Template talk:No license/archive1

Page Move

In the light of recently renaming Template:Unverified to Template:No source, I propose renaming this template to Template:No license (with a redirect from Template:No licence) to maintain a consistant naming scheme, and to clarify the usage of the template. --BesigedB ^(talk) 16:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. David Newton 22:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Seeing no opposition, I have performed this move. - UtherSRG 11:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

interlanguage link

fr:modèle:LicenceInconnue

"However" punctuation

The punctuation here is incorrect. Currently, it reads

This image has information on its source, however it does not have information on its copyright status.

The correct way to punctuate that is

This image has information on its source; however, it does not have information on its copyright status.

—Bkell 01:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Space to put date?

Should this template have a parameter to put the date the image was tagged, the same as Template:No source now has? Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No license, no source

I don't see why this template has to say source yes, but licencse no, when the results of putting things here is the same as source no and licencse no. So I have removed the comment about source - feel free to revert this if you have a good reason to do so (rather than just an obsession with disjunctive classification). --Henrygb 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

complaint

I do not like the way that this template is being used. There are many images that Wikipedians have created as illustrations for Wikipedia articles. These images were correctly uploaded to Wikipedia for use under the GFDL. Now templates such as "No license" are being put on these images and then the images are being deleted. This is a huge waste of hard work by Wikipedians and destructive to existing articles that use these illustrations. --JWSchmidt 12:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Notifications

I believe the uploaders should be notified, since they're the people who know best about where the images come from. — Instantnood 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

can someone simplify the template example?

In the suggestion at the bottom of the template, I think it would be more succinct to have the link to one's own userpage be created using the triple-tilde ~~~ instead of spelling it out. Like this:
^{Please consider using {{no license notified|[[User:<uploader>|]]|~~~|~~~~~}} instead (and notify the uploader)} Phoenix-forgotten 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there are some technical problems with people who have styled "nicknames", numbered template calls get "broken" by text that contain a = because the code simply look for the first = in the text to determine whether it's a numbered or named parameter. A little "hack" like {{no license notified|[[User:<uploader>|]]|2=~~~|~~~~~}} instead (and notify the uploader) would fix that though. Dunno if that 2= in there might confuse people though? --Sherool (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problem

The number of apostrophes in the template is currently incorrectly balanced, resulting in an extra apostrophe after the word "status":

''This image '''does not have information on its [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright]] status'''. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image '''will be deleted seven days after this template was added...

I also think that it's rather odd the way the bolding starts part way through one sentence and ends part way through the next; I'd propose the following instead:

This image does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added...

This proposal also does away with the italicisation - the bolding's already there for emphasis, so I don't think there's any point in having italics too. Any objections or suggestions? CLW 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, in order to match with the "No source" template, the bolding and italicisation should be as follows:

This image does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added...

As it's clear from this second suggestion where the misasignment of apostrophes has occurred, and as no-one has commented in the past 24 hours, I'll go ahead and make the change. CLW 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Default date

I have edited the tempalte so that if the date is not supplied, it uses the current date instead, which should be the normal case. This ought to save a good deal of work. I have tested this in my user space and it seesm to work correctly. In any case it will have no effect if the parameters are supplied. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to vi:

Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:

[[vi:Tiêu bản:Unknown]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

String for user page on separate line?

I was going to fix this myself until I discovered the page was protected. Would an admin be so kind as to move the notification text string that is to be entered on a user's page onto a separate line as in Template:No source? It would make it considerably easier to copy and paste the string. Thanks! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Shanel for starting to make this change to the template. I'd just ask that the part after the ~~~~ be moved to a separate line, too. Then one can simply triple-click on the line (at least in Firefox) to select the whole thing, then copy-n-paste. Thanks! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! It was being done as I was typing the above. Thanks again! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

{{commons|Template:No license}}

Please add {{commons|Template:No license}} to this template. Make sure to use {{-}} to separate the "no license" template to keep from overlapping. Thanks, adnghiem501 08:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Parenthesis

Could someone put parenthesis around this template similar to what Template:No source has? OrphanBot depends on this to distinguish the date on the template from any other dates on the page. --Carnildo 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link to de:

Please add an interwiki link to the German version of this template:

