Wikipedia talk:Fixing non-free image problems

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fixing non-free image problems page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Minimal usage

... isn't just about counting the number of images.

It's about being sure that no more is/are being used than are needed to achieve the purpose being identified.

Sometimes even one image is not going to be considered "minimal" (if it doesn't add anything over what's there in the text).

On the other hand, there may be cases where a considerable number of images are appropriate -- eg if the images themselves are the subject of the article; have no significant commercial value; and if no representative subset can be chosen that conveys the same degree of understanding. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I'll add a footnote to the text to that effect; feel free to move or rework it to make it more clear. 28bytes (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales aren't the be-all and end-all

I think it's worth stressing that merely adding a rationale does not suddenly mean that all of the other criteria are met. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point; I'll add some text that addresses that. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, like when an editor decides unilaterally that an article has "too many" fair use images, and then clobbers all of them. There's no getting around the "I don't like it" mentality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

Redirects to articles are valid for rationales. it only becomes a problem if that redirect later becomes something else (aka Dab page) ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that info, I'll correct that. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, the reference to the article where the file is being used does not have to be a link, plain text is just as valid. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will note that. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A third note, do not use "Fair Use" our policy is called non-free content NFC is far far more strict than fair use, we (those who work with enforcing it) always try to refer to it as non-free. (causes less confusion). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the one instance I saw that wasn't in the section copied from Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (figured that section should be consistent with its source.) 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

I have started a channel on IRC, #NFCCCompliance. I am running a script in there which reports edits to pages with unrationalised non-free material / additions of non-free media where the rationale is not yet there. There are generally not many people there (the bot is there continuous) - but it might be worth a) to have more people who want to help there, and make that channel known as an alternative way of getting help with FURs. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea to me. I'm all for posting it. The more eyes and help on this issue the better I think. — Ched : ? 08:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]