Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep but do something about finding a better venue Discussion should continue in another forum for exactly what should be done instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues raised here were the low use of

WP:PUF. However there were counter arguments that none of these is the right place for non free content that is not a copyright violation. No support was expressed here to delete the page(s). There is no consensus here yet as to what to do instead, but the direction is away from using this notice board, due to lack of participants. Further discussion should be held at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or perhaps Wikipedia talk:Non-free content to determine where to go from here, with greater input from the community. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Non-free content review

Propose to mark as historical The fact of the matter is that this page doesn't get traffic; file workers almost never come by here, cases languish for months, and only a tiny, tiny number of NFCC discussions actually happen here, most happen at FfD. A significant number of cases brought here wind up at FfD anyways. It's a disservice to have a page like this where people bring their concerns and those concerns never get acted upon.

Wha? 03:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep -
WP:FFD is a total mess; there are massive nominations on screenshots, and I have nominated an old 1980s Kodak image for non-free review under concerns of its copyright eligibility. Nobody goes to these deletion discussions, either. Also, there are failures to properly inform and intrigue readers about images. The fact that NFCR is slow is not a reason to deprecate or mark as historical. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - See how some nominations have been withdrawn by the same nominator: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 31. There are only one or two people per nomination, which indicates the same scarcity as NFCR. --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - FFD is only if the image needs deletion (Read: admin action) as a result of the consensus. If an image is used in multiple locations and only one of those is questioned, its removal following consensus does not require admin action; an FFD nom is thus improper. This is the venue for those discussions. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion should be renamed Wikipedia:Files for discussion and tasked with being the lead project when it comes to discussing files. It was discussed in March 2011 at Pump Proposal: Files for discussion, but did not result in the change. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't follow, using the same logic in attempts to rename "articles for deletion" to "articles for discussion", in that the "for deletion" explicitly requires admin action to complete. The separate board for discussions that are to end in non-admin actions is thus needed. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't there another media review page?--
WP:FOUR) 06:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- This is the only one. Neither
  WP:FFD is a substitute for this noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Are you perhaps referring to
  WP:COPYVIO ? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  The first is mainly about "File:" namespace itself, the PUF noms may result deletion of images with dubious copyright status, and WP:COPYVIO is about copyright infringements in general. --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as historical pretty redundant with
WP:FOUR) 14:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
- How is NFCR redundant? --~~George Ho (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)~~ Keep in mind that you uploaded one of non-free screenshots for Hill Street Station, which I put under review, not deletion. If it were nominated for deletion, you would have voted "keep". --George Ho (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into a single project - The outcome of the 2008 MfD was to reform Wikipedia:Non-free content review, but based on the 2008 nomination and the above nomination, the reform never came. The 2008 MfD for the above project summed it up best: "Lack of discussion on pages dealing with copyright is the norm due to a lack of knowledge of the issues involved by many editors." That's true today - four years later - and will be true tomorrow. We need to take some action in an effort to improve things. Instead of fracturing file issues into multiple pages, we need to be bold and start consolidating them into less projects so that the few Wikipedians who do have knowledge of the issues involved can use that knowledge in a single location and others who lack such knowledge can gain it under their tutelage in a single location. I'm going with what Doug noted in his 2008 close of the 1st MfD: merge Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files into a single project (and allow closing admin to name that project based on this MfD discussion). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Possibly unfree files" are for images that are considered free without shred of evidence to prove copyright status. How are NFCR and PUF the same? How does this solve anything? Also, Doug said either Keep or reform, and
  WT:PUF#Merger proposal said, "do not merge". Also, there are logos that may fall below threshold of originality. --George Ho (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Doug's close noted, "Possibility of merger with WP:PUI makes the most sense but should not be imposed without discussion by the projects involved." Doug did list a merge proposal right after the MfD, but that merge proposal lasted seven months and only had five editors participate. This MfD brings a wider audience where the projects involved and others can discuss the matter, as well as a time limit. After four years of waiting for a reform that never came about, it's time to take action. The combined NFCR/PUF project would be a place where Wikipedians discuss media source or licensing information as well as whether media are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Such a merge addresses the low traffic issue and works towards consolidating our editor knowledge base. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A simple licensing issue would be notified by {{