[[de:Vorlage:Bild-Lizenz-unbekannt]]

Thanks, adnghiem501 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hands from the rest of the community

I've created {{speedy-image-c}} for this purpose, and I'd like to propose to add it to the instruction included in the template. It's useful for bots (e.g. OrphanBot) which're hiding such images from articles. Rather than hiding the images, this tag can be added to captions at the same time when {{no licence}} is applied, so that other readers can help add the copyright tags back. Don't let innocent images be deleted simply because nobody is aware of their missing of copyright tags. — Instantnood 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like this idea but I would still like Orphanbot to delink on its runs. Unless Orphanbot makes two runs per image, one to add this warning and the user warning, and another later to delink. the delinking is very important though before actual deletion. - cohesion^t 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot currently makes at least two runs per image, and ideally it should make three or four. The problem is that adding the tag adds additional complexity to an already-fragile process without much benefit. OrphanBot has trouble with finding the ends of image links: an external link at the end of a caption will cause OrphanBot to miss the last bracket when it's commenting out an image, and I'm worried that fiddling with its removal process will cause it to make more mistakes. --Carnildo 06:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphanbot already makes at least two runs. It'd be better to keep an image in articles until it's about to delete after 7 days. — Instantnood 20:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How OrphanBot currently operates (assuming it hasn't been blocked by an admin who doesn't like the wording of the user notifications, or the emergency shutoff isn't being activated by someone who doesn't like the idea of deleting no-source images):

• Day 0: The image is tagged as "no license", either by a member of the image tagging project, or by the uploader, when he selects "don't know" or "some website"
• Day 1 or 2: OrphanBot finds the image for the first time. If the uploader hasn't already been notified, it places a message on the uploader's talk page.
• Day 3 or 4: OrphanBot finds the image for the second time. If the uploader hasn't been notified (the user talk page was protected the first time, or OrphanBot thought the user was being flooded with notifications), it places a message on the uploader's talk page.
• Day 5 or 6: OrphanBot finds the image for the third time. The image is removed from every article using it, and OrphanBot writes a log of all articles it was removed from on the image description page. If the uploader hasn't been notified, it places a message on the uploader's talk page.
• Day 7: The image is deleted.

--Carnildo 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd suggest OrphanBot to add the tag to captions on articles when it finds an image for the first time, so that the rest of the community will have sufficient time to help tag the image. Before the image is deleted, don't remove or hide the image from articles. — Instantnood 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want the tag added, then write the regular expression that can correctly identify the end of an image's caption. It needs to be able to handle all of the following cases correctly, and many others besides:

1. [[Image:example.gif]]
2. [[Image:example.gif|thumb|50px| ]]
3. [[Image:example.gif|frame|my great caption]]
4. [[Image:example.gif|This won't actually show up]]
5. [[Image:example.gif|frame|my great [[caption]]]]
6. [[Image:example.gif|frame|another caption]][[Link that isn't part of the image]]
7. [[Image:example.gif|frame|caption]]followed by spurious brackets]]
8. [[Image:example.gif|thumb|50px|Caption <!-- Trust me, this really is fair use -->]]
9. [[Image:example.gif|frame|[[caption]] [[with]] [[many]][[links]]]]
10. [[Image:example.gif|frame|Caption [http://with.a.source.com/]]]
11. {{infobox|image = [[Image:example.gif]]|caption = Image caption}}
12. {{album|image = example.gif|caption = Yes, this sort of thing happens}}
13. [[Image:example.gif|A really long caption.

    So long that it's spread across multiple lines.]]

14. [[Image:_example.gif|This is the same image that is used above]]
15. [[Image:example.gif|thumb|250px|[[Image:example.png|thumb|150px|Example.png is the image you want to remove]]Not this one]]

Good luck. --Carnildo 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the bot currently identify the end of the line of the image? — Instantnood 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now? Smoke, mirrors, a half-dozen regular expressions for removing images, and a dozen more to identify when it screws up. The regex used to identify and remove most images is "(\[\[[ _]*[Ii]mage[ _]*:[ _]*example\.gif[ _]*.*?(?:\[\[.*?\]\].*?|)+\]\][ \t]*)", which can handle cases #1-7, #9, #11, and #14, messes up on #8 and #10, and ignores #12, #13, and #15. Note that it does not distinguish between cases where there is a caption, and cases where there is not a caption.

