Commons:Deletion requests/NoFoP templates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

NoFoP templates

[edit]

There exist several templates in Category:FoP templates which are actually NoFoP templates, which create the wrong impression that it's ok to keep the images on Commons, which is not the case. I think the templates have to be deleted and files have to be individually reviewed.

Templates in question as of today:

--Krd 13:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: should I also nominate {{Not-free-US-FOP}}? {{FoP-Estonia}} may also be affected because someone is doubting why a "FoP-" prefixed template is happened under a country fall under NotOK. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Krd, lookinh from the SoKor case, it seems that somehow no FOP templates may be abused. Mentioning also @Liuxinyu970226 and A1Cafel: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find them to be quite useful in helping to identify categories which should be kept largely empty. Perhaps they could be reworded to emphasize that files should not be uploaded to these categories except in rare cases, where the primary object is not depicted in the image. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree if they include {{speedy}} for file namespace transclusions, like {{Logo}} does. --Krd 14:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Themightyquill, Krd, and Mardus: one of these templates is unique actually: {{NoFoP-Japan}} as it is intended for categories only. So I might  Support the tweaking of all "noFoP templates", including those created by me, to resemble NoFoP-Japan's. Personally it is meaningless to use them in file pages, as some may treat them as "disclaimer" templates and "abuse" them by inserting these templates into problematic images, like some images of South Korean buildings now under pending deletion request which can be accessed in the link I gave above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support that. As said below the templates should include {{speedy}} for file namespace transclusions, like {{Logo}} does. For other namespaces the Japan solution appears good to me. --Krd 09:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One very good example of misuse of a "no FOP template": File:Samdaeheon (삼대헌, Three-Generation House).jpg. Note that there is no such thing as TOO for any FOP-reliant objects in SoKor, even de minimis/incidental/accessory inclusion is not recognized there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, but move to a non-FOP category (including Sweden). These templates are useful, as uploaders and editors can be informed as to whether an image can be retained on Commons or not. -Mardus /talk 00:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for {{NoFoP-Slovenia}}; I have not checked the rest. It is informative regarding de minimis and the conditions for the reuse of the photo. --TadejM (t/p) 00:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Those templates are clearly labelled No-FoP and cannot be mistaken for a FoP authorisation. At least for NoFoP-France the problem involved is clearly stated. As above, these templates are useful to pinpoint potential problems. As for Template:NoFoP-France/licence, that is not a restriction tag and should not be included in the present discussion. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My new poll:  Keep but change all into category-only templates. See {{NoFoP-Japan}}. These shall serve as a warning to all people, including us uploaders and editors here, to not upload images of FoP-reliant objects from countries with partial FOP (e.g. Japan, U.S.A., and Russia, where their FOP provisions do not include national sculptures, monuments, and memorials) and no Commons-applicable FOP (e.g. France, Greece, and U.A.E.). I see the potential abuse of these templates if these were to be maintained as "for file namespace templates", one such case is now pending at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:FoP-South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For my purposes, this is fine. I've never used these templates on a file since I don't really understand what legitimate purpose that would serve. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345:  Oppose There is {{NoUploads}} for alert purposes in the category. Therefore, it is recommended to use it in the file name space as it was, but have guidelines for use. For example, it notices that it can be used only if it is general cityscape photo or if de minimis is applicable. Ox1997cow (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: despite this, two more instances of misuse on the templates are seen at the files which I recently nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A map with the main archaeological sites in Athens on one of the entrances to the Ancient Agora of Athens on September 15, 2020.jpg (No FOP in Greece) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Majunga, Paris La Défense.jpg (No FOP in France). My input still prevails, convert all no FOP templates to the purpose of {{NoFoP-Japan}} (category only). I don't know the history and the original purpose of {{NoUploads}}, but in my opinion it is intended for categories of artists and their works (mostly not FOP reliant like paintings or murals from no FOP counntries). That template uses the word "artist", not "architect" or similar words. Just saw Jeff G.'s input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Money of North Korea, and I agree to him that this template is not suitable for FOP reliant works like Dubai's Burj Khalifa or the Louvre Pyramid. France has a template named {{21st-century architecture in France}}, which I modified recently to look similar to NoUploads but more on context of copyrighted French architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: If NoFoP templates are repurposed to make them available only in categories, there is no guarantee that they will not be misused. I have found cases where {{NoFoP-Japan}} has been misused. See these.
So, I think it's a good idea to keep them for the purpose of using them in the file namespace as they was, but add a phrase to notice the templates are for warning purposes and to guide us in the correct case to use the templates. And since architecture falls into the category of art, it's no problem with {{NoUploads}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ox1997cow, seeing the files involved in the aforementioned Japanese FOP case, the first four files do not have the no FOP templates. The last three are actually Panoramio upload bot mass uploads as part of uploading freely-licensed files from Panoramio from late 2016 to early 2017, in response to the end of Panoramio service during that time. Their file histories show it was an admin (Túrelio) who added those templates, presumably to help other editors investigate those files. (Ex. [1]). BTW, I'm pinging Túrelio over their point of view on the usage and usefulness of the no FOP templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I removed 4 inappropriate examples. And, like many photos uploaded to Flickr, in these three cases, it seems that the person who took the original photos and uploaded them did not fully understand the freedom of panorama in Japan and assigned a free license. In any case, it is the same that misuse will occur even if the purpose is changed. Ox1997cow (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original photos mentioned here are those that were uploaded to the now closed Panoramio. Ox1997cow (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Example:

