Template talk:Non-free review

RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles?

From 2005 until recently, this template was added to file pages when the non-free status of the file was being discussed. In May this year it was edited so that it could be added to articles. The RfC question is: should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support reverting to the pre-May 2013 version and using the template only on file pages.

  Editors who oppose the use of certain files have recently started adding this to the articles themselves, perhaps if they fail to gain consensus for their changes. The template is disfiguring, there is no benefit in alerting readers to the discussion, attempts to remove the templates are reverted, and in some cases they seem to have been on the article for months. For example, it was added to Kate Bush in August 2013 and is still there. It was added to Red Hot Chili Peppers in July, even though the discussion about the file(s) has been stale since then. It is much better for this template to be posted only on file pages, or perhaps also on article talk pages, so that editors, not readers, are alerted. The presentation of articles shouldn't be affected by backroom discussion about file policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is...the files were all added to the Non Free content review page [1] and no consensus has formed. Same thing with the Red Hot Chili Peppers which contain 10 non free files and Kate Bush that has 6. Either we allow such templates to be shown on the actual article itself, or we just close these discussions and use them as new precedence for going nuts with non free files anywhere we want. It is not just a call for community input, but a disclaimer to readers that there is an issue with so many non free files on the article. Some things I don't think need to be on the main article page and we have discussed such issues before, but this time I can't help but think this is a net plus for these situations. At least as long as the problems exist, they seem serious enough for the template.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If the overall usage of non-free on a single article is a problem (where the ultimate goal is not to delete all the images which would be done at FFD, but to determine which ones are really appropriate), then the whole article should be discussed, particularly in light of WP:NFCC#3a which considers the number of non-free used in any single article. Thus, allowing the template to be added to articles makes complete sense. The only reason it stays on for so long is that we have had difficulty getting non-involved admins closing out NFCR discussions, as we don't set a timeline on when they should be readily closed (as one would at FFD). Additionally, if you place it on images only , most editors of affected articles would be unaware of the discussion. It is no different than normal maintenance templates that last for months or years on articles. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the best method for notifying those interested that issues have been raised and a discussion is ongoing about the non-free files in the article. Werieth (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can you say why it's the best method? Editors watching the article could be alerted via the article talk page. Editors watching the file page will see it there. Alerting readers to the discussion by posting the template on the article itself serves no purpose. Unlike an NPOV tag, where it could be argued that readers should be told about a neutrality issue, there is no benefit to readers to be told that an editor disagrees with a non-free-use rationale. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually NFCR tag highlights in some cases where excessive non-free files may be unsupportable via fair use and that can increase the risk to those readers who want to re-use our content. Also most users do not watch the files associated with an article. One example is that of {{FFDC}} for highlighting the issue. A talk page note may be effective, but I have found that the most effective method is a note directly on the article. Werieth (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Come on, Werieth, you know that's stretching the argument to breaking point. Readers don't need to be told that there's a non-free-use discussion in case they want to reuse our content. Article tags are meant to be used as a last resort, not as a first resort, and only for issues that readers might genuinely need to know about, e.g. that there is a neutrality issue, or a sourcing problem, or that we know the article is poorly written and would appreciate help with it. This tag doesn't fit into any of those categories. This is an editor-only tag.

  Also, a separate issue is that the templates aren't being removed when the discussion goes stale, so they're becoming permanent monuments to one person's disagreement with the use of a file. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Non-involved admins have to close the discussion, we've only recently gotten around to getting a few non-involved admins to handle that on a regular basis. That hopefully will prevent 2-month-stale discussions from lingering. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally, NFCR can end in image deletion. Since deletion tags are placed on article space, it makes sense that a tag about potential deletion seems extremely important to have on the main page. Mind you, personally, I would accept having it as an article talk page tag, as long as at the end of the day editors don't come screaming back to NFC cleanup admins that delete images and yell at them for not being adequetely notified even though it was on a talk page they watched (yes, this happens). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support reverting to the pre-May 2013 version and using the template only on file pages. Arbitrarily creating procedures and guidelines without discussion short circuits the collaborative process that is at the heart of Wikipedia principles and is never a good idea, I don't care how good the reasons are. These discussions needed to take place before the template was altered or implemented, and from the rationales I've read here I get a bad odor about how this went down without any on-Wiki discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To note: the process was already there of bringing page-wide issues to NFCR before this change of template (see below), so we're not talking a new process, only a means of better notification. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anything that affects the appearance of a main page needs to be discussed in a wider forum. See this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, ? That is a bogus argument. Anyone can add maintenance to any article - assuming they justify the reason for them. You don't need previous consensus for this. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not making a policy argument; I'm making a best-practice argument. Images are stored at Commons; if they're not legal, that's the place to bring it up, as well as notify the uploader, not in the article it's used in. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, no. Non-free images are stored on en.wiki. And there's no such thing as best-practices when it comes to adding maintenance tags to articles - they have been long-accepted as additions that anyone can make without having to seek consensus as long as the problem s valid. And if we only notified on the image pages, then when they were removed from the article they were used on, we would get an earful. That's why we started tagging articles where multiple image problems existed so that lack of visibility of image problems wouldn't be an issue. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, OK, on en.wiki then. My point stands; there's no need to crap up a main page. If you don't know what the phrase "best practice" means ask somebody. Are you saying you (whoever "we" is supposed to represent) are not getting "an earful" now, but that if the template wasn't there you would? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• To note that the reason this was changes was that after a bunch of mass image deletions late last year and early this year that went straight from the article page to FFD, there was a push to have a better place to discuss questionable image use that did not necessary mean deletion as a solution. WP:NFCR existed before this point but it was decided to use it more to handle such cases earlier in this year. As such, when articles with what an editor believed to be excess non-free was encountered, the best solution to make sure that the people involved with the article to see what was happening was to tag the article. The template was only changes to make the template text read appropriately depending on its context. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to where changing the template was discussed? It's a pretty major change to start highlighting non-free discussions to readers (who won't care about these issues), rather than to editors on file or talk pages, so it's something that should have had consensus before being done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Readers care about these issues, they just don't comment or edit, so they walk away with "Man...Wikipedia is messed up. Look how they allow all these copyright issues". The average encyclopedia user is at least aware that we use free files. If they don't this will certainly be educational for them. I am not one of those editors that believes in a strict line between editor and reader.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the place where it was changed: I note the change was from "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." (emphasis mine) That's where it was realized the tag was used in two modes (file and article), and that would be followed by this series of edits to have context-sensitive messages for that.

Now, to go back a bit more, I do want to point out that putting articles under NFCR has been done before changing this template, eg: from mid-2011 or 2010 Mind you, from what I can determine, I don't see any use of this template (in its former wording) when those were brought for discussion. Even an article-level issue at mid-2012 didn't seem to use the template. I'd have to do a lot of history digging to get the timing, but again, I stress that NFCR has been pushed as an option to have discussions and prevent frivolous image deletions that may affect a whole page or several pages (as I recall, and I'd need to dig a lot, this came about after a bunch of Simpsons episode screenshots were removed, and it was not such much that they were appropriate images, but the issue of how many eyes really saw that discussion - this was at an arbcom case about the editor here [2], Dec 2012, so that should give an idea of the timing). So all of the most recent NFCR activity over the last year has been about getting more eyeballs on these issues. Thus the reason that people started adopting - without any real discussion of that practice - this NFCR template to make sure that image problems at the article level were seen by those working on the articles -- all to try to avoid similar problems with something like the above ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)