The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

No consensus to implement change in usage - the change as noted was a result of one or more WP:BOLD edits. The discussion concerning those edits (per WP:BRD) would appear to be this RFC. The result of this discussion is that there is no consensus to support implementing those BOLD edits, and and so as a result this template is to be reverted to its previous state prior to the BOLD edits until consensus is formed for the change in usage. (Which I'll do after formatting this closure.) - jc37 17:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reverted to the edit timestamped 05:31, 10 June 2010 - If there have been intervening template improvements since then which are unrelated to this RfC, please feel free to discuss or be bold as appropriate. - jc37 18:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

From 2005 until recently, this template was added to file pages when the non-free status of the file was being discussed. In May this year it was edited so that it could be added to articles. The RfC question is: should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

• Support reverting to the pre-May 2013 version and using the template only on file pages.

  Editors who oppose the use of certain files have recently started adding this to the articles themselves, perhaps if they fail to gain consensus for their changes. The template is disfiguring, there is no benefit in alerting readers to the discussion, attempts to remove the templates are reverted, and in some cases they seem to have been on the article for months. For example, it was added to Kate Bush in August 2013 and is still there. It was added to Red Hot Chili Peppers in July, even though the discussion about the file(s) has been stale since then. It is much better for this template to be posted only on file pages, or perhaps also on article talk pages, so that editors, not readers, are alerted. The presentation of articles shouldn't be affected by backroom discussion about file policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is...the files were all added to the Non Free content review page [1] and no consensus has formed. Same thing with the Red Hot Chili Peppers which contain 10 non free files and Kate Bush that has 6. Either we allow such templates to be shown on the actual article itself, or we just close these discussions and use them as new precedence for going nuts with non free files anywhere we want. It is not just a call for community input, but a disclaimer to readers that there is an issue with so many non free files on the article. Some things I don't think need to be on the main article page and we have discussed such issues before, but this time I can't help but think this is a net plus for these situations. At least as long as the problems exist, they seem serious enough for the template.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If the overall usage of non-free on a single article is a problem (where the ultimate goal is not to delete all the images which would be done at FFD, but to determine which ones are really appropriate), then the whole article should be discussed, particularly in light of WP:NFCC#3a which considers the number of non-free used in any single article. Thus, allowing the template to be added to articles makes complete sense. The only reason it stays on for so long is that we have had difficulty getting non-involved admins closing out NFCR discussions, as we don't set a timeline on when they should be readily closed (as one would at FFD). Additionally, if you place it on images only , most editors of affected articles would be unaware of the discussion. It is no different than normal maintenance templates that last for months or years on articles. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is the best method for notifying those interested that issues have been raised and a discussion is ongoing about the non-free files in the article. Werieth (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you say why it's the best method? Editors watching the article could be alerted via the article talk page. Editors watching the file page will see it there. Alerting readers to the discussion by posting the template on the article itself serves no purpose. Unlike an NPOV tag, where it could be argued that readers should be told about a neutrality issue, there is no benefit to readers to be told that an editor disagrees with a non-free-use rationale. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually NFCR tag highlights in some cases where excessive non-free files may be unsupportable via fair use and that can increase the risk to those readers who want to re-use our content. Also most users do not watch the files associated with an article. One example is that of ((FFDC)) for highlighting the issue. A talk page note may be effective, but I have found that the most effective method is a note directly on the article. Werieth (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, Werieth, you know that's stretching the argument to breaking point. Readers don't need to be told that there's a non-free-use discussion in case they want to reuse our content. Article tags are meant to be used as a last resort, not as a first resort, and only for issues that readers might genuinely need to know about, e.g. that there is a neutrality issue, or a sourcing problem, or that we know the article is poorly written and would appreciate help with it. This tag doesn't fit into any of those categories. This is an editor-only tag.

