Since I was unable to get help understanding exactly what this page wants I'm blundering on.
Mr. Sphilbrick has been given all the things asked for and is not putting items he deleted back. State of Texas says there is no Copyright on Historical marker pictures or the text on them. There are many Texas Historical markers on Wikipedia and almost two thousand on Commons. And for the entire US there are almost 25000. This involves both a picture and text from that picture. foobar (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those trying to sort this out might wish to look at this discussion, where our resident copyright expert opined that the informal advice from someone at THC was not sufficient. There are other errors in the assertion, but not worth responding to, unless they become relevant.S Philbrick(Talk)00:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't have the original communication on "there is no Copyright...", I read the text of the discussion linked. Really to note someone saying they are not aware of a copyright concern is not the same as someone saying there is no copyright, not by a long way. No opinion otherwise. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List at FfD. DRV isn't the best place to have a discussion about the copyright status of an image or if it should be speedied (which I think is what happened, no one has linked to the image or where the image was and as a non-admin I can't figure it out). This isn't an open and shut case, so to FfD it should go. Hobit (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this appears to be a link to a commons image? If so, the use of admin tools to not only remove the link but the *history* of the link seems overkill. I mean a link to a commons image shouldn't be delreved or whatever was done I don't think. Not my area of expertise, but I'd like an explanation as to what was removed exactly and why the tools were used here. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three things. 1) Finding multiple appeal routes and being a novice I asked where this appeal should be put and was told to put it here (see my talk page). 2) The picture is located here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alta_Loma_Historical_Marker.jpg . 3) Am I supposed to be notified when someone posts to this appeal page? I have received no notices. I just happened to come here and saw three new posts.foobar (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DRV was quite reasonable. It's just that one of the outcomes of DRV is to send folks off to a different place. Think of DRV as an appeals court. Sometimes the court remands cases to another court. Also, it appears as if this is a commons image. So it may well be that FfD is the wrong place too (I can't see the deleted contribution). Hobit (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm assuming we're supposed to be reviewing the revdel of this edit, which was done because it contained text from a historical marker. DRV doesn't review revdels very often but I don't see why not. Firstly if somebody wants to include text from an external source on Wikipedia then the onus is on them to show that the text is in the public domain or is available under a compatible licence (or that it can be used under our rules on non-free content, but this clearly can't). I'm not persuaded that this text is in the public domain. The statement on Diannaa's talk page is definitely not adequate, as it says the content cannot be used "to create the appearance of our endorsement of a person, product or service" (the CC-BY-SA licence Wikipedia uses has no such restriction) and "I am not aware of any copyright or other limitation" falls some way short of a statement that there is no copyright. The only other evidence that's been provided is this email screenshot, but we have no idea who this person is or whether they have the necessary authority and the statement itself ("looks good to me") isn't the kind of thing we expect from copyright release statements. Unless you have something better I'd suggest just rewriting the text in your own words (we are talking about 200 words of prose). Hut 8.513:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse revdel, more or less. I've uploaded photos of historical plaques, and included in the commons page a transcription of the text. I make it clear that this is just a rendering of the image into text form. I'm not a copyright expert, but it seems to me this isn't even an issue of fair use, but simply a description of the image to make it more useful both to people who are blind, and to search engines, in much the same way that somebody might write, "There is a girl standing under a tree. She is wearing a blue dress". So, I think Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alta Loma Historical Marker.jpg is absurd. On the other hand, just taking that raw text and plopping it down, unchanged except to put a "History" heading above it, is clearly a copyvio. In that context, it's no longer a mechanical description of the image, it's a reuse of the text. Even if the Texas Historical Commission doesn't assert copyright, it's just not how we write encyclopedia articles. So, maybe it didn't really need to be revdel'd, it certainly needed to be rewritten. -- RoySmith(talk)14:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think it absurd - it's not the representation of the text in ASCII that's copyrighted, it's the text itself. Displaying it as part of a jpeg doesn't change that.What's absurd here is that the communications director of the Texas Historical Commission either doesn't know the copyright status of the text they produce, or refuses to answer questions about it. If I were a Texas taxpayer, I'd be incensed. —Cryptic21:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - This appears to be an appeal of the revdel of the addition of an image. Some of us are not administrators and have no idea how we are supposed to decide whether the image should have been revdel'd. I don't know what the forum is, but this is not a useful forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit did add an image of a plaque but it also added text taken from that plaque. The fact non-admins can't see deleted pages doesn't usually prevent us from reviewing deletions here. Hut 8.506:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
