Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page last updated: Thursday 07 at 0406 UTC     

Refresh Refresh this page  

Archive



Now that Wikinews:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot is approved I'm working on the task to change {{printedition}} to {{Image info}}. Doing that I noticed that {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is All rights reserved. But according to c:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia WMF released all logos as CC-BY-SA-3.0. So I suggest to update the template. --MGA73 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also noticed that some files are protected. So I can't fix those. See User:MGA73/Protected for a list. --MGA73 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now changed {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} based on the text on English Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavy Water you reverted. Perhaps you can tell why? If WMF released their logos as CC then why should it not apply on Wikinews? --MGA73 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted because you'd apparently copied the template from en.wp, and its license is CC-BY-SA 4.0 and ours is CC-BY 2.5. I did then implement the update, but I didn't sight it. I think this is important enough it should get a second pair of eyes. Heavy Water (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavy Water thank you. But the template is for the logo only and not the text. I tried to clarify that on {{PrinteditionLicense}} that is responsible for almost all the usage of {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}. --MGA73 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand how it isn't clear enough from {{PrinteditionLicense}} that {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} only applies to the logo(s). Heavy Water (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the template is the lack of the cc-license :-) WMF is the copyright holder and they licensed the logo cc. The text is fine. --MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I think I see what you're saying. But the copyrighted text that I'm talking about is the text on the template itself, not the text of Wikinews articles. Heavy Water (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the problem is that I forgot to add a link to the template on enwiki when I copied the info to keep attribution intact? --MGA73 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think attribution would work since the Wikipedia template is licensed differently (more restrictively) from the Wikinews template. Heavy Water (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I do not understand what you think the problem with the edit was. But the logo including this file File:Wiki.png was licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0 by WMF (see File:Wikinews-logo.svg). So we should either add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} or add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} separately to the 1,954 files in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly. You did see the update I proposed after reverting you, right? I am not objecting to updating the template to reflect the WMF changing these licenses. I only objected to the way you did that update, which apparently involved copying Wikipedia's template; that can't be done because the licenses for Wikinews and Wikipedia are incompatible. Heavy Water (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is what I think is confusing. The logo is the copyright of WMF. So WMF decide what the license the logo should be. I do not understand how Wikinews can decide to have a different license for the logo.
I know the text on Wikinews is another license but I do not think it is any different from Wikinews using a photo licensed with another license. But anyway I also suggested to update the license on Wikinews at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Update_of_license. Perhaps that would make it easier. --MGA73 (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, my problem was with how the text you added to {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} — "™ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. This file is (or includes)..." — was licensed, not how the logos were licensed. Heavy Water (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Do you have any idea how to write the text so that is correct? --MGA73 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I proposed such an edit here. Heavy Water (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. But what about {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} can we add that again? --MGA73 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed that intentionally. I suggest we, like Commons, use {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} as a trademark template (a rename to reflect its new purpose would be in order), accompanied by the applicable copyright status template — that seems to me to be the easiest way to account for some files, like File:Wikimedia-logo.svg, being PD and others being CC BY-SA-3.0. Heavy Water (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That works for me! I guess that we can fix most of the files by adding {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to {{PrinteditionLicense}}. --MGA73 (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavy Water reading my comment above I see that it is not clear but I was trying to ask you if you agree that we add {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to {{PrinteditionLicense}} below the {{CopyrightByWikimedia}}? --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd meant to respond on Saturday, then forgot. Sorry. Yeah, that sounds good to me, I'll add it. Heavy Water (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks. Now the question about CopyrightByWikimedia is solved :-) There is still the question about protected files. Either the files on User:MGA73/Protected should be unprotected or an admin have to check and fix the files. --MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP[edit]

please rvt IP on Poland story, ty. OhhLord (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be Done. In the future, please make it explicit what you are talking about, preferably with a link. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File clean up to do list[edit]

Hello everyone! I have made a few comments about cleaning up files. But I was thinking perhaps it would be a good idea to make a to do list to have an idea what is missing and perhaps find someone to help with the different tasks. Tasks do not have to be taken in order like 1, 2, 3...

Everyone are more than welcome to help add tasks or help do some of the tasks.

Right now there are 4,745 files according to Special:Statistics. Many of those are okay. The problem is to sort the files in okay and not-okay. However, at some point User:Cromium added files to Category:Files needing attention if they had known problems. Right now there are 1,586 files in the category. But task 1 could be to find out if there are any files that need attention.

Non-free files should be deleted if they are not in use. And so should files with no good source and author unless it is possible to fix and the file is usable. Right now there are 340 files at Special:UnusedFiles. I have marked some for deletion but task 2 could be to go through them all and check.

Files marked with a {{NowCommons}} have been moved to Commons. If they are transferred correctly they could be deleted locally. Right now there are 26 files in Category:Media files on Wikimedia Commons. If all free files are moved to Commons and deleted locally there will be fewer files left to check. Task 3 could be to check and move free files to Commons and task 4 could be to check Category:Media files on Wikimedia Commons and delete the files that can be deleted.

Some files are protected (see User:MGA73/Protected) so there only admins can fix.

On Wikinews:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot I wrote that I could use my bot to add {{Image info}} to all files. But it is most likely not possible to fill out all the information (source, author, date). Someone have to do it manually. But I think it will be easier if the {{Image info}} is allready there. But should we use {{Image info}} to both free files and non-free files or is there or should there be another template to use for non-free files? --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed some files have both a {{Image info}} and a {{Non-free use rationale}}. I think usually only one template is needed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I think {{image info}} is needed for its parameters "Date" and "Credit", which aren't in {{non-free use rationale}}. Of course, we could theoretically add those parameters to {{non-free use rationale}}. Heavy Water (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cf. how I did this at File:TVN headquarters - Sept 3 2011.jpg. Heavy Water (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. Another alternative is to add the date in the description and add author in source. --MGA73 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually if both templates are not used the file will still be in Category:Files with no machine-readable author per File:AF358 traffic cam.jpg as example. So we need both or have to accept that the category will never be empty. --MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone would like to check own files click to see who uploaded and look for your name (you can see the file names but sadly the links do not work as they assume this is Wikipedia).. --MGA73 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavy Water I made 2 example edits of non-free files: File:.tel example.png and File:2010 miga.jpg. Does this look helpful? --MGA73 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

Hi - would someone with admin rights please delete the thread by a WMF-banned user here? Thanks - Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]