  Also, a separate issue is that the templates aren't being removed when the discussion goes stale, so they're becoming permanent monuments to one person's disagreement with the use of a file. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-involved admins have to close the discussion, we've only recently gotten around to getting a few non-involved admins to handle that on a regular basis. That hopefully will prevent 2-month-stale discussions from lingering. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, NFCR can end in image deletion. Since deletion tags are placed on article space, it makes sense that a tag about potential deletion seems extremely important to have on the main page. Mind you, personally, I would accept having it as an article talk page tag, as long as at the end of the day editors don't come screaming back to NFC cleanup admins that delete images and yell at them for not being adequetely notified even though it was on a talk page they watched (yes, this happens). --MASEM (t) 23:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reverting to the pre-May 2013 version and using the template only on file pages. Arbitrarily creating procedures and guidelines without discussion short circuits the collaborative process that is at the heart of Wikipedia principles and is never a good idea, I don't care how good the reasons are. These discussions needed to take place before the template was altered or implemented, and from the rationales I've read here I get a bad odor about how this went down without any on-Wiki discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note: the process was already there of bringing page-wide issues to NFCR before this change of template (see below), so we're not talking a new process, only a means of better notification. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything that affects the appearance of a main page needs to be discussed in a wider forum. See this discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, ^{[citation needed]}? That is a bogus argument. Anyone can add maintenance to any article - assuming they justify the reason for them. You don't need previous consensus for this. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not making a policy argument; I'm making a best-practice argument. Images are stored at Commons; if they're not legal, that's the place to bring it up, as well as notify the uploader, not in the article it's used in. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, no. Non-free images are stored on en.wiki. And there's no such thing as best-practices when it comes to adding maintenance tags to articles - they have been long-accepted as additions that anyone can make without having to seek consensus as long as the problem s valid. And if we only notified on the image pages, then when they were removed from the article they were used on, we would get an earful. That's why we started tagging articles where multiple image problems existed so that lack of visibility of image problems wouldn't be an issue. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, OK, on en.wiki then. My point stands; there's no need to crap up a main page. If you don't know what the phrase "best practice" means ask somebody. Are you saying you (whoever "we" is supposed to represent) are not getting "an earful" now, but that if the template wasn't there you would? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Crap up the page"? I will assume that any closing admin will disregard that post as irrelevant. "we" are the community as a whole. Perhaps you can ask someone if you are unaware of what that means? Also, Masem is correct and you seem unclear on how Wikipedia stores and uses Non-free images--Mark Miller (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I am relatively ignorant of the mechanics of the use and storage of non-free images, but I am trying to catch up. And the use of "we" on this page and WP:NFR sounds exclusionary to my ears. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is...it is used as "inclusionary" wording. It is isn't "I" or "me". It is "we" as a community. I appreciate that you are catching up to the NFC guidelines and procedures, but the "we" issue is a non argument, regardless...--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "we" should refer to the community as a whole; you miss my point, which is that the use of it by the three main deleters does not appear to reflect that gloss, but is more a rhetorical assumption that they speak for WP as a whole. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the policy, not the participants. And no, there's far more than three people involved; the entire point of this template is to get MORE people involved, which is why the entire idea to not use it on article pages makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read up to my comment that started this sidetrack, you will see that this rabbit hole we're digging has yet to answer my question. And wanting more participants in the discussion is incompatible with wanting to avoid "getting an earful", which is what you say is one of the motivations for tagging the main article page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We want to invite participation at the discussion about specific NFC problems, instead of having the NFC problems be resolved without little participation, and then get the earful of editors that bitch about not having been alerted to the problem to contribute or fix it (which is what happened in the case mentioned with the ArbCom case from Dec 2012. Yes, getting more at the point to discuss specific NFC programs may generate heated discussion, but that at least is good discussion that resolves the NFC problem, instead of the type of discussion that becomes more personal and angsty when it becomes about the "failed" process. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Yes, it would, as if we could not place the template on the article, and did the removal discussion on the individual file pages with some being agreed for removal, then when they were suddenly removed from the article in question, editors would be going WTF and claiming a backdoor process, despite process being followed. This is why we want these discussions to be a lot more visible. (And in terms of best practices, I'm well aware that there are editors that deplore the use of maintenance tags, but their practice and use has been validated by consensus over and over again.) --MASEM (t) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Per Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's not always practical to discuss NFC usage on a file by file basis, especially if there might be issues with WP:NFCC#3a. In that case, in order to determine the validity of a single NFC use, other NFC on the same page needs to be taken into consideration and then placing the template onto an article page makes perfect sense. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Slim Virgin, isn't appropriate except as in its original intention - added to file pages that lead to direct discussion...Modernist (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so adding it to article pages where there is a larger NFC problem and that links to direct discussion isn't appropriate either? --MASEM (t) 12:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is unusual for me to be in agreement with SV. I am having difficulty believing what I am reading here "Thus, allowing the template to be added to articles makes complete sense" (User:Masem), "This is the best method for notifying those interested" (user:Werieth) an "placing the template onto an article page makes perfect sense" (User:Toshio Yamaguchi). Article space is for article content it is not for inter-editor communications — that is what talk pages are for. I think that those who are making these bold statements are getting too involved in the editorial process and forgetting the raison d'être for the existence of an article and that most people who are reading an article are not at all interested in editorial chitchat on how to improve the page which has absolutely nothing to do with the information they came to the page to find. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is conflicting the issue of having any tags (maintenance, whatnot) on the article page instead of the talk page. That itself is a whole other matter, and if it were the case that it was determined that these tags should only be at the article talk page, I would be completely behind making this at the talk page as well. But as long as consensus upholds that maintenance and tags like AFD and PROD are placed on the article page and not talk page, then this template needs to be used there too. But fighting that battle has nothing to do with this template on its own. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No it is not conflating the issue. Your comment reminds me of a question put to Yossarian in Catch 22 when he announces he does not want to fly missions because people are shooting at him, "suppose everyone felt that way." to which he replies "Then, I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?".Justifying doing something because others do it not useful. As SV pointed out above some (a very few) templates such as ((unreferenced)) serve a dual purpose of warning readers and informing editors. This message like ((Dead end)) serve no purpose for readers and should go on the talk page if anywhere. There consensus over this issue, and even guidance on it Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. The trouble is in the detail a person can create a template with any old message in it which would get them banned for vandalism it if were added as text, and then argue that it should not be deleted because there is no clear consensus to delete it. So the only way to reduce this type of article space pollution is one template at a time. You comment "Thus, allowing the template to be added to articles makes complete sense" without then explaining why, is typical of the arguments put forward to keep an editor to editor message in a template in article space, but you have not explained why it makes complete sense (as if objecting to it is senseless). The most rational reason I have seen by the proponents is the one about informing editor. Well in that case hold the conversations on the talk page of the article instead of somewhere else -- If you have to hold it in two places them use transclusance -- that really is not a good reason to pollute article space and is I think another example of a justification that forgets the raison d'être for the existence articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a conflating issue: the point is - if you don't want any or only limited maintenance templates on articles, this is not the venue to fix that (VPP or similar would be appropriate). Currently, consensus say they can be used on article space, so we can't refute that in this discussion, which more specifically that if there are non-free image problems with an article as a whole, should this template be placed for notification or should it only be placed on image pages. Mind you, I'm not ignorant of the problems some see with these tags and the pernenial push to move them to talk space, but you're not going to change that practice via this singular template discussion. And a thinkg to remember: we want readers to become editors, so informing them of problems they can solve or offer there opinion on is something I would think we would want them to see. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a conflating issue: the point is - if you don't want any or only limited maintenance templates on articles