OrphanBot also has regexes for identifying images that are inlined into the text (a case where it can't remove the image properly), and for removing images in galleries, album infoboxes, city infoboxes, taxoboxes, and inline Media: links. --Carnildo 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright.. I'm no expert with bot. I bet for the time being there's no problem with adding a line to the instructions, to recommend people to use it. — Instantnood 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

interlang ja

Please add interlang to ja:Template:No source. Thank you. --Tietew 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This one is not correct and has already been added to Template:No source.

I checked the Japanese version of this template at the Japanese Wikipedia, ja:Template:No license. Please replace ja:Template:No source with that link. -- ADNghiem501 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the JA interwiki link to ja:Template:No license. Give me a buzz on my talk page if this is not correct.--Commander Keane 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Be careful when editing this template

OrphanBot, a bot which removes no-source and no-license images from articles, depends on certain minor features of this template in order to operate correctly. In particular:

• It looks for the phrase "Unless the copyright status is provided" in order to tell if an image has this template applied to it.
• It looks for the parenthesis around the date on the template to distinguish it from any other date in the image description page.
• It looks for the exact string "({{{day}}} {{{month}}} 2006)" to decide that the person applying the template didn't provide a date.

Thanks. --Carnildo 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why include images in two categories?

Is there any reason for images bearing this tag to be included in Category:Images with unknown copyright status in addition to their day's subcategory? It seems like a waste of bandwidth and the viewer's time to have to load the first 200 thumbnails upon every visit to the parent cat. ×Meegs 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the main category is actually a really good idea. I never have found a use for seeing every image with no lisence sitting in the main category. Same is to be said about {{Template:no source}}. --Zsinj^Talk 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot doesn't care. As long as all images with the tag are in at least one of the direct subcategories of Category:Images with unknown copyright status or Category:Images with unknown source, it works properly. --Carnildo 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I just notice a comment in the templates stating that the inclusion in the top cat is to prevent mis-dated images from getting lost. I've asked for Sherool's opinion, but it seems to me that those images are basically lost anyway since the top parent cat is prohibitively large. I still propose removing the second cat inclusion, or possibly just changing it to a new category that is not the parent of the daily categories, like Category:Images with unknown copyright status all dates (though I'm not sure such a category has any use right now). ×Meegs 05:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well for the "no license" variant Gmaxwell have some things on the toolserver that list items that have been tagged for more than 7 days (when the toolserver database is up to date anyway). "Lost" images can be tracked down via that one, and I'm sure something simmilar could easily be made for the "no source" batch (maybe a "lost no souce or no license" report). Acording to Gmaxwell having the single category with everyting in it makes writing various toolserver tools a lot easier because you just need one database querry to find all the images and then just filter by timestap of last edit or whatever. That said I do agree that the images need not be displayed in the main category. "Hiding" them away in some subcategory for the benefit of automated tools and statistics would work just fine and leave the main category more "human friendly" and less bandwidth wastefull. --Sherool (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me too, as long as it works ok with Gmaxwells's tool, it would be nice not to have the whole list load every time :) - cohesion^t 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Per-day categories cause an unacceptable load on the toolserver. Heres why, fir the query must find the categories, this either involves a recursive walk of the category tree or an unindexed scan of all categories. Then it must perform N (one per day category) lookups and obtain their union. Even if you form a query that looks like foo=1 or foo=2 or foo=3, MySQL usually isn't smart enough to do the right thing.. in fact such queries often cause it to seqscan the entire category table. The result is that it's *much* slower to query for a bunch of day categories then it is to just query for a general category. I'm pretty hesitant to put up any such query for realtime use.. although I could make it cached. One question from me, though, is... Why are we using per-day categories at all? It would be pretty trivial to put up a generalized date-limited category viewer... I just haven't done it because every application thus far has had cause for some additional restrictions (for example, the orphaned images report checks to see if the images actually look orphaned). --Gmaxwell 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal of eliminating the by-day categories aside for a moment, how about removing the images from Category:Images with unknown copyright status and adding them all to a new subcategory Category:Images with unknown copyright status for all dates? It would be a one-line change in your code, a one-line change in the template, and would dramatically speed-up the heavy-traffic parent cat for human visitors. ×Meegs 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah unless having both the one in all category and the by-day categories is a problem (don't see why it would be, just ignore the by-day categories when doing querries) I think the by day categories is at least a good backup solution for those times when the toolserver database lag behind by over a day (wich seems to be happening a lot lately, though down to just 6 hours right now). Another benefit of the category is that it allow you to identify easy to fix images at a glance (albumcovers and logos uploaded as "don't know" for example, although I guess a thumbnailed list can be created on the toolserver too. Anyway as long as one method does not interfere with the other I don't see a reason to not simply use both. Keep the by day subcats for casual users and for those times the toolserver is slow or lag behind, and keep the all in one "supercategory" for the toolserver list. The idea is simply to change the category all images are dumped into from the main category to a sub-category since humans have little use from browsing it anyway. If toolserver stability improve we can always get rid of the by-day categories at a later date. --Sherool (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Subcats don't solve it because they leave me with the same N lookups problem. If I am to avoid putting undue load on toolserver what we would need to do is put both category:foo and category:foo_by_day on the images or just category:foo and use on toolserver. However, toolserver is darn near completely and totally unmaintained, so I can't make any promises about the availability of anything there. --Gmaxwell 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Our idea is to still have a single flat category with all of the images in it, we just don't want that category to be Category:Images with unknown source anymore. Instead of holding images, we want the top cat to merely hold the by-day cats (for on-wiki human browsing) and a single new cat with no subcategories, Category:Images with unknown copyright status for all dates, which holds the union of all days' images (solely for the use of your tools). The only change to your tools would be the name of the single category, I think. ×Meegs 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind getting rid of the by day at all really, the only reason I like it is that it mirrors the no source system. Are there any plans to make a no source tool on the toolserver? If we went to an all-toolserver solution for no license I would want to for no source as well, but that might just be my craziness and maybe should be ignored :D I don't know that we really need to think of casual users that much in this situation, because I'm not really sure casual readers need any easy ability to see date-based categorization of these images. I think the toolserver is a better method, I would just like it to be used across the board. - cohesion^t 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough. I'll come back when I've built some thing.