Images that can be used even if the parts protected by copyright are excluded (can be used as street photos if parts protected by copyright are excluded) - Keep

Images that cannot be used except for parts protected by copyright (Photos cannot be used except for parts protected by copyright) - Delete

--Ox1997cow (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to add a caution so that the template is not misused. --Ox1997cow (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I added a poll section here, then a section where the discussion, including the reaso why that was your choice (again mentioning those commented above to enter their poll: @Krd, Themightyquill, Liuxinyu970226, Thibaut120094, Mardus, TadejM, Micheletb, and Ox1997cow: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of as someone who gave the opinion of keep, I think these templates help to notice that there is no freedom of panorama. Many newcomers upload photos of buildings or sculptures without knowing whether they have freedom of panorama or not. And, "If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation." I think this sentence is a warning to these people to be careful when uploading photos of buildings or sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama. De minimis is just another element that allows photographs of buildings or sculptures without freedom of panorama. --Ox1997cow (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poll
  •  Keep and retain as a file namespace-compatible template:
  •  Keep but morph/change into a category header or category-exclusive template: JWilz12345
  •  Delete entirely: A1Cafel
  •  Keep Let's keep it to be used only for images that can be used even if you exclude the copyrighted part. And let's add some notes. An example sentence of caution is as follows. This template can only be used for files that can be used even if the copyrighted part is excluded. If you use it on a file that doesn't, the file will be deleted. --Ox1997cow (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: perhaps that would be fine too. How about skyline and cityscape images, like File:Gwangju city - view apts.jpg and File:Songdo IBD Incheon 2014 HDR 2.jpg? Would that template apply too? (If curious, I was the one who added those templates to those files, as de minimis seems "invalid" there per existing jurisprudence which led to the deletion of numerous N Seoul Tower pics more than 5 years ago, the link to that DR is located above. "Apts" seem to mean "apartments", and SoKor has a very low bar of TOO for architectural works) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Look at this case. This image is from the United Arab Emirates, which does not have the freedom of panorama like South Korea(SoKor), but has not been deleted for the following reasons. The single buildings might be copyrighted, but the whole panorama is not. And even if the picture was taken in a country where there is no freedom of panorama, there are many cases where the general cityscape was not deleted. Here's a good example. (Deletion Request of the file) --Ox1997cow (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, I tried to improve the caution I came up with. This template can only be used for files for general cityscapes or for files that can be used, even excluding copyrighted parts. If you use it on a file that doesn't, the file is deleted. --Ox1997cow (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep and move to a non-FoP category, including all the images this template applies to.
I do not understand the rationale for the second poll, as there is one open already. The presence of the second poll only muddies the waters. -Mardus /talk 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: So, how is discussion going now? Taking the various opinions that have come up so far, I think it is good to do the following. NoFoP templates are moved to NoFoP Category. And add a notice that NoFoP templates can only be used for photos of general cityscapes or for photos that can be used, excluding copyrighted parts.

--Ox1997cow (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: the closing admin will decide on that. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (continued, including reason why that option was chosen)

@JWilz12345:  Oppose I think these templates are well used for the purpose of warning that there is no freedom of panorama in the file namespace. If you find that the template is being misused for disclaimer purposes and not for warning purposes, you can request that the file be deleted. And de minimis exists in South Korea. (see COM:DM SK) Therefore, I think it is a good idea to inform each template page that these templates are for warning purposes and not for disclaimer purposes. For example, This template notes the lack of Wikimedia Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama in South Korea, and alerts users of Wikimedia Commons to images taken in public places in South Korea depicting copyrighted architectural or artistic works. (See {{NoFoP-South Korea}}) Ox1997cow (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345:  Comment Come to think of it, I think it's better to change to category-only template like NoFoP-Japan for NoFoP-Russia. (Except for NoFoP-Japan and NoFoP-Russia, they retain their use in the file namespace as they were.) The reason is that Russia, like Japan, has the freedom of panorama only for buildings.
Ox1997cow (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow: additional opinion from Russian Wikipedians may be needed for your proposal. @A.Savin and Rubin16: (I dunno who are the other Wikipedians based in Russia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 08:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/NoFoP_templates&oldid=554102233"