I don't see anybody arguing that red herring.

Currently, consensus say they can be used on article space,

This discussion is about the use of one template, for which revision and use there no consensus has been determined. That might change as the result of this survey, but fallacious arguments are unhelpful in moving toward that happy outcome. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except PBS brought in mention of other templates that they considered to be unhelpful (like ((dead end))) even though consensus allows for these. The only way to start discussion on this template's use on article pages is to assume that (as current consensus gives) that maintenance templates are accepted at article pages. If they weren't accepted, this RFC would have been over already as that wouldn't be allowed in the first place. That's why this specific argument conflating the issue. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not a maintenance tag. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a true "maintenance" tag but it falls into the same class of tags that alert readers and editors to problems under discussion, just like with PROD, AFD, and merge requests. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is guidance against them so how is it you say "Currently, consensus say they can be used on article space" where has this general consensus ever been shown to exist? And as any journey has to start with a first step why not start with this template? So where is the consensus for this one to be displayed in article space? Thirdly you have not answered my specific question of what benefit is there for anyone to display this information in article space and not on the talk page. As to your point "we want readers to become editors, so informing them of problems they can solve or offer there opinion on is something I would think we would want them to see." again I think you are looking at it from an editor's perspective not a reader's perspective. The way to reach out and touch someone is not in the content space of an article (but for example in the panes that surround article space). -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't guidance against them: WP:TAGGING encourages their use, so that's blatantly false. If you feel the problem with with maintenance tags as a whole that should be on talk pages than article pages, you don't start with one template, you tackle the problem as a whole, otherwise, you're being WP:POINTY. And the idea of any of these tags is to encourage readers to become editors and help - the core of an open wiki - and that is the reason to put them front and center where they can be seen. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your write "No there isn't guidance against them WP:TAGGING encourages their use" TAGGING is a essay, not a guideline did you not notice the mention of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid (which is a guideline). So now you accuse me of being disruptive (POINTY)! Is this a tactic you use often? Do you find it helps in building a consensus with the person with whom you are having conversation? Are you gong to address the question "what benefit is there for anyone to display this information in article space and not on the talk page?" -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When people make false claims about consensus (in this case, your claim that maintenance tags are discouraged, which they are not), you have to argue against those points. This is also about the fact that NFC is a lot more important than most people think it is. It and BLP are the only two policies dictated by the Foundation that we have some form up, and the fact that people are pissing all over an attempt to make the NFC process more open is an insult to the project. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose proposal but set a 7-day time limit on the discussion and require a non-involved, experienced editor to close any discussion that isn't obviously "keep" or "remove." This would change this into a de-facto XfD where "X" is the Fair-use-rationale given for the use of a particular image or group of images in a particular article or articles (if we can't agree what an "experienced editor" is, then we can default to "administrator" until we can agree). I would Support reverting to the May 2013 version of this template if a new template and/or process were created to duplicate how this template is used on article pages now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do want to avoid making NFCR a new xFD process, as the goal, more often than not, is to remove mis-uses of images that otherwise have valid uses in other articles. As such, there is no race to close these discussions like there is for AFD or FFD. I would agree with a better time limit - maybe not 7 days but 14 days or 4 weeks with the ability to close earlier if consensus is clear in limited cases. Part of the problem as I explain below is that NFCR's use has exploded (as we hoped) since the start of this year, but we haven't had regular uninvolved admins to maintain closures to meet that. That's getting better, and totally agree that languishing cases that sit there for 3 months is not what NFCR was envisioned to do. I just don't think 7 days is necessary the best length. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If users aren't informed that there is a discussion, then they will complain that they weren't informed after the discussion has been closed. I don't see a problem with moving the tag to the talk page as long as similar tags, such as ((afd)) and ((db-g12)), also are moved at the same time. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Slim Virgin and Tom' Reedy's arguments, which are, I might, an expression of long experience in building articles with a strong attention to the design and aesthetics of pages. NFC, NFC. Well, a very large number of people volunteers months and years of their time to read in depth and build the content of the article on the basis of reliable sources, and their collective work becomes 'free content', though it could never be there without an extraordinary act of generosity. This template is coercively ungenerous, and goes against the kind of spirit that activates scholars and amateur researchers of high calibre to work on wikipedia, for free. If a template, whose modification will affect a very large number of articles potentially, was changed without very widespread community discussion, there is something deeply wrong in the process, and the normal rule of thumb is to revert until that wider input and consensus is obtained. This is necessary to avoid the impression (I get here) as modified, all that is happening is that it catapults into centre article stage the interests of technicians who are prepossessed by it in the first place: it has all the hallmarks, whatever the intent, of a technie's legup into the limelight. Far too invasive.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is , presently only being used on ~25 article space pages. That's not a very large number of articles. And non-free content is a core principle of WP - the Foundation wants up to build free content and reduce non-free, and thus getting readers and editors' attention to help is critical towards that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been involved handling numerous examples where a minor edit on one page is read as setting a precedent which, if established, would lead automatically, to its extension to several hundred pages. In several key cases, this was resolved by extensive cross community input. I gather that the template was altered without adequate discussion, sets a precedent, and the RfC here has evoked little response (that also happened in the area I work). A structural change which has implications for the whole encyclopedia would on principle require extensive consultation before it is enacted. Probably this RfC is wrongly named. If it were rephrased generically as 'RfC: May templates be altered without consultation, when the alteration may have significant ramifications over wikipedia articles'. I volunteer here because it's one of the last bastions of civic democracy, and that is my primary concern.