Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Articles with lots of inappropriate fair use pictures[edit]

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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)

FFD drive of Category:Articles with improper non-free content[edit]

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)

Thai flags[edit]

Could someone please look at the images in List_of_Thai_flags#Provincial_flags, 2 of which I just found on Commons and added. While looking at discussions of the previously deleted images, I wonder if these were overlooked. I don't know who to ask over there. Perhaps the table should be trimmed, as well. Thanks! —PC-XT+ 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Substituting templates[edit]

I have a question about the the substitution of FFD template. Currently the "Create its FfD subsection" in the instructions on the main page say {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }} and {{subst:ffd|File:Name of the first file nominated}} should be used when nominating multiple files for the same reason. So, this is the practice I have followed when nominating multiple files such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 18#File:Philadelphia Fire patch.png, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 22#File:B2m-evolution.jpg, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 23#File:Wichita B52s PASL logo.jpg, etc. However, the substituted templates are being removed by Hellknowz with edits like [2], [3], [4] and [5] and replaced by {{ffd}}. If the templates shouldn't be substituted in the first place, then the instructions on the main page should probably be updated. Moreover, one problem with simply replacing them with "ffd" templates is that all the links are broken and there is no |log= information provided, so clicking on "this file's entry" in the template leads to WP:FFD and not the the thread where the file is actually being discussed. This could lead some to mistakenly assume that the FFD discussion has been concluded. Anyway, I would like some clarification of whether these templates should be substituted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of instructions that said to subst them, the {{ffd}} specifically says not to subst it. I'm reading the main page instruction, but I only see substs mentioned for subsections and user notifications, not the file page. I converted the above cases because a bot couldn't parse the pages because of substed text. I'm aware of the |log= parameter and I checked the above files at the time and they didn't link to a specific log date (i.e. {{ffd|log=2016 January 29}}), just the main page, so simply {{ffd}} resulted in almost the same link (except with the anchor to exact file's line). I decided to not add it, because that's how the original nomination did it. Unfortunately, they just fell off the main log due to the date, but they would have before this too. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You should substitute {{ffd2}} and {{ffd2a}} but not {{ffd}}. If it's hard to remember, you could choose not to substitute any template as a bot will then substitute the ones which need substitution. I fixed an error in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, now I see where it said that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The problem then seems to be the sentence "Also, add {{subst:ffd|File:Name of the first file nominated}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated." So, I've added this template to file#2, file#3, etc. whenever I've nominated multiple files. If those do not need to be substituted, then I suggest revising that sentence to avoid anyone else making the same mistake as I. If there's a way to clean this up so that all the links work, let me know and I go back to all those I nominated and fix the templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Personally, I didn't see any others (Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Problem_entries/Undated_records#FfD), though there might be others that weren't tagged by any project and so weren't checked by the bot. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 02:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Any suggestions on what to do just in case there are? I tried added the |log= to fix the links with this edit to File:La Fiera FC 2013 logo.png, but the text in the template currently reads as if it was originally tagged on January 28, 2016 and not December 23, 2015. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
            • If you mean "How to list a file for discussion" section, that just defaults to today's date so it's easier to copy-paste on new ones (It said 28th because the page hadn't been edited/purged, so it now says 29th after you edited it). But just having |log= should suffice and I see you added it to that file sucessfully now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I have cleaned up the instructions. You should not substitute, and you should include the "log" parameter.
I adjusted {{Ffd/sandbox}} so that it now has this function: {{subst:ffd/sandbox}} no longer results in substitution. Do you think that it would be a good idea to implement this feature in the main {{ffd}} template? --Stefan2 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Stefan2. My missteps seem to have created some extra work for you these past few days. Sorry about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free content review.[edit]

WP:NFCR was shut down a couple of months ago, but there are still pending discussions that are all stale. Could an admin who works here regularly please go thru closing down those discussions? There are about 35. If something needs more discussion before taking action, I suggest bringing it here. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • All remaining NFCR discussions should either be handled there or relisted at FFD. However, I don't think that we are in a hurry. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)