User:MBisanz/ImageSystemProposal

I have two separate proposals for dealing with the non-free fair-use image issue at Wikipedia. One is a retrospective, corrective measure, and the other is a prospective, preventative measure. But, being an accounting grad student, I've never coded anything in my life, and therefore am looking for someone smarter than me in the coding dept.

I suspect each proposal will require a different technical avenue, since one is probably a monobook stylesheet issue and the other is web-design issue. Mbisanz (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Absent Required Template Variables

A semi-automated script that would scan image files in Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink for the number of mainspace File Links. it would then take the existing non-free media rationale template and duplicate it for the number File Links, add in the |Article=x variable for each File Link (each File Link being a distinctive "x") and then present to the user for review and save.

Comments

User talk:Ilmari Karonen/nfurbacklink.js is a script that does at least part of what you want. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that script does it for files with only one file link. I'm looking for something to address images with more than one file link. Mbisanz (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on scripts, but perhaps this one could be modified to handle multiple file links? Perhaps the author could comment on that, or you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts? Or at WP:VPT? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That proj, which I didn't know existed, was what I was hoping someone could point me to. Mbisanz (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't compatible with what rationales are used for. Each purpose is specific to the article -- it should be very rare that an image would have two different valid uses in two different articles that use the same purpose. A valid purpose would be something like "to show a non-reproduceable, historic event in the article about that event" or "to illustrate the Mannerist style of art and show its differences from Classisist art amid critical commentary about those differences." If two articles had the same purpose, one would think those articles should be merged. It just isn't a valid purpose to say "to illustrate the subject in question" or whatnot. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to do most of my image work on logos, so I have this thinking-mindset which is probably different from most fair-use people. For instance, the Bell telephone logo could rightfully be used in many articles, witht he exact same rationale for each. Thats why I was proposing a semi-automated script v. an automated bot, but given what some users think is a valid rationale, it could be a bad idea either way. MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a script that is manually run and checked for each image? That could work. I would recommend this: If an image has a rationale without a linkback, or if an image has one complete rationale (with linkback) but is used in other articles without rationale, then the script would show an inputbox that said something like "For article 'Abraham Lincoln', what is the purpose?". If you type in a rationale, it adds the entered purpose for the article. (If no purpose is entered, it skips that one.) It would cycle for each article the image is used in that doesn't already have a rationale. Does this sound right? (I'm still leery about auto-copying purposes.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Proposal 2: Reformatting Upload Page

The current Wikipedia:Upload screen, presents the user with:

{{Non-free use rationale
|Article=
|Description=
|Source=
|Portion=
|Low_resolution=
|Purpose=
|Replaceability=
|other_information=
}}

in the Summary field when a non-free use option is selected. However, when uploading a file from the Uploading a file from a website subpage, the user is presented with the:

{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Location=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

template, regardless of the licensing option selected.

What I propose is that when a non-free use subpage or licensing option is selected by the user, the Summary box is replaced by a series of form fields that correspond to the Non-free media template. The user must enter some in each required form field under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. There should also be a option of some sort if a user proposes to use it in more than one article that would provide additional form fields for each user.

An additional option could be to prefill certain options such as Purpose or Replaceability, depending on the license selected and to make some options such as Low_resolution, a check box style, that must be checked yes to upload or that would trigger a review category added to the submission if no is selected.

Comments

This is a bug/feature request; see Wikipedia:Bug reports. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Submitted as bugzilla:12452. Mbisanz (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to post a note at Wikipedia talk:Upload - that way, interested editors might volunteer to help out with the coding, or at least register their support at bugzilla. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea: done. Mbisanz (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)