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if we consider the change in template, the previous version of this template was still used on article pages, so it's not so much the change of template that some are against but simply it's being used like a maintenance tag. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The issue of "Free content" is an important one but it looks a WP:POINT. Modifing a template that affects that much the appereance of articles in order to alert the community of a problem is not the right way to proceed. At least a wider consensus for this modification should be obtained before. Even better: if there is really that much not-free content on these articles (which I don't know) this should be discussed in these articles case by case. Pluto2012 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this template is to alert readers and editors of a problem with two or more non-free images on page, directing them to a section at WP:NFCR to discuss that matter for that page. So we are trying to bring discussion on those issues to a central point with the template. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of us, well at least me, are not as intelligent or comprehensively capable as Slim Virgin to cover all angles on wikipedia. To the pure practical content editor, the work load of extensive reading, and, as often as not, handling extenuating disputes on the talk page, leaves little if any time for examining highly technical issues like those to do with images. What this does is showcase what might fascinate you and a few others, but looks distractive ('ugh! not another fucking problem on the plate! and now I have to do a course in copyright, as I had to on uploading files, and before that on software')threatening to hands-on article writers. None of you seem to extend any empathy with this quite legitimate perspective. It's a highly technical issue, requiring specialized knowledge, and one shouldn't push it onto our already excessive workload. I'm just a peon of course, but I think people who unilaterally act and create a problem, calling on us to look their way,at something they find fascinating, lack empathy. Excuse me for this, but the comments here go no way towards understanding that the disgruntlement at a unilateral measure which may exercise an impact on articles we write is well grounded. None of the many technicians who help me, when I ask or not, have ever told me to learn their trade, or get interested in it. They sort problems out collegially, act by consensus, and don't ride roughshod over the rest of us.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • NFC is not a highly technical issue, but it is an issue every editor must known about if they intend to work with non-free media; there may be some cases where determining the actual copyright of a work can be difficult to determine but the bulk of images in use will have typically clear copyright or not. But the core of NFC is not the technical part about copyright, it is on the subjective nature of using non-free and whether they can be replaced or reduced. That needs opinions. Past problems with NFC that, while following the process to the letter, have been the subject of complaints of being too behind-the-scenes and lacking input, and hence the need to get more input on a subjective process. The complaint that the template is distracting is, again, a bogus argument given that maintenance and deletion templates are readily accessed by consensus on article pages, which are just as distracting and take maybe even more technical knowledge to correct. If you don't want these templates overall, that's a different RFC. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Tagging articles reduce overtagging images of the same article, obviously. If you revert back to the pre-2005 version, then I must tag such images without attracting readers very much, or tag one too many. Tagging more than one non-free image of the same page is less convenient than tagging one article that has only one image. Also, not everyone goes to talk pages discussing lesser known topics, like images or audios. George Ho (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" not everyone goes to talk pages discussing lesser known topics, like images or audios"...yes...and that is the exact point.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The identification of non-free media should not disfigure the article content, particularly when that content is encyclopedic and accurate. The vast majority of readers are interested in the content of an article rather than editorial issues. Talk pages, tags, forums all provides outlets for editorial adjustments while keeping the articles unencumbered of these elements until consensus results in editorial change. Beyond this, there is simply no compelling reason to change the template or how it is used. My recommendation is to revert to the pre-May 2013 modus operandi and have a broader discussion to clearly establish whether a change is needed. Factchecker25 (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you need to argue to remove all maintenance tags, not just this one, from articles. It makes no sense to isolate one tag as a problem if you believe all such tags are (which is what you are arguing). --MASEM (t) 01:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• To note that the reason this was changes was that after a bunch of mass image deletions late last year and early this year that went straight from the article page to FFD, there was a push to have a better place to discuss questionable image use that did not necessary mean deletion as a solution. WP:NFCR existed before this point but it was decided to use it more to handle such cases earlier in this year. As such, when articles with what an editor believed to be excess non-free was encountered, the best solution to make sure that the people involved with the article to see what was happening was to tag the article. The template was only changes to make the template text read appropriately depending on its context. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where changing the template was discussed? It's a pretty major change to start highlighting non-free discussions to readers (who won't care about these issues), rather than to editors on file or talk pages, so it's something that should have had consensus before being done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers care about these issues, they just don't comment or edit, so they walk away with "Man...Wikipedia is messed up. Look how they allow all these copyright issues". The average encyclopedia user is at least aware that we use free files. If they don't this will certainly be educational for them. I am not one of those editors that believes in a strict line between editor and reader.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers care about these issues, they just don't comment or edit, so they walk away with "Man...Wikipedia is messed up. Look how they allow all these copyright issues". Really? Where and when was this poll taken? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the place where it was changed: I note the change was from "The usage of this non-free media on Wikipedia is under review for compliance with our policies on non-free content." to "The usage of non-free media on this page is under review for its compliance with the policies regarding non-free content." (emphasis mine) That's where it was realized the tag was used in two modes (file and article), and that would be followed by this series of edits to have context-sensitive messages for that.

