Template talk:No license/archive1

message: 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)
thread_title: Page Move

message: # violet/riga (t) 16:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
thread_title:  "However" punctuation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Space to put date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No license, no source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  complaint 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notifications

message: 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  instead (and notify the uploader)
Phoenix-forgotten 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  can someone simplify the template example? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Default date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: D'oh!  It was being done as I was typing the above. Thanks again! ⇒ BRossow T/C 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  String for user page on separate line? 

message: Please add  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)
thread_title:  &#123;{commons|[[commons:Template:No license|Template:No license]]}} 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parenthesis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to de: 

message: 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 "(  2006)" to decide that the person applying the template didn't provide a date.
Thanks. --Carnildo 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be careful when editing this template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . --ZsinjTalk 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 :) - cohesiont 08:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. - cohesiont 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Argh, that's terrible about the toolserver :( - cohesiont 06:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why include images in two categories? 

message: The bot could easily do the job.  OrphanBot's already tagging new uploads that have a  or  tag but do not include the words "fairuse" or "fair use" outside of the template as  (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)
replies: text: What do you think the false positive ratio would be after the fine tuning?  Jkelly 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Just remember to modity the bot to add  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)
thread_title: Bot?