Jump to content

Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Leaving "source" blank but filling "owner" should result in an error message

This template currently produces "The logo may be obtained from X" when the "owner" field is filled but the "source" field is left blank.

WP:NFCC#10a states as a requirement that: "[the] media description page contains[:] Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder[.]" (emphasis mine) To recap: identifying the immediate source is mandatory, whereas supplementing this with the information about the owner is only recommended where possible.

The current behavior does not reflect this rule well. It allows users to replace information about source with information about the owner. These are not at all the same thing. To quote Upload Wizard, source answers "where exactly did you get this file from?" - and this may not be directly from the owner. User Stefan2 considered the current behavior to be in violation of WP:NFCC#10a in this discussion: WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_29#File:Aloha Council logo.svg, and I agreed.

The template should produce an error message promoting the editor to fill the necessary field ("source") with valid information. Currently such an error is displayed in other cases, eg. when the "use" field is left blank. This problem may affect other non-free use rational templates as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • One problem which I have found with the current template behaviour is that it sometimes is very difficult to verify if the logo is correct. The article contains one logo, but the article also links to the company's website, and the website contains a different logo. It could mean that our article is outdated and that the company has since changed to a different logo, or it could mean that the logo is a fake. I think that it is very important that source information can be verified so that you can determine if the company actually uses the logo. I think that there was one FFD discussion in the last quarter of last year where the logo eventually was deleted because no one was able to prove that the company actually used the logo, and the discussion had been open for at least a month or two before it was closed.
There is a similar behaviour in templates about product covers. {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} has this feature by stating that The cover art can be obtained from the record label. I wouldn't be as strict with product covers as with logos as source usually is the product itself, and the article about the product usually contains all information which would typically be inserted in a {{cite book}} template, but the current wording of that template still looks inappropriate and should probably be changed. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source. (get help with syntax)
and populates Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. Files that have been in this category for more than seven days may be speedy deleted in accordance with speedy criterion F4, which conveniently prevents that category from becoming another maintenance backlog. Do we want to use this here? It's been on my back burner to merge some of these templates, and eliminating any unnecessary differences in behavior is a step in that direction. Note though that a sudden switch here could result in the deletion of a lot of logos, where a simple search could find the logo, so we may want to transition to this in a way that's less disruptive.
I see that {{Non-free use rationale}} also populates Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. Its error message is:
No source specified. Please edit this image description and provide a source.
I'd have to do some research to see if there was an intentional decision to be "more lenient" with sourcing requirements for logos, and if so, what the rationale was. Offhand, I'd guess, the answer should be obvious. Where else would you get a corporate logo from, than the company themselves? Maybe their advertising agency? Not sure it's a requirement to provide a link to an online source, as theoretically the source could be a CD, magazine ad, or some other offline source.
Note that File:Lights Motors Action logo.png is an example of a logo that uses {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, and is currently slated for deletion. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Files tagged with {{subst:nsd}} appear in one of the dated subcategories. Files in the dated subcategories may be deleted one week after the file was tagged as such.
The correct procedure to fix unsourced logos is this:
  1. Go through Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source and locate unsourced logos.
  2. If possible, add a source. For example, the article usually contains a link to the company's website, and the website typically contains the company's current logo. In some cases, the logo can't be found on the website. I'd assume that the most likely reason is that the company has got a new logo, but there could also be some fake logos around.
  3. If a source isn't added, either because the user didn't bother checking the website or because he wasn't able to find one, tag the file with {{subst:nsd}} and notify the uploader with {{di-no source-notice}}. The uploader gets one week to add a source.
  4. If there is still no source after one week, then delete the logo.
File:Lights Motors Action logo.png is not currently up for deletion as an unsourced logo but as an unused logo. It could be nominated for deletion as an unsourced logo too, but I see little point in adding multiple deletion tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. This template is used on over 90,000 pages so care needs to be taken to avoid making a disruptive maintenance backlog. Maybe first create a new category for those that don't specify a source, to see the scope of this?
Also see two archived discussions:
— Wbm1058 (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The participants in those discussions make several errors:
  • WP:NFCC#10a says that you should identify the source and that it is optionally to additionally identify the owner. They seem to think that it is enough to identify the owner and that you don't need to identify the source as long as the owner has been identified.
  • WP:NFCC#10a states that you are required to provide a source. Thus, an non-free file either has a source or it doesn't have a source, and it must be possible to distinguish these files from each other so that the files without a source can be properly tagged for deletion. The wording in this template disguises the ones without a source, making them harder to find.
  • You will also have to inspect the quality of the information in the source field. For example:
    1. File:Win 94.6 FM logo.jpg: The source is given as The logo may be obtained from Win 94.6 FM. Here it seems that we should add {{contradict-other}}. According to the linked article, the radio station is defunct since 2004. However, according to the fair use rationale, it is possible to contact the radio station and that way obtain a copy of the radio station's logo, and that can only be possible if the radio station is not defunct.
    2. File:2003 NECBL All-Star Game Logo.gif: The source is given as The logo may be obtained from 2003 NECBL All-Star Game. There's apparently an organisation called 2003 NECBL All-Star Game from which it is currently possible to obtain a copy of its logo. Interesting: I though that most sport events were organised by organisations whose names are not identical to the name of the event. Also, this organisation '2003 NECBL All-Star Game' obviously still exists as you would otherwise not be able to obtain a copy of the logo from this organisation.
  • You will also have to consider why we need a source in the first place. Per WP:NOTBURO, we wouldn't require a source if we didn't have some kind of use for it. For example, we have things like WP:NFCC#4 which requires the uploader to prove that the file has been used outside Wikipedia before being uploaded here. This can't be proved without a source.
If there are lots of files with this template which do not have a source, then the idea of having a separate category sounds like a good idea until the category has grown smaller. Even if there are more than 90,000 files with this template, some of them will have a source, so the total number of unsourced files should be less than 90,000. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure I see the point of this. The example that triggered this request: Source The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America.
What difference does it make whether the Source or Owner parameters are filled with this information.
  • Owner Source The logo may be obtained from Boy Scouts of America.
  • Source Source Boy Scouts of America
In the first case, we don't say that the source is definitely the BSA; just that it could be
In the second case we say that we definitely got it from the BSA
"The policy only requires that the copyright holder be identified - the requirement for a specific web link to where the image came from is mythical. (it is recommended, but not an absolute requirement - not everything comes from online, after all)" —Random832 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So if the copyright holder is the source of the original copyrighted material, then we are in compliance with WP:NFCC#10a. Stating whether the owner gave it to us directly, or we got it indirectly, is optional. The source isn't a website, or a magazine ad, or a shopping bag with the logo on it; the source is the copyright holder. Part of the problem here is that we aren't lawyers (at least I'm not). Wbm1058 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Regardless of what kind of source the uploader provides, the uploader is still required to prove that the file complies with WP:NFCC#4. This puts a minimum quality requirement on the source. As it can't be verified that the uploader got the logo from the organisation 'Boy Scouts of America', the fact that the uploader got the logo from this organisation can't be used as evidence that the logo has been used outside Wikipedia before being uploaded here. Instead, the uploader is required to provide evidence from elsewhere, and this evidence from elsewhere will effectively also be a source for the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So #4 is important to focus on too, not just #10a. Looking again at Template:Non-free use rationale 2, I see Source (WP:NFCC#4) it specifically points to #4. Noting that its advice "Please edit this file description and provide a source." wikilinks to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia, and the Multimedia section heading of Wikipedia:Citing sources was removed by this 22 September 2011 edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I just restored that link. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, WP:NFCC#4 is only one reason for having a source. For example, if someone adds a logo to a company article and states that 'this is the logo for the company', then someone could theoretically add a {{fact}} template if the claim is unsourced. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When I upload a logo, I state where I found it online. I don't scan it from a grocery bag or a flyer. I usually find them on Twitter or Facebook or Websites for the subject but have also found them on weird webpages that have collections of logos. I want someone who comes along years later to be able to attempt to find the image and to be able to judge whether I brought it in from a reliable source. I found this discussion because I was coming here to suggest the same thing. I don't feel like chasing down sources for 99,000 logos myself but I feel like these logos need a better source which the existing template can do with the "Website" parameter.  ★  Bigr Tex 23:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Non-free_use_rationale_logo/Archive_2&oldid=1182407873"