Now, to go back a bit more, I do want to point out that putting articles under NFCR has been done before changing this template, eg: from mid-2011 or 2010 Mind you, from what I can determine, I don't see any use of this template (in its former wording) when those were brought for discussion. Even an article-level issue at mid-2012 didn't seem to use the template. I'd have to do a lot of history digging to get the timing, but again, I stress that NFCR has been pushed as an option to have discussions and prevent frivolous image deletions that may affect a whole page or several pages (as I recall, and I'd need to dig a lot, this came about after a bunch of Simpsons episode screenshots were removed, and it was not such much that they were appropriate images, but the issue of how many eyes really saw that discussion - this was at an arbcom case about the editor here [2], Dec 2012, so that should give an idea of the timing). So all of the most recent NFCR activity over the last year has been about getting more eyeballs on these issues. Thus the reason that people started adopting - without any real discussion of that practice - this NFCR template to make sure that image problems at the article level were seen by those working on the articles -- all to try to avoid similar problems with something like the above ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. It seems the template was changed without any discussion at all, in which case it really ought to be changed back until you gain consensus. This isn't a minor issue, because it could mean that every article containing non-free content ends up being tagged. Given that we're meant to be focusing on editor retention, and that this is exactly the kind of thing that drives editors away, it's something that should be thought about carefully before going ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was some discussion, and given that we're here, let's wait to see what the results are. But I am going to point out, this action is basically more crap that people trying to maintain the NFC policy are getting. We're trying to get more people involved in discussions, so that we avoid making NFC look like a dictatorship as has been claimed before - tagging an article with NFC problems to do that, and yet this template is being pissed on. Seriously. Now, as I've said, I've no problem with the alternative of being a talk page header, as long as people don't complain that an action was taken on a page, and they weren't notified, but I suspect that will happen anyway. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, the way to avoid making NFC look like a dictatorship is more discussions like these. And you're right: people are gonna bitch anyway, because to them your template is pissing all over their article. If you want to avoid that you're in the wrong place. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People that believe these types of templates are pissing all over their article need to realize they are accepted practice to put them on articles and learn how to do appropriate steps in the article to clean up and remove the template. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to SV's question, "can you point to where changing the template was discussed?", is no, because there was no discussion.