Hmm, Gmaxwell seems to have gone and deleted all his tools in protest over the recent database replication problems. Hopefully the problems will be fixed and he will recreate the tools, but in the meantime I guess we can safely move the images now without fear of breaking any tools seeing as they are already broken at the moment :( I'll just be bold and create Category:All images with unknown copyright status, and modify the template to stuff all the images in there. It will probably take a while for the job que to propegate the change to all tagged images, but they should all end up in there eventaly, leaving the main cat with just the various subcats and a few templates and what not. --Sherool (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Argh, that's terrible about the toolserver :( - cohesion^t 06:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. On an unrelated issue, the cats are now a joy to navigate (even with a few subst'd stragglers). ×Meegs 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Extending template

I added the following clause "...or is being published by Wikimedia with [[:Template:Fairusein|a generic claim of "fair use"]], but no Wikimedia user has provided a [[Wikipedia:Image description page|fair use rationale]].". I suggest that there really isn't an appreciable difference between uploading media with unknown or incompatible licensing and doing the same thing but adding Template:Fairusein without explanation. I further suggest that this is in line with Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #10. Of course, if other editors have a lot of concern about this, I'll be happy to discuss the issue further. Jkelly 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, probably a good idea, our policy does require a rationale after all, probably about time we started enforcing that. Not to dissimilar to what I have been doing with "free use" images that lack proof to back up such licenses for a while now. I'm sure someone will protest, if for no other reason than this not having been discussed at length first, but it seems fairly reasonable to me. Have simply orphanding (and taggign as orphanded) such images been tried though? Much like unreferenced claims are routinely removed from article text, images wihout fair use rationales should be removed from the article. If people care enough about the image a (hopefully good) rationale will probably materialise fairly quickly, if not it will be deleted as an orphan. Sure there might be some revert wars, but it might help raise awarenes of the problem among the general population faster than just "nagging" the (potentialy inactive) uploader to provide a rationale). Anyway just be carefull not to use the "standard" {{image copyright}} message after tagging such images, the text doesn't mention fair use rationales anywhere and would probably just confuse people. --Sherool (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. Jkelly 16:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we missed a step here. If not having a FU rationale is now a speedy, then the thing to do is redirect {{Fairuse}} to this tag. Otherwise, you just rendered as speedies thousands of images that would not otherwise have been. -Splash^talk 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What I would really like to do is to come up with a way to respect, within reason, our general conservativism about image deletion while also closing the loophole by which applying Template:Fairuse or Template:Fairusein short-circuits our standard image cleanup processes. What I am trying to do is to integrate already-existing policy (WP:FUC 10) into those cleanup processes, and I am not at all invested in what mechanism we choose to use. I suggest that redirecting those "fair use" templates to a deletion template might make a really big mess; I think we should have the onus be on a user to discern that the image description page lacks sufficient licensing and so tag it.