      WT:TV, and members were upset by the deletion nominations. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Mark as historical Taking something to this page doesn't work: someone requests a discussion but doesn't get one. If you feel that a file should be deleted, take it to
Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
People at
WP:MCQ might or might not know NFCC stuff, and the MCQ has broader knowledge of copyright eligibility. Nevertheless, some at MCQ are not totally sure on things. I did ask question about old Kodak logo in MCQ, but no one knows exactly how origial the old Kodak logo is. So I went to NFCR for help, and it took months for someone to explain a long explanation that Kodak may fall below threshold of originality. Perhaps you might not want to read about the Kodak logo in the NFCR, might you? --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark as historical As mentioned above, this page is not maintained very well, and it's overlapped with
WP:PUF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
MCQ might have people who would not be exactly knowledgeable about copyrights. I did ask about logos of
WP:NFCC --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a process meant to assess an acknowledged non-free image (i.e. not the scope of WP:PUF) in relation to its use in a particular article (i.e. not site wide, the scope of WP:FFD). Further, as the NFCC are proprietary to Wikipedia and not necessarily related to “real world” copyright (fair use), WP:MCQ is an inappropriate alternative (among other reasons). As the name indicates (non-free content review), it is not meant to fulfill a deletion function; rather, it is an assessment which seeks to identify whether use in a given article is supported by NFCC, and whether there are easily reparable issues (e.g. sufficiently low resolution). This is a function distinct from other processes. NFCR does indeed experience low usage, but the remedy is better promotion; it would be ill-advised to delete a process with a valuable and unique function merely because it is under-known. If other processes are to have their scopes expanded to cover NFCR's current function, delete or mark this page historical only after that has occured. Эlcobbola _talk 15:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with your point is that there really is only a half dozen to a dozen people that work in the File namespace on Wikipedia to any significant degree and would be qualified to comment at this forum, and being that I've seen most of them on that page one time or another (proving that they know about it and still are not regulars there), I think it's pretty clear that we're never going to see traffic there. For the two times a month that a question is asked there, it can be asked somewhere else.
  Wha? 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - NFCR merely a discussion related to NFCC - a policy - which does not require special expertise (e.g., file namespace work) or permissions (e.g., sysop). Indeed, anyone who uploads a non-free image purports to understand NFCC. Accordingly, anyone is "qualified" to comment at this forum; that even seems a basic tenant of Wikipedia. While I'm aware (or at least of the belief) that precious few people truly understand NFCC, the same could be said of participants in AFD or any other process here. The point, again, is that this is a valuable process with a distinct function. It has low usage, so options seem to be deletion or increasing awareness. It would be a disservice to resort to the former without a genuine effort related to the latter. I don't believe that asking several users to comment at NFCR is sufficient. Эlcobbola _talk 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is another reason that it has low traffic: until now, Template:noticeboard links did not include this page. Then I recently added the template and edited the template by including the link to it. --George Ho (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FFD is often overwhelmed by images that are completely non-controversial and deleting them is more of a pro forma process. NFCR is useful for singling out images where some thought needs to be given. It would be nice if we had a PROD process for orphaned crappy free images (WP:OCFFFD?) but as it is, those images go to FFD and so it's useful to split out some of the complex cases. --B (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Taking into consideration my one and only interaction with this review board about a year ago, I feel that I have to agree with the observations of a number of editors above - namely that activity at the page is sporadic at best, that discussions frequently stall for weeks if not months, and that, for the purposes of some discussions,
WP:PUF may be preferable locations. However, if it is true that the page has only recently been added to the administrative template, I would suggest waiting for a few months to see whether or not traffic picks up before a "historical" tag is applied. Super Mario Man 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't delete. No opinion on whether we should continue to use this page, but any WP: space page with such an extensive history should either be kept or marked with {{historical}}. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that anyone has proposed the deletion of this page. Even if discontinued, it would be useful to be able to refer to the archives. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Then why did it come here? This is Miscellany for Deletion, not Miscellany for Discussion. A request simply to close the process should go to the Village Pump for Proposals. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Any image under review will not be tagged as "orphaned" by the bot, run by Hazard-SJ. There could be other bots tagging such images as orphaned, but I'll notify anyone if it happens again. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.