Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review

Some problems with this page

I've found two problems with this page:

1. It is set up to archive discussions which haven't been edited for 180 days (and immediately if closed). Unfortunately, not all of the archived sections have been closed before archiving them, so we have some unclosed sections in the archive. I think that we should try to get those closed. I don't think that we should have discussions archived unless closed, but if the bot requires that, we could just add another zero at the end which should mean that sections won't be archived until they are about five years old.
2. Sections are sometimes closed with {{archive top}}, sometimes with {{subst:archive top}}. If closed with {{archive top}}, the bot changes this into {{tl|archive top}} in the archive so that you can't see the closure reason. I will try to go through the archives and remove the bot's {{tl}} so that the closure reason becomes visible. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, archives 17, 18 and 19 all contain unclosed sections. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that only closed discussions should be archived. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• If discussions are going on for 180 days without being edited, there's a horrific problem with our processes somewhere. I have really never been a fan at how we have partially duplicative image deletion processes. This process and PUI both partially duplicate IFD, but IFD gets flooded with "crap to delete" discussions that keep the important discussions from getting the attention they deserve. If I had my druthers, we would remake IFD as WP:Images for discussion/Fair use, WP:Images for discussion/Disputed license status, WP:Images for discussion/Orphaned free content, and maybe WP:Images for discussion/Other. The first process would be for disputes involving the appropriateness of fair use - even if you only just wanted to have an image removed from one article but kept on another. The second one would replace PUI. The third one would be what I call "crap to delete" - images that we don't want or don't need, but if you want them, you're welcome to move them to Commons. The fourth would be a catch-all for the rare image that is nominated for deletion that doesn't fall into one of these categories. For example+, sometimes we have in-use images that are unencyclopedic for one reason or another. --B (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not too happy about how file deletions are split up. This page is for discussing images which are thought to violate WP:NFCC in one or more articles while WP:FFD is for images which should be deleted. As images violating WP:NFCC in one or more article often should be deleted, this creates an unnecessary overlap, and I think that it would be better to have all WP:NFCC discussions at the same place, regardless of whether a file should be deleted from only some or from all articles in which it is used. A good thing with this page is that it is possible to discuss an article rather than a particular image, which is appropriate in WP:NFCC#3a cases where there may be two images out of which we should only keep one.

If no one disagrees, I plan to effectively disable automatic archival for unclosed discussions on this page by adding one or two zeroes at the end of the age setting (thereby changing the age to 5 or 50 years), close discussions in the archive if they are moot (mainly if the file has been discussed on WP:PUF or WP:FFD after being posted here) and then move back the rest of the discussion to this page so that they can be closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is another group of files: files listed as unfree which are likely free. I'm not sure where to discuss such files. Maybe it would be best to simply extend WP:PUF to those files? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "Possibly Free Files" would be something we would put in WP:Images for discussion/Disputed license status in my dream world. --B (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin closes?

