Archives |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
Threads older than 30 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
FfD question
I just added a File:Nashville Kats 1997-2001 Logo.png to FFD. I followed the instructions and clicked on the "this edit link" to create an FfD subsection which brought me to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6. I see this is a redirect to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6, but there is nothing listed on that page. The file I added is also not appearing in the WP:FFD#November 6" section of the FfD main page. In addition, the "this file's entry" link in the "Ffd" template leads to "Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 6", and not "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6". Also, the back link on "Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 6" says "Wikipedia:Files for deletion", but redirects to "Wikipedia:File for discussion"
I'm not sure if I've done things correctly, so if I haven't could somebody please let me know what I should've done instead. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The instructions in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading were outdated and pointed at the wrong URL. I have updated the instructions and moved your nomination to the right place. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The problem during the re-branding phase is that some pages use the old name "Files for deletion" while other pages use the new name "Files for discussion". Most outdated links should still work thanks to redirects, but this wasn't the case with the link you used. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- My worry is that AnomieBOT will overwrite these edits to fix the recent day links. I guess we'll find out in the next 24 hours... Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "Recent nominations" section is not supposed to be edited. Magic words are used for automatically calculating the most recent dates, making manual updates unnecessary. Therefore, I would assume that no bot ever touches that section. I'm more interested in seeing what's happening with the "Old discussions" section when "files for discussion" subpages are to be added to that section. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Same thing happened again at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 19 regarding another file I nominated. This time I clicked on the "Add a line to today's FfD." link in the "How to list a file for discussion" of the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I believe I just fixed that issue. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Steel1943. However, the thread is still not showing up as a "Recent nomination" on the main FFD page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: This should be fixed now. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Steel1943. I was going to try and fix it myself by copying what Stefan2 did the last time it happened, but I stopped because I wasn't sure of all of the steps. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Steel1943:: Sorry to bother you again, but the same thing happened at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 20. If there some way of doing this so that I don't keep ending up with the same problem, please let me know. I'm following the instructions on the template, but I keep getting screwing it up. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Where is this link you are clicking on? I must be having a very difficult time finding it. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- The link is the "Add a line to today's FfD" in {{FFD}} (you need to click "Show" for "How to list a file for discussion".) is what I click on after I nominate a file for FFD. Anyway, I followed what you did earlier and moved the thread to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 20 and redirected Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 November 20. If I screwed things up, please let me know what I still need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Where is this link you are clicking on? I must be having a very difficult time finding it. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: This should be fixed now. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Steel1943. However, the thread is still not showing up as a "Recent nomination" on the main FFD page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I had no idea what was going wrong, so didn't want to go messing around with any templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: I think I found the above link problem with {{fdw-multi}}. The template directs the uploader to "Wikipedia files for deletion..." -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Articles with lots of inappropriate fair use pictures
Is there some fast way to list pages with lots of non-free files for discussion? Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contains 12 non-free files while Federated state contains 15, all in violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that BetaCommand at one point had a script that compiled how many non-frees were on a page, but I have no idea where that went. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The page you need was Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files but due to the closing of the toolserver it has not been updated for over 2 years. I don't think the script has been migrated to another server yet, so I have asked the editor who posted the configuration if they can assist in getting working again. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is also toollabs:betacommand-dev/reports/pages with excessive nfcc.html which contains the same information but is more up to date. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Stefan. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually MZMcBride has updated Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files with his bot. I don't know, yet, if he will update it to run automatically again. ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a reverse of this; ie. list of non-free files that are used in a high number of articles? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC) (@Steel1943: emphasis added Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC))
-
- @Finnusertop: Thanks for adding the clarity in that statement. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: I'm not sure what you mean by this, given that non-free files require fair-use rationale, but free files do not, meaning that really could be placed anywhere and in whatever numbers without legal issues. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- A non-free being used in 20 different articles, for example, could be a sign of a problem, though not an assurance of a problem. It might be a problem if the non-free was being included because it was being including as a template (I've seen that before), or it might be included because someone has a logo for a parent organization being used on each of its child organizations without care, even if each has a proper rationale. Yes, there technically is no limit how many times a non-free can be reused, but anything more than 2, 3, or 4 times likely indicates there might be an issue to be explored. Just as articles with 10+ non-frees might also be a problem and should be evaluated by a human to make sure there's an actual problem. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- My experience is that excessive use is indicative of problems. These are usually logos or pictures of deceased persons that are used without proper FURs, and in a number of cases, no possibility of FURs. I once had non-free logo removed from 79 articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- In my experiences, non-free files should be used in as few articles as possible with the preferred amount of articles being 1. In my opinion, if a non-free file is used in an article in which the file does not represent the subject of the article (with the exception of screenshots), I would try to evaluate the usages vs. WP:NFCC with "a fine-toothed comb" to see if its inclusion violates any of the criteria in the slightest. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the only way this kind of thing is going to be resolved once and for all is for the WMF to officially go on record and provide some guidance as to how the NFCC should apply in such cases by giving specific examples. NFCC discussions, in general, can be a bit subjective, but this is especially true when it comes to NFCC#8 and UUI Nos. 14 and 17. I'm not sure if I totally agree that usage should be limited to a single article, but at the same time I'm not sure how NFCC#3 can ever be truly satisfied any other way. Allowing multiple usage for one particular case may be indeed be OK for that particular case, but the problem is that most editors are not going to see it simply in terms of that particular case. Many are going to see it as establishing some kind of precedent for other similar non-free logos. To them allowing such usage in, for example, organization A's articles, naturally means that it should also be allowed in organization B's articles, etc. Some editors see it as an issue of "fairness" with a few editors ("i.e., anti-image editors) randomly using their fine-toothed NFCC combs on certain articles ("their articles"), but leaving other similar articles alone. Some editors only see it as an all or nothing kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- In my experiences, non-free files should be used in as few articles as possible with the preferred amount of articles being 1. In my opinion, if a non-free file is used in an article in which the file does not represent the subject of the article (with the exception of screenshots), I would try to evaluate the usages vs. WP:NFCC with "a fine-toothed comb" to see if its inclusion violates any of the criteria in the slightest. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- My experience is that excessive use is indicative of problems. These are usually logos or pictures of deceased persons that are used without proper FURs, and in a number of cases, no possibility of FURs. I once had non-free logo removed from 79 articles. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- A non-free being used in 20 different articles, for example, could be a sign of a problem, though not an assurance of a problem. It might be a problem if the non-free was being included because it was being including as a template (I've seen that before), or it might be included because someone has a logo for a parent organization being used on each of its child organizations without care, even if each has a proper rationale. Yes, there technically is no limit how many times a non-free can be reused, but anything more than 2, 3, or 4 times likely indicates there might be an issue to be explored. Just as articles with 10+ non-frees might also be a problem and should be evaluated by a human to make sure there's an actual problem. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Is there a reverse of this; ie. list of non-free files that are used in a high number of articles? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC) (@Steel1943: emphasis added Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC))
- Actually MZMcBride has updated Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files with his bot. I don't know, yet, if he will update it to run automatically again. ww2censor (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Stefan. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is also toollabs:betacommand-dev/reports/pages with excessive nfcc.html which contains the same information but is more up to date. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The page you need was Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files but due to the closing of the toolserver it has not been updated for over 2 years. I don't think the script has been migrated to another server yet, so I have asked the editor who posted the configuration if they can assist in getting working again. ww2censor (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Back on topic: I've been having a blast manually going through the list and each and every non-free image (identified by script) I encounter. I remove images that have no rationale at all for the article I browse, and leave an edit summary: Removed non-free files without use rationales for this article on their file description pages (WP:NFC#10c). Don't restore files without valid rationales, as invalid fair-use claims are copyright infringement.
This is effective in getting rid of 'fair-use' claims that do not even attempt to contain a claim thereof. This however leaves out some delicious cases for FFD. I have not removed images that are sprinkled across a dozen articles whith the same copy pasted rationale that simply says "illustration". If you want to, I can bring these cases to discussion.
After I'm done with all 400 articles ... I'd like to have this (reiterated from above): a list of those non-free files that are used in a ridiculous number of articles. (not articles that have many files, like the present list). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like the list I was looking for exists: High use NFCC. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
New addition to nomination statement instructions
Since the renaming of this noticeboard from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion", there has seemingly been some added confusion in regards to the nominator's purpose for nominating the file. Before, the action that the nominator believed should have been taken on the file was deletion of the file; that is no longer the case, especially since the nominator could also be nominating the file for removal from certain pages (if non-free) or to determine if a file marked non-free is actually free. In an effort to clarify this distinction, as well as make the discussions clearer for participants and discussion closers alike, I have boldly made this addition to the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. (After seeing this diff from Dthomsen8, I realized that given the previous state of the instructions, their concern seemed quite valid.) (Pinging parties who have, in one way or another, discussed this before, directly or indirectly: Explicit, Masem, Stefan2, Sfan00 IMG, Finnusertop, Kelly, Marchjuly, and Jo-Jo Eumerus.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation and addition to the instructions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Steel1943, I think the instructions should prompt users to first boldly make the changes they want and only bring them to the discussion if they are challenged. Currently the process is clogged up with many uncontroversial cases and it's 'files for sitting here for seven days' rather than for discussion. In particular: non-free files with invalid or missing rationales for some articles may be removed from those articles; non-free images with some other issues may be nominated for speedy deletion. There isn't a speedy deletion category for deleting unused unencyclopedic images (eg. users' profile images), but I don't feel like this is the right place for them either. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: I like that idea, especially since it will help to reduce the amount of nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Flag images#Media in category "Flag images"
Not sure where or how to discuss this, but this category seems to be violating WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#9 since many of the flag images displayed are non-free. Strange thing is that the Category page is not showing up in any of the "file usage" section for the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is a technical inevitability. Unless we stop categorizing non-free images or tag all categories that might contain a non-free image as NOGALLERY they are bound to display.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- C'mon now! Those do not apply since this is neither a gallery or article content. This is a Category. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NFG says "In categories that include non-free content, MediaWiki's __NOGALLERY__ code should be used to disable the display of the content while still listing it" and NFCC#9 says "To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it" so they both seem applicable to category pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've added NOGALLERY. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NFG says "In categories that include non-free content, MediaWiki's __NOGALLERY__ code should be used to disable the display of the content while still listing it" and NFCC#9 says "To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it" so they both seem applicable to category pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- C'mon now! Those do not apply since this is neither a gallery or article content. This is a Category. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Template:NFCC issue note
@Stefan2, Marchjuly, and George Ho: (as well as whoever else may be interested): I just found the existence of {{NFCC issue note}}. I've never seen this template used before. Could this template have some sort of use in WP:FFD, now that it is the noticeboard for WP:NFCR requests? (It looks as though its purpose is to be placed at the top of articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Calling @Toshio Yamaguchi:It looks completely orphaned to me, and has been for a long time apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that the idea for that template came after a number of editors objected to having a notice about non-free image problems on the article space pages, and this was created as a potential replacement that was more descriptive, but that never got used. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
FFD drive of Category:Articles with improper non-free content
We should hold frequent drives of systematically going through Category:Articles with improper non-free content in discussion. I just discovered an article tagged since 2013 and implemented a consensus from over two years ago: [1]. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Non-free content may also mean non-free text. I just found one page where the user who added the template removed some copyvio text before tagging the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, such cases can be forwarded to the relevant forum. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)