That said, there have been conversations about extending WP:CSD to cover these images (there is currently a brief one at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, and there was a mailing-list thread about it a couple of weeks ago). That's certainly one way to go -- to treat these, um, "un-rationalised" images as an entirely new category for deletion, instead of my suggestion to treat them like any other image with insufficient licensing information. Another alternative would be to find out whether one ofUser:Carnildo's bots could somehow identify those images lacking a rationale and orphan them, thereby bringing them back into our deletion process, but it isn't immediately obvious to me how the bot would be able to discern what was a rationale and what wasn't. Comments? Jkelly 16:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for lowering the barriers to removing "un-rationalised" FU images, but agree with Splash: this is far too large a step to take without wider discussion. Since template talk doesn't attract much attention, I'd suggest opening a topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use or Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags to discuss whether anything can be done in lieu of expanding CSD. Even if the community OKs the speedy deletion of images with insufficient fair use rationale, I'd suggest creating a different template for it (even one that feeds the same categories) just to keep the explanatory text in the template as clean and direct as possible. As a stopgap, I've noticed that the process Sherool described — pulling the images from articles and tagging them {{or-fu}} — has become quite popular in dealing with these problems. I imagine that process also has the nice effect of focusing the discussion of the image's fair use on the article, not the image. ×Meegs 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, User:Ta bu shi da yu has made a proposal, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment, suggesting a parallel deletion process for these sorts of images. It would not apply retroactively, though. ×Meegs 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should have another template for informing uploaders about this seperate from the current one, even adding the information to the current one, I think, is a bad idea. It's too long for most people to read as is. - cohesion 06:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot?

The bot could easily do the job. OrphanBot's already tagging new uploads that have a {{fairuse}} or {{Non-free fair use in}} tag but do not include the words "fairuse" or "fair use" outside of the template as {{no license}} (I think; it's very rare for new uploads to use a generic "fair use" tag, so that bit of code hasn't been triggered yet). For a full-scale cleanup of Category:Fair use images, the set of phrases it looks for would have to be fine-tuned a bit.

There are approximately 16,000 images tagged as "fair use" or "fair use in", with about 25% having a fair use rationale. At a rough estimate, it would take OrphanBot 130 hours to deal with the category. --Carnildo 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the false positive ratio would be after the fine tuning? Jkelly 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fairly low. There are a few words and phrases that pretty much have to be in any valid rationale, and a few that are in any rationale, valid or otherwise. --Carnildo 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply orphaning every one of those images would end up with the deletion of the ones that didn't get replaced, correct? Is there any obvious downside to that approach as a preliminary run-through? Jkelly 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

People will be upset, but the tag is clearly deprecated and unhelpful, so I don't know what actual downside there would be. It would be nice to have that category cleaned up. I would suggest not doing a full run at once with orphanbot, just so it doesn't overload the deletion process. This could also serve as a trial run etc. (I'm not sure Carnildo would want to do the whole 130 hour run at once anyway, but I thought I'd mention it). - cohesion 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just remember to modity the bot to add {{subst:orfud}} to the image after orphanding it, the regular orphan tagging bot (Roomba) is out of commission untill the toolserver's database starts getting data from enwiki again, so it can not be relied upon to pick up orphanded images at this time (and it will probably have more than enough backlog to catch up on as it is when it comes back online). --Sherool (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)