The How to close section says, "Any editor may close a discussion" without further elaboration. Can we change this to be something more like the AFD closing rules where uninvolved non-admins may close a discussion only in accordance with Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures? In other words, it needs to be an unambiguous keep (or, at least, an unambiguous decision that does not involve the deletion of any image that is a part of the nomination - obviously, you could have decisions where it is removed from one article but kept in another). If any of the images that are part of the particular nomination need to be deleted, or the nomination is at all contested, it should probably be left to an administrator. --B (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another problem is that discussions often are closed by someone who is involved. I would say that this only is appropriate if a nomination is withdrawn (if no one has been supporting it) or if the discussion is a duplicate of another ongoing or later discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • How about this language? "Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Discussions that are withdrawn, clearly invalid (e.g. nominations of images with a free content license), or are being non-controversially merged or moved to a different forum may be closed by any user subject to the principles of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." --B (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • How about simply deciding that the rules deciding who can close a discussion here should be the same as the corresponding rules for FFD? Otherwise, there may be a loophole in which you can choose whichever forum is more favourable if both options would be possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • My language would be suitable for FFD and consistent with our practices, right? (Except for images with a free license obviously not being invalid at FFD - we'd need a different example there.) --B (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • It should be more or less the same, yes. However, I think that we should just decide that this page should use exactly the same rules at all times so that any changes to FFD closing rules also automatically apply to this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is a probem with this system. There is a discussion that has been resolved for almost a month. [1] The guidelines do not say that the user can not be involved. What they say is, "Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." Seems to me that the issue is resolved. Why are people making up new rules? --evrik ^(talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Standard procedure for any discussion is to have an un-involved user close them. Werieth (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Therein lies the problem. This has now languished for almost a month after it has been resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 15:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There are discussions that have been open since the beginning of February, the section you are involved with and attempted to close has been open for less than a month. User:Werieth/Sandbox makes an interesting read. Werieth (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There are even older discussions in the archives which are still awaiting closure. Unclosed discussions are archived if no one has commented on them for at least half a year. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have closed a number of discussions on this page. What I do to avoid problems with being involved is I simply close only discussions where either there is no longer an issue with NFCC (for example if all violating uses of a file have been removed and all other uses have valid rationales) or the file has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have closed discussions as well. There is nothing in the guidelines that says you cant be involved. If you look at the link posed above, I think there is no question the issues have been resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 16:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Ive gone ahead and requested closure on all sections without a comment in the last 30 days see here Werieth (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The most important thing is in my opinion that you shouldn't be involved and that you should know what you are doing. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • That's great, but the stated policy is at Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures. It says nothing about not being involved. --evrik ^(talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You should really read the whole page Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate. which you did Werieth (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I think what I said was, "Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed." If somehow this shows a conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, then the system is truly whacked and needs to be fixed. Especially since what you just cited says, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." In the end, no one is disputing that the discussion has been resolved, just that I made a comment. This is a problem with the way things are being run. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
              • That's the way it works. If you comment on a discussion, you are involved, and ineligible to close, even if you are closing counter to your view. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Which policy or guideline says you cannot close a discussion if you are involved? As far as I know, we don't have such a policy or guideline, so I do not see what is wrong with editors who have participated in the discussion closing them if there no longer is something to discuss. I agree that discussions where no consensus has formed yet or where the issue with NFCC still isn't resolved should not be closed, irregardless of whether the closing editor is an admin or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Exactly. --evrik ^(talk) 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED says that an admin mustn't be involved. Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Inappropriate_closures tells that a non-admin can't close a discussion if there is a potential conflict of interests. In a lot of situations, you will find that those two boil down to essentially the same thing (as being involved often implies that you have a potentional conflict of interests, and vice versa). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • While that is true. Let's say the result is keep and the conversation is over for a while. Closing the discussion should be non-controversial. --evrik ^(talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Non-free review

I notice that {{Non-free review}} was recently changed from saying

"The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia is under review for compliance with our policies on non-free content."

to "The usage of non-free media on this page is under review for its compliance with the policies regarding non-free content."

Since I mainly used this template for tagging the pages in File: namespace of the media under review, I think the previous formulation was more fitting. The current formulation sounds as if the use of the media on the page in the File: namespace were being reviewed. I have no problem with the new color or the icon, but think the formulation should be changed back. Thoughts? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I simply reverted back to the old appearance 6 days ago. This is just a (late) courtesy notice in case anyone disagrees or whatever. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The template is used in the file and article namespaces and should maybe be adjusted to show a different text depending on the namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this sounds like a good solution. I think the {{NAMESPACE}} magic word could be used for that, though I am not sure what exactly the expression of the parser function would have to look like. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Inactive discussions on this page

Could we develop a definitive set of rules for cases such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg that state what happens if there was no input to a discussion in a specified period of time? Otherwise some of those discussions will be sitting on this page forever without any action taken. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)