Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

Template:Oldffdfull

I'm wondering if {{Oldffdfull}} should be tweaked a bit to clarify that a "keep" vote for a non-free image does not necessarily mean any additional non-free image use is automatically NFCC compliant. Before WP:NFCR was merged into FFD, non-free use discussion took place there and {{Non-free reviewed}} was added to closed discussions. Non-free use discusion do not necessarily mean that an image is either kept or deleted; it is often the case that multiple uses of an image are being discussed and the result is that use is acceptable for some, but not for others. Perhaps additional wording should be adding to the "Oldffdfull" template to reflect this. It might also be a good idea to add something to No. 9 of WP:FFDAI#Standard closure guidelines explaining about this. My concern is that simply adding "keep" without specifying which article(s) non-free use has been deemed to be OK might mislead others it to assuming that non-free use has been deemed compliant for all future use. As it is, many seem to think that simply adding a non-free use rationale template to an file automatically equals "being NFCC compliant" when that is very only dealing with WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Insufficient participation in discussions?

So many images have been nominated for discussion. Yet so very little participation. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As per the big set of instructions at the top of the page which you presumably haven't bothered to read, FFD doesn't work like that as it operates on a presumption of inappropriateness. People nominate files for deletion, and if there's no objection for a week then the files are deleted; a page with lots of nominations but few comments is what you should see when the process is working correctly. ‑ Iridescent 18:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes we also need to assess whether an image is more "appropriate" than it is currently (e.g whether a non-free image is actually free). And sometimes a nomination is made to clear up an (often minor) issue with the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a very long-delayed response. The talk page is least populated. The project page is slow to pick up people. Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion". Yet no one has a problem with insufficient participation? George Ho (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have a problem with it but I really don't know of any solution. Maybe treating each undiscussed nomination where there aren't copyright concerns as a WP:SOFTDELETE/PROD? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because there is no participation doesn't mean people don't agree with the deletion of it. I don't bother to !vote delete on things that don't have discussion and that are obvious deletes. It is a waste of time and effort since it will be deleted with or without my line. --Majora (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that Attendance or lack of it is exploited to delete images as "no objection to deletion" seems to be assuming a bit of bad faith on the part of others. I think it's better to assume that the person nominating a file for discussion truly believes that its use does not comply with relevant policy or guidelines. Their interpretation may be wrong for sure, but that is for the community to figure out and for the closing admin to assess. Even freely licensed image use is not really automatic by default and there has to be a proper encyclopedic reason for using any image file. Things just happen to be trickier when it comes to non-free image use because there are 10 fairly specific criterion which need to be satisfied in addition to WP:IUP. As Majora points out, the lack of comments could simply because there has been a precedent established through previous FFD discussions where a particular type of use is not really considered acceptable or the result is obvious. Some files are nominated for discussion at FFD, when they could have been tagged with a speedy deletion template instead.

According to Special:Statistics, there almost 900,000 files uploaded locally to Wikipedia and I seen posts saying that more than 500,000 of these are non-free. Many of these files are probably be used in multiple articles and many are also probably being used in a manner that does not really comply with relevant policy. Of course, I do think it would be much better if more people participated in FFD discussions and have been trying to figure out ways to do so (see #/Delete sort tags above), but right now all we have are {{ffdc}}, {{fdw}}, {{fdw-multi}} to work with. I tried figuring out a better way to notify others regarding replaceable fair use at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#New NFCC notification template, but it got archived without any response at all. I think most of the community kind of assumes image use is automatic by default and are not really interested in discussing specifics about image use, unless it has to deal with one of their uploads or an article they have a particular interest in. Many also seem to feel that non-free use is simply justified by adding a copy-and-pasted non-free use rationale. Maybe it would be helpful if there was a simpler and automatic way to notify more members of the community each time a file is added to FFD. Even so, I do not think this would guarantee increased participation and would certainly not ensure "better" discussions, particularly regarding non-free use.-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if having a bot automatically add a template (it already exists but I don't remember its name) to the articles a file nominated for FFD is used on would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen some non-free files tagged by User:FairuseBot for files missing non-free use rationales for some articles, but I'm not sure if it's used any more. I think bots were used more frequently back in the day (at least before my time), but there might have been problems with some of them tagging files which were OK by mistake. A notification bot might work, but as Czar explained in the above-referenced "delsort" discussion, adding a WikiProject banner to the file's talk page seems to add the file to the WikiProject's notification page in the same way as is done for a prodded or AfD'd article. The problem is most files do not have WikiProject banners added to their talk pages, and some WikiProjects don't seem to have "current discussions" notification pages. Also, better notification does not necessary mean there will be more people participating in a discussion. Some WikiProjects and editors seem to feel that a local consensus is all that is needed to justify a file's use and that FFD tends to be a place populated by anti-image editors who just love to delete things. Moreover, quite a bit of questionable non-free image usage seems to be regarding files added to articles a long time ago or articles which do not have lots of page watchers. Many times the original uploader of the image file is notified, but they actually have nothing to do with how the file is being used in a particular article. It's possible to scan through the article's edit history and find out who actually added the file to the article and invite them to the discussion, but this can be pretty time consuming and the file may have been removed/re-added multiple times by multiple editors. Posting something on the article's talk page or even a WikiProject talk page can be hit or miss and only seems to be "recommended" and not "required" practice. Maybe the FFD instructions need to be tweaked a bit so that the nominators are required to be more proactive in notifying others or maybe the file pages themselves can be tweaked so that there is an easier way to find out who added a file to an article and when it was added or that it is automatically added to any editor's watchlist who adds/removes a file from an article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:FfD doc

Can anyone here help me fix this template? I always copy and paste the wrong dates. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)