Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk 15:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries


I am not actually proposing deletion here, because this needs to be kept for historical archiving, but I do think this page needs to be shut down to be made a redirect to the equivalent page on Wikimedia Commons. There is no reason to keep a local copy of this text live on English Wikipedia.

Right now, this text is useful for people who want to upload CC-licensed media files to English Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons, but that is not a practice which is encouraged. There might have been a time years ago when that made sense, but these days, when someone is uploading files that are compatible with Wikimedia Commons, the entire Wikimedia community in all projects encourages them to upload files in Wikimedia Commons by default. There still are reasons why people might want local copies of files on English Wikipedia, but this is a general public-facing set of guidelines and what people should see by default are the upload instructions on Commons. The equivalent page on Commons is Commons:Commons:Email templates. That also needs to be cleaned, because for example it is called "email templates" when in fact the only option it is giving is email release of copyright through OTRS. Am I missing anything here? Is there any reason to keep people here? I think this mirror is nothing but confusion. Anyone who can should use the processes on Commons which are better maintained.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This page had 5,000 visitors in the past 90 days. Those people would be better served at Commons.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This page has about 1000 incoming links from other places on English Wikipedia. That is a lot. This is well-known, well-used policy.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep / oppose mark as historical Commons is for non-text media. This is the standard permissions template for all media, text first and foremost, and any media files where KEEPLOCAL is the preferred choice. The reason there are so many local links is because this page is routinely linked to in discussions with users pasting text published elsewhere and stating that they own the rights, as the concrete preferred method for granting permission when / if changing a website permission is not feasible. Pointing to commons as the logical repository for this is exactly the wrong choice. MLauba (Talk) 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't mark as historical This page is mainly meant for new users who upload files or contribute text. Experienced users only need to know the e-mail address for sending information to OTRS. New users who upload files use all various kinds of upload forms, upload wizards and visual editors, sometimes without knowing what they are doing or that Wikipedia and Commons are different projects. Files by such users are sometimes uploaded to Wikipedia and sometimes to Commons, and not always with correct legal information. You could have an opinion about the desired location for new file uploads, but you will also have to consider where users upload their files.
 * When I tag a file for missing evidence of permission, the uploader will sometimes come to my talk page (on Wikipedia or Commons) and ask what to do. I suspect that it is less confusing for the user if I direct the user to a page on the same project with the same logo and project name, so I tend to direct users who contact me on Wikipedia to WP:CONSENT, while users who contact me on Commons are directed to c:Special:MyLanguage/Commons:OTRS or c:Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Email templates.
 * Apart from that, WP:CONSENT is also useful for licensing text. c:COM:ET recommends licensing images under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but Wikipedia text needs to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 instead. I guess it would be quite problematic for OTRS volunteers if users start licensing text under CC-BY-SA 4.0 as OTRS volunteers then need to ask for a version number change, requiring extra mailing. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I want to try to repeat back to you what you are saying. Tell me if I misunderstand or miss something. This page is needed because...
 * English Wikipedia text requires a CC-By-SA 3.0 release, whereas Commons requests a CC-By-SA-4.0 release. It is not appropriate to put CC-By-SA-4.0 text into English Wikipedia, and 4.0 releases have to be dual-licensed with 3.0 to be in English Wikipedia.
 * We should continue to allow users to present upload of files to English Wikipedia as a default option
 * For discussions on English Wikipedia, it is best to give an internal link to a policy on English Wikipedia rather than send users to Commons.
 * I had never thought about problems with interchangeability between CC licenses. Are we anticipating a future in which as CC licenses are developed, English Wikipedia always has CC-By-SA-3.0 with no updates? Is it the case that it never will be possible to update the license of Wikipedia's text?
 * I do not mind people wanting English Wikipedia local file uploads, but for new users who do not care, I would not want them using that option by default and wish that if they have no preference they would use Commons.
 * I am also not sure how I feel about the variation in text between Commons and English Wikipedia. Over time changes get made to one and not the other, and the process of making a release should - I think - be inter-compatible. There is a new automated form at Commons, and because of that and for other reasons, I was thinking of rearranging the Commons page. I suppose that does not necessarily affect English Wikipedia, but I wondered how this page was used and if it was necessary. It seems that for text it is because of licensing. Is this page necessary for file uploads? Is there a circumstance when casual users should request a local copy of a freely licensed file, or should Commons compatible files from new users by default go to Commons? When is it right to use this text for local uploads?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's text is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. If you make modifications to Wikipedia's text, then CC-BY-SA 3.0 permits you to license the modifications under CC-BY-SA 4.0. If you distribute the modified text, then you need to comply with at least CC-BY-SA 4.0. It is debatable if you also need to comply with CC-BY-SA 3.0. I think that CC-BY-SA 4.0 fixed this ambiguity, but only if all content is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 or a higher version number (not yet available). In my opinion, you make things too complex for reusers if they need to comply with two licences (CC-BY-SA 3.0 & CC-BY-SA 4.0).
 * If you want to change where users upload files by default, then you could try making a request at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard. However, you should note that Wikipedia gets a couple of non-free posters, logos and covers which are uploaded as 'own work by the uploader'. If they are uploaded to Wikipedia instead of Commons, it is at least possible to retag them as 'fair use'. When new users upload them to Commons instead, they are just deleted as instead.
 * If useful changes are made to the pages on Commons, then it is useful to implement them on Wikipedia too. I realise that users might not always do this, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, deletion is not an option. The proposal to convert to a soft redirect to Commons should be made on the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, the same process is also used for donating text and it is not appropriate to point people towards Commons when dealing with text. Nthep (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.