"Thus the reason that people started adopting ..." What people? If you know their reason surely you know who they are.

"... to make sure that image problems at the article level were seen by those working on the articles". The talk page is the place for that, as has been stated. I doubt we want editors who don't read the talk page. Otherwise I suppose we should post a notice of this RfC on the mainpage of every article that has an image tagged as potentially non-free. It makes perfect sense that the readers and editors of those articles might want to be in this discussion also. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only time the template is used on article space is if there are two or problematic images of non-free in the article (which might include all the images if there too many). The number of articles this is the case is very small but not minimal; the bulk of non-free use out there is fine. But as this is an RFC, it is being automatically advertised in the normal places. And yes, I sure know who the people are - it's the regulars at NFCR/NFC that were trying to make a better jesture of getting more discussion involved. It wasn't an invisible process. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the original intent was for the betterment of WP; all actions have unintended and unpredictable consequences (ask Jimbo about WP:V). I think that this particular issue could be solved and put in the can by the simple expedient of limiting the tag use to the article talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which way would reverting the template back an improvement of anything? What harm does the template do in it's current form? I've used it many times without any problems. If the appearance of this tag an article namespace is problematic, how is it different than all the other cleanup templates which are being placed on articles, i.e. those at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly a lot of those tags should be on the talk page also. Some alert the reader that the article may not be accurate or neutral; others are apologies to the reader for the poor quality of the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving cleanup tags to the talk page is a perennial proposal (see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages). Such a change would require a fundamental shift in Wikipedia culture (which I say from my experience isn't going to happen). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I did not know that page existed! Still doesn't mean some of them should be moved to the talk page. When I'm elected WP king I'll make those needed changes, while banishing into obscurity those who insist on making unneeded changes. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See theWikipedia talk:Perennial proposals The presentation of "maintenance tags to talk pages" is biased. It implies that there has been consensus that "maintenance tags" should be used. This has never been consensus on this issue other than for those for such as ((unreferenced)) which also provide useful information for readers. -- PBS (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few editors are taking part in discussions at WP:NFCR. It seems to be mostly Masem, Toshio Yamaguchi, Stefan2 and Werieth, who support each other's positions, plus the editors who are forced to turn up to defend their work. Discussions are going stale without being closed; articles are being tagged and the tags are being left on them long-term. At least one obvious sockpuppet has turned up to tag. When uninvolved editors try to remove the tags, they're reverted. It's not a good situation.

The upshot of the low partication, and the extreme interpretation of policy, is that we're allowed to host thousands of images of penises, but have to spend days arguing to keep Madeleine McCann's right eye, which one academic has said is one of the most widely published images of the last decade. It isn't rational. The policies have to be interpreted in a way that's rational and shows common sense (and empathy too). Without those we're rules bots, and rules-lawyering is one of the main reasons content contributors are feeling discouraged. So I hope everyone will try to step back and look at the implications of this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Only a few editors are taking part in discussions at WP:NFCR."

I'd be more than happy if more people participated and NFCR.

"It seems to be mostly Masem, Toshio Yamaguchi, Stefan2 and Werieth, who support each other's positions ...."

