Category talk:Media without a license: needs history check

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Exotic licenses[edit]

FreeOTFE license http://freeotfe.org/docs/Main/licence.htm
✓ Done those files transclude {{License template tag}} now. --Jarekt (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CDDL https://netbeans.org/cddl.html
✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:BesigedB/license}}

These files are licensed in such a way that no combination of templates makes sense, e.g. {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual}} states "If you want to use this file commercially, you have to do this under the terms of the GFDL.", which is not true for these files, as they're also licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0+2.0.

I think it is fixed now although it is very long now. I left a message at User_talk:BesigedB#User:BesigedB.2Flicense may be we can shorten it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about custom license templates[edit]

If a file has a custom license, e.g. File:Anhaltische_Graben_in_Strassberg_21.jpg, is it ok as long as the custom license transcludes at least one valid license template? As someone thinking about machine-readability, my heart sinks whenever I see any kind of custom license –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if custom license transcludes at least one valid license template it is OK. If it does not but the text clearly describes one of valid license templates than I usually add such valid license templates. It gets tricky when custom license is used usually next to separate valid license template, than I am trying to add that license to each file. I also dread custom license templates: they are often strange, wordy, and untranslated. They can also change without warning relicensing images. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Good and bad news[edit]

I have some news: After long wait some kind soul run a full database query to find all the images without license on Commons, see [1]. So the bad news is that we will have ~12-13k of them, but the good news is that once we are done fixing them, there will be no more of the ancient files that did not have a license since the upload in 2007, etc. All the files without license will be new or newly edited. At that stage it might make sense to create some sort weekly or monthly database query to find all the files without license. So there is a light on the end of this tunnel. --Jarekt (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly do you propose we deal with these 12,000 files? I can guarantee you nobody is going to sit around and sort these out by hand. -FASTILY 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other option than to do this by hand as you have to check page history, upload comments or other credit templates for a valid license. Many issues could be resolved this way (or by judging them as pd-old/-ineligible), for other images we sadly have only one option, to tag them with no license (and to remove them from this cat afterwards). --Denniss (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was "siting around and sorting these out by hand" for last year or two, as I was experimenting with this detection method, and many others were doing the same after I created this category. In the old days we would just add {{No license}} which requests admins to check the file history before deleting. However when I started doing that at some point, I got very negative reactions from outraged users that felt that history check should be done before "slapping it with the template". Some felt that too many files of no longer active (or sometimes alive) users, or with bot users (after transfers from other projects) are deleted without checking the history and "sorting it by hand". That is why I created this category of files that technically do not have license but in about 50% of cases did have a valid license that got lost somehow. --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also many of the files can be dealt with by fixing their templates or by careful bot actions. The original query returned over 20k files. Unfortunately CatScan2 is no longer working for me and I was relying on it for many such tasks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why files end up here[edit]

After fixing or tagging several hundred files, the major reason (apart from vandalism) why files end up here is: Bots place {{Uncategorized}} or {{Check categories}} directly below the license template. User trying to fix/check cats mistakenly removed both templates. Suggestion: improve Bots so these templates are placed with an additional empty line to space them off the previous content. --Denniss (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I noticed the same, although I usually did not check how licenses were lost. You should contact the bot operators, since I doubt that they monitor this talk page. --Jarekt (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other issues I stumpled upon: Duplicate Permission field in information template, one with a license tag and another without (no license displayed) or a non-working license/licence field in information template (license not shown). Room for improvements? --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those too and those are hard to debug. It might be possible to test for those cases using LUA modules, I am not sure if it is worth it to always test all files for this rare case. --Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improper transfer from local wikis[edit]

Please note that I have created a subcat for images with improper transfer from local wikis where source and/or copyright information was lost. Please re-cat those images to Category:Media without a license: needs history check at local wiki and we could ask some local admins to check their logs for required information. --Denniss (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files that survived the longest time without a license[edit]

I was thinking about keeping track of some of the files that survived the longest time without a license. My current champion is

Can anybody find a file that survived longer? --Jarekt (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lets make it a game. 25 February 2006 is getting us closer to the beginning of time, which happen in Fall of 2004, with oldest files like File:Sq-Pershumvjet Krishtlindjen dhe Gezuar Vitin e Ri.ogg being uploaded around that time. --Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Yugoslavia COA.gif had no license since 2005-02-26. Ceers --JuTa 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New files[edit]

I recently run for the second time a whole database search for all the files without a license. I also used VisualFileChange to add {{No license}} to many new uploads, but probably not all. So most files should be old uploads which somehow lost a license. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why there are several false positive in this cat? See File:BrunoMarsToronto.jpg. --Denniss (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are always issues with database updates, as templates added by other templates often take time to be associated with files. Once I am done with the adding files to the category I can clean it up. Unfortunately I do not know a way to clean it up first. --Jarekt (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure[edit]

I think all new uploads (1-2 months old) should just get automatic {{No license}}, so we can concentrate on the old files that most likely "lost" licenses somehow. Does anybody know a good way to separate old and new files? --Jarekt (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Media_without_a_license:_needs_history_check&oldid=207728027"