Wikipedia talk:Task of the Day

Initial thoughts?

The thing, as written out in this first version, is basically the entire scope of the project. Pick a non-administrative major task or backlog, and highlight it to get it done. If no "special ones" are slated or asked for on a given day, we fall back to a standard rotation of important ones. That's it. Literally. Start with the fair use image tagging till it's done, and if that works, it's a good barometer if it's worth keeping the project up. Lawrence Cohen 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Could you work in the "5 a day" idea? That's a bit more achievable for most people. I tend to find once I've done five I end up doing a bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Check out those sample watchdetail pages, and I updated the policy page as well. Lawrence Cohen 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this idea both in the short term and the long term. is it listed at VP-P? MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is. :) Lawrence Cohen 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think our immediate concern is the images as noted from where this idea came from. After that's resolved, it would be better to have a rotation not so much based on days of the week, but just on general need, and barring that, a cycle that is not weekly so that an area of cleanup doesn't always fall on the same day of the week (may get too much or too little assistance that way). --MASEM 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that was just an initial example formulation. I'm assuming for the Watchdetails we can just make pages like Wikipedia:Task of the Day/January 5 2008, Wikipedia:Task of the Day/March 25 2008, and so on. Protect them, transclude them to MediaWiki:Watchdetails, and done. The whole thing honestly should be an easy and fun exercise after the images are done, to populate out. Lawrence Cohen 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking Lawrence. Good work on being so pro-active. I guess the question is: what is the quickest way of getting this in flux ? What is the TODO list for getting the project running ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting the bot operators to start posting images to the daily pages, and then getting this all into the Watchlist details every day without anyone trying to take it back out. Since this is such an important thing, preferably without that annoying "dismiss" button. Lawrence Cohen 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want it to "rotate", you'll probably need to make a template and then add it to the top MediaWiki:Watchdetails. Then perhaps a bot could be made to change it every day? .:Alex:. 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make Mediawiki spit out the current day of the week, Sunday-Saturday, in the code? How does FA do it? Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. Looks like the magic word CURRENTDAY is what you want. But that only gives the number of the day of the month, not the day of the week. To get that, you would need Wikipedia to have an internal calendar. Does it have one? Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Found it. {{LOCALDAYNAME}}. Let's try it out here! The following should be showing the current day of the week! Friday Did it work? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've viewing "Sunday" which isnt my local day (Saturday), but is my local day by Wiki UTC time. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it needs to be Wiki UTC time or everyone will be doing different things on the same day! .:Alex:. 08:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image bot people

I left a note for Betacommand to check this out. Who else does a lot of that bot image work that should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ST47 -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Might try User:Carnildo, User:Remember the dot, User:Cobi, User:MaxSem, and User:Lar. MBisanz ^talk 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't do much image work, I just seem to offer my opinion a lot when other people talk about it. :) I gave this a once over and it seems a marvelous idea, and the initial work on it seems pretty first rate. It would be awesome if it catches on. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I got ST47, I'll get the rest of them now. Lawrence Cohen 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let AzaThoth know too, for Twinkle. Lawrence Cohen 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Quadell made a brief venture into image bot work. I'll ask him as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What sort of images would be posted, exactly? Anything that gets tagged for deletion? Things that we decide need human review? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that we'd basically go through the lists of images that you and Beta are tagging in general, this pool of "60,000" that kept getting talked about on the AN thread. That would be all the ones currently with no fair use (or correctly formatted fair use) that have to be deleted after March. The idea was that as your bots tag them, and tag the uploader's user page, they at the same time list them here on the given day's page to create a backlog to go through. Lawrence Cohen 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One bunch that might be easy to sort are album cover images. These are pretty cut and dried Fair Use when used to illustrate the article about the album, but hardly ever anywhere else. Someone just getting started helping might be advised to work on those... There are a lot, and the cleanup is pretty much always the same... if the image is used on the album article, say so, if it's used anywhere else, it almost always should be removed from those places absent an existing strong justification on the fair use section of the image page, and if it's not used on the album article at all (because there isn't one, not a notable enough album or whatever) it's deletion fodder. Or so I've believed. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To do list for the images test run

1. Get bot operators to update the daily pages with links to the images.
2. Get Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Watchdetails Image Project protected by an admin.
3. Get Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Watchdetails Image Project transcluded to MediaWiki:Watchdetails (without that annoying dismiss button).
4. Get people to clear out each day's backlog. When a day's backlog is cleared, an admin updates Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Watchdetails Image Project to reflect the next/oldest backlog day.
5. Start fixing images, check back sometime in March.

What am I missing? Lawrence Cohen 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use instructions for the backlog pages

I'd add that we should add a brief set of instructions for clearing the backlog of images. We could include an introductory paragraph, a list of things to look for, and maybe