This is an unfounded assumption of bad faith. I don't care whether the editor I am having a conversation with is Masem, Stefan, Werieth or 109.36.45.215. What matters for me is that the non-free media the project uses is compliant with policy, that's why I am participating in the NFCR discussions.

I would appreciate if you could back up further such accusations with diffs supporting your arguments. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussions are going stale without being closed; articles are being tagged and the tags are being left on them long-term."

I previously pointed out this issue on the talk page. I would prefer if discussions would be closed, say 7 days after the last comment in the thread took place, if at the time of the closure the issues with the non-free media have been resolved or can easily be solved by the closing editor. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The upshot of the low partication, and the extreme interpretation of policy...."

I tried to get more people involved with the NFCC business more than once, all without success. If you have an idea of how to get more edits involved with NFC matters, I'd be more than happy to help developing it. Regarding the claim of "extreme interpretation of policy", NFCC enforcement is a controversial issue. What you regard as extreme others might not see that way. I think since the Betacommand era, most NFCC enforcement has been quite conservative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much of our NFC approach is probably policy wonk at time; arguably, what we call NFC problems is clearly within US fair use law, we're never going to be sued for what we are using because of the educational transformation. But, it is important policy wonk because we are trying to bring the encyclopedia towards the ideal goal of a free content work. Understanding where non-free is being used in a manner that can be reduced and where the situation may not be obvious needs discussion, and it needs to be a discussion that forces people to think about the use, not just a blind "but it's fair use!" cries, and just the same "its excessive fair use" (I personally have been persuaded or helped identify ways to justify nonfree that initially appeared completely wrong in the past). But to have that happen, we need input from people that are familiar with the image use; if we don't get input, we get people complaining after the fact for image removal.

It is a mental exercise to make WP the best free content encyclopedia as to meet the desires of the Foundation. It may lead to arguments on specific cases, but those technically improve our NFC approach - not just in cases where NFC is removed but identifying and clarifying when allowable cases are allowed. This is why we need this template to appear on article pages (or at minimum, article talk pages), so that we can have that discussion and avoid the post-deletion witch hunt that inevitably happens after the fact. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this reply at the end so it won't get lost. An important difference in other deletion actions is that the noms are required to notify the creators and editors of a page when they make the nomination. If you want more feedback and less blowback, the same should go for images nominated for deletion.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), the time is growing near when I must drop out of this particular discussion. I think this overall topic is an important discussion that needs community-wide input from both users and admins. As tedious as it is, the Wikipedia dispute resolution process works to the benefit of the encyclopedia, but it must be taken all the way until a final disposition is reached. And I'm not so sure that the policy is the fault, but more the way it is being interpreted and the high-handed manner of those administrating it, so I will take pains to rejoin these discussions in a substantive manner upon my return. I honestly believe that resolving this matter is critical to the future of WP and its vision. All it requires is the parties affected have the courage not to be intimidated, the determination to see it through, and the honesty to accept the final verdict. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From reading all the various forums, this issue seems to be rapidly degenerating to an RfC on an administrator's conduct. To arbitrarily state that an image is not required and could be replaced with more copy, or to suggest that the editor flirt with OR in order to jump through a hoop to retain the questioned image, is an intrusion on editorial judgment he is not qualified to make, and insultingly privileges his view point over that of all other editors. I'm also for a free content encyclopedia as far as practicable, but Masem's heavy-handed and contextless judgments are disruptive to the project as a whole. I agree with SV that Masem is setting himself up as an editor-in-chief that editors must please in order to do effective work. I don't question his motives, but the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the large number of objections he's encountering causes me to suspect that this issue will make its way through the WP dispute resolution process at multiple levels before it is solved. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA. And I perfectly well understand the objections from the same few people that have shown previous disregard for working within the boundaries of NFC, and are calling this "censorship" which is an extremely bold claim. And I'm not acting alone, nor even acting (this is all talk page discussion, so there's zero disruption). --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I really appreciate, Masem, is your calm demeanor and ostensibly well-reasoned replies, but I'm afraid there's a vast chasm between your interpretation of fair-use image policy and that of the majority of content providers. Yeah, we all want the ideal free-content encyclopedia, and we understand that sometimes it's just tough shit for what we want and we have to suck it up for the general good of the encyclopedia (if you ever tour a sausage factory you'll probably never read another WP article), but there actually are more rationales for the use of non-free images than are dreamt of in your philosophy, so your belief that you well understand these objections is unfounded. That's OK; we all have blind spots, which is why this encyclopedia is a collaborative venture. But if you read through all the objections that have been voiced and then read your responses, you will discover that you don't really respond as comprehensively as you think, though I do admit that you respond every time, to every comment, which in itself is a symptom of something, I'm just not sure what at this point.

