stuff, and seems to me preferring the more minimalist style of {{TIME Person of the Year}} makes sense for Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Some things to note: many projects have compatible license with that of the one used by Wikipedia. {{Done}} would be too trivial to copy because the only text in that template is “done”. And just because someone hasn’t sued you doesn’t mean you can do it. Consider an old photographer. If he dies, you cannot just upload their unpublished work on Commons the next day of death. They would not be able to sue you, but you cannot. “Firm believer” — find where is it written that templates are excluded from the licensing. Now that reason is not good enough to do wrong things. Moreover, it is not that subset of Wikimedia can be freely used by Wikinews. For example, Wikimedia owns Wikipedia and pedia’s text is Wikimedia’s property but we cannot use it. Your belief should have stronger base and lesser ambiguity for others even except the proposal. Lagging behind other projects is not a good reason to break copyright issues, twelve years’ experience would have taught you that. A good way of being on the same level as other projects is to make home grown templates — but then, instead of encouraging that, we are struck here. (Reminds me, how I could think of fixing translated quote; it might have never been accepted if there was an alternative we knew of.
    223.237.232.104 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note: per w:WP:OWN, nobody owns a page (including articles, user space page, templates …), but according to w:WP:C, authors are to be attributed. It is: you wrote the thing, and you will be recognised as the author, but not the owner of the article.
•–• 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You are joking, right? When did you see anyone who used a Wikipedia article and attributed the thousands of people that contributed? It's not even feasible. The attribution will never go any further than Wikipedia. You will never get recognition as an author. --SVTCobra 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: It's been my understanding (though this seems to be drifting a little off the main question... maybe) that WP:OWN is not about legal ownership but about the principle that no author of a page has any special right to prevent others from editing the page.
@SVTCobra: Presumably that's why one of the things one agrees to, in contributing to a wiki page, is that attribution will be to the project. It's considered vital to preserve the list of contributors to a page in its edit history, though; at Wikibooks we delete material that's copy-and-pasted from Wikipedia for just this reason, that the material must not be separated from the list of authors in its revision history; it needs to be imported with its edit history. --Pi zero (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Naja, how about you stop acting as if you know everything (especially after realising 12 years of experience wasn’t enough to understand licensing) and actually read those project pages? In any case, the joke is on your beloved ‘pedia, if that is your reasoning (which evidently is no where near satisfactiory in general)
223.237.201.153 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
... says the person who uploaded a high resolution copyrighted image and thought it could be called "fair use", yet professes to know all about "licenses" ... --SVTCobra 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be the same person; IP, after all. @SVTCobra: best not to have dignified it with a response at all, imho. --Pi zero (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
says the same person who didn’t realise I never said I know all about license, and did not see that Wikinews’s FU says nothing about low resolution photos. Let’s see “it is meant to inform readers about 2016's magazine cover, for the article Time magazine refutes Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated 'Person of the Year'. The article discusses about this cover.” vs the biased, and full of assumption version (that too, stolen from Wikipedia) “To directly illustrate the nature of the 'Person of the Year' issue which is discussed the article. This greatly helps the reader understand and recognize the subject of the article.” “greatly” — how can you claim it is greatly or just slight better than having an article about some magazine that not everyone knows about.
223.237.201.153 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Side note: my remark earlier that "Nobody understands copyright!" was an example of what the Jargon File calls "ha ha, only serious". --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Not a side note: my solution allows this particular case to be resolved without predicating it on resolution of a template-copyright issue that has not been comfortably settled on Wikinews despite having been batted about for more than a decade. Of the three registered users who've been weighing in here, two have voted compatible with that solution, and the third referred to it in a comment as an "easy workaround". Prospects for that solution (which is, after all, reversible) are looking pretty good atm, imo. --Pi zero (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am here in response to a question asked at en.wiki. In regards to licensing, I will repeat what I said there: When you edit Wikinews, in the edit window for any text, templates, talk pages, and everything else, you agree to: 'Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"'. Templates on en.wiki are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and any use of them must also be licensed under 3.0. However at the bottom of the every page at Wikinews (this page included) it says "Contributions must be attributed to Wikinews; see Terms of use for details." And that Wikimedia terms of use says "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." So everything an editor enters on Wikinews is licensed both as 2.5 and 3.0. Using material from en.wiki poses no problem. However it must be attributed properly. See en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You are, unfortunately, incorrect. I edit Template:Cover and it says 2.5, not 3. --Pi zero (talk)
(Just to be clear: being incorrect is unfortunate, on general principles, and I feel regret on behalf of anyone it happens to. However, I don't mean to suggest anything unfortunate about all namespaces using the same license. Imo it would be a terrible idea to put different namespaces of a single project under different licenses, and I distantly recall a community discussion rejecting such an arrangement for just this reason: it would make it a copyright violation to move a page from a more restrictive namespace to a less restrictive one, which would be dreadfully accident-prone and confusing.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I have just found out I am very, VERY incorrect. The terms of use also state "The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license. For example, at the publication of this version of the Terms of Use, English Wikinews mandates that all text content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License (CC BY 2.5) and does not require a dual license with GFDL." There is an exception for Wikinews. Therefore you cannot copy anything from en.wiki, not templates, not talk pages, not article content, since the editor here stipulates you are releasing under 2.5 whenever you edit. Text copyright for Foundation Projects seems to mean any text anywhere in the project. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ambox and its derivatives, which can be found on almost all main space articles violate the licensing, I guess that should be nominated too.
223.237.205.57 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BRS on that: basically, it's too trivial for copyright to apply. --Pi zero (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: you are missing the point here: the source code is [also] licensed under CC BY-SA, and the code is not too trivial to be copyrighted.
223.237.207.225 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not missing the point. I'm talking about the code, and so (as I recall) was BRS. --Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
That is fairly complex to qualify for ToO (see commons:com:TOO. That isn't just a simple table after all, there is some sort of decision making (though simple), but conditional statements are there -- and there are various simple scripts available under MIT license (compatible with either CC BY or CC BY-SA), asserting a certain rights could be reserved.
223.237.201.9 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I recall (noting, it was some time ago by now) heavily researching the status of our box templates (ambox and such), at the time I set up xambox; in particular I recall combing through revision histories to determine exactly which revisions of Wikipedia templates were involved. So evidently the conclusions I came to were not based on merely casual consideration. I admit I wouldn't relish the prospect of launching a massive research project over it again. --Pi zero (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Before we go crazy and dismantle a whole template structure which could potentially destroy Wikinews, the fact is many, many templates are in fact adapted from Wikipedia, including {{outdent}} which I just used, as well as {{policy}}, we need to make some careful considerations about this. Over on Wikipedia, I asked @StarryGrandma: a follow-up question about code, scripts, global bots and was referred to MediaWiki, which is were the wiki software and the wiki markup language comes from; the code in other words. MediaWiki releases its software under GNU General Public License (GPL). GPL is so free that it is even allowed on Commons, which is a notorious stickler over copyright and licenses. In fact, GPL is one of their preferred licenses. Can it be argued that templates are largely code, written in wiki markup language, and thus fall under the auspices of GPL? I guess, what I am asking is: Are templates code or are they text?
P.S. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violations of material from parties which might sue us. The template I created, is an adaptation, not a direct copy and therefore not in any way a blatant violation and poses no legal liability as far as any danger that Wikipedia is sudden going to sue Wikinews in court. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage and modified: Templates are not content. Look at WP:Copyrights, and note that it discusses "article texts and illustrations", not templates or help pages or WikiProjects or Wikipedia (project space) pages. The only other arguable content would be Drafts because they are clearly intended as future articles. The only content in that sense then is the text and images used in articles; such things are affected clearly by copyright and are subject to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Look at Help:Template#Creating_and_editing_templates and note that it says:
Cquote1.svg Templates often make use of programming features—parameters, parser functions and other magic words—which allow the transcluded content to vary depending on context. There are also special tags to control which information is transcluded and which is not. Cquote2.svg
That is clearly referring to code i.e. using the software to create an effect. Can I copyright the boldness of the words "the subject" or is it just the actual words that are affected rather than the six ''' ''' or indeed the nowiki tags I have just utilised? Yes, there are copyright fonts but that’s a different issue. A template could theoretically be subject to one or more patents but it is impossible unless the underlying software was patented, which we all know is not the case. Jimmy Wales, or Brion Vibber or whoever, lost that opportunity in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it was, when they publicised the software without at least a patent-pending (I can’t remember clearly but they moved to a new setup). So in summary, it is not a copyright violation to re-use the code for the template. One could argue about the wording that is displayed but I think that is easily solved by changing it, although I don’t think there is a good reason to do so. SVTCobra is correct about sister projects but it goes deeper than that. Every Wikipedia user is first and foremost a Wikimedia user (demonstrated by the fact that once I login to WN, I can switch to WP right away without having to login again, annoying glitches aside). So every user who has edited the original template on Wikipedia is also a Wikinewsie (whether they wish it or not). It is patently absurd to pretend, for example, that User:Green Giant on Wikipedia is somehow legally a different person to User:Green Giant on Wikinews. Green Giant (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I offer three moderately-quick thoughts on this (keeping in mind that the first of these would probably be a viable topic for a doctoral dissertation).
  • The above leans heavily on secondary texts and the concept of "content". That's an extraordinary can of worms. There are at least three aspects to this, all thoroughly entangled. There's the purely legal aspect, where there's the matter of what is copyrightable which gets into things like human creative output versus mathematical formulae which are considered to be discovered rather than created (and algorithms float between), and human forces and common sense pitting themselves against inhuman corporate and other economic interests which are responsible for the (deeply problematic) phenomenon of software patents. There's the ethical/moral aspect, which is both where the notion of plagiary comes in and where various purely legal and economically-driven factors start to break down. And there's the wiki aspect, which is in most direct contact with the human element, where users put human creativity into wiki pages, regardless of namespace.
  • It is unworkable to treat content in template space differently from content in "content spaces". (Here we have only one "content" space — I think that term occurs somewhere in the wiki software, not that it has or should have any legal significance — while e.g. on English Wikibooks there are three content namespaces [mainspace, Wikijunior, and Cookbook].) Templates exist primarily to generate text that appears in content spaces.
  • I would emphatically prefer the simple content now located at {{TIME Person of the Year}} to the complicated thing borrowed from Wikipeda, regardless of whether we're allowed to copy the template. The Wikipedian thing follows a picky bureaucratic style that we don't want to import here; simple, easily understood, and not attempting to repeat details that properly belong elsewhere is a much better style and in keeping with news writing principles.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

January 3, 2018[edit]


December 30, 2017[edit]


Proposed deletions[edit]

 Purge server cache  For reference, it is currently January 18, 2018.

Copyvio[edit]

Delete articles in this category posted before January 17.

Abandoned[edit]

Delete articles in this category posted before January 16.

Minimal and PR[edit]

Delete articles in these categories posted before January 15.


Unsourced prepared[edit]

Delete articles in this category posted before January 8


Undeletion requests[edit]