I don't want to spend a lot of time in dispute resolution; no sane person does, especially if they've been through it, but given the entrenched position you've taken, I wouldn't be surprised if we all get to know each other very well in the next few years. The policies and guidelines need more input from more than just lawyers; the principle of avoiding lawsuits should not be the major motivation for policy. Inert uselessness lies in that direction.

Disruption is anything that takes away from time spent providing content. At least that's my definition.

If less strict and unflinching deletion of all non-free images would lead to the slippery slope of turning Wikipedia into a copy-viol free-for-all, that anarchy would have occurred long ago--you claim that editors were disregarding the boundaries of NFC just a few months ago, yet by some strange happenstance that event did not come to pass. I believe that the reality on the ground is that most editors know what the copyright boundaries are, and use non-free content judiciously and in compliance with policies. Those who abuse the the policies are soon identified and dealt with by the community. The position of Supreme Arbitrator of NFC does not exist--or didn't exist--for a reason: the system has worked quite well up to now. This is a situation where the cure is worse than the disease; we don't need to burn down the village and kill all the inhabitants in order to save them.

I can also say that if it was your intent that more Wikipedians became involved in NFC, you've gotten your wish. As the old saying goes, be careful what you pray for; you might get it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well...so much for cooperation and bold editing. Now we must subject every edit made to improve the project to a personalized diatribe from the opposition that attacks (yes...attacks) the opposing editor. If this is all you have Mr. Reed, you don't just lose this debate, but some respect of your peers I would suspect. I take issue with your manipulation of Slim Virgin's words. What she stated was (bolding for emphasis): "the problem is that you're setting yourself up as, in effect, an editor-in-chief regarding a complex story that you're understandably unfamiliar with (if you search online you will find that story, by the way). And I'm expected to come here to explain myself, hopefully to your satisfaction. :)" which you in turn used for a rather exaggerated reason, to claim this as an over all statement of Masem's work on the project. I find that dishonest at the very least.

As for SV's claim that "Only a few editors are taking part in discussions at WP:NFCR. It seems to be mostly Masem, Toshio Yamaguchi, Stefan2 and Werieth, who support each other's positions, plus the editors who are forced to turn up to defend their work." that as well is false and to be honest, if you truly feel that way.....contribute to the reviews. Suddenly making that claim in this debate seems a little like grabbing at straws. I regularly volunteer on NFCR and disagree with all of the editor you mention often, and agree when I actually do. Are you accusing me and others of collusion? Seriously? I think this debate has derailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how what you posted has anything to do with what I wrote; you might want to read it over. What is at issue here is differences in interpretation of policy, the motivations and character of the participants have not been attacked. In any case, I'm outta here for a while. I'm sure we'll interact again in a month or so. Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there's nothing here about the interpretation of NFC policy. This is about a template to alert people to possible NFC problems, of all the uses of this template on file pages have been used on extremely appropriate, well-established NFC problems (excessive non-frees on a page, non-frees on pages of living persons, etc.) And remember, this template simply points to a discussion, where the uses may actually be justified. So, no, there's zero to do with interpretation; it's clear that there's a few editors involved that simply don't like the NFC policy as it stands and are instead trying to question the tools that are used for communicating policy problems to editors. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder in what I could be involved...

If a content is not free, the easier is to remove this instead of adding tags to articles that will just stay there during months.

That's all. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been working to fix the backlog issue by getting uninvolved admins doing closures on a regular basis. Unless there's a lot of controvesry on the use of the image, the time's been drastically cut down, so this lingering-tag issue is no longer a problem (and technically no more worse than any other maintenance tag that is left on articles, up for years at a time). --MASEM (t) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what SlimVirgin wrote and do you have any consideration for the people who write articles ?

I've just checked Kate Bush. The discussion lasted a few days in August and then stopped. So, whether you take more pleasure in discussing all these tags and leaving them in the article or they are useless and the contributors who decided to add these tags failed in their aims.

In any case, the not free content should be removed (or not) but these tags should be removed.

And all that is asked is to come back to a more pleasant tag and launch or more global discussion regarding their use !

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, we're working on fixing it - there is still backlog, but there used to be 250 sections on the page, we're down to about 70 now. And how is the language of the current template not "pleasent", compared to any other maintenance tag used? It's doesn't say there is a problem, it says there is discussion if there is one, and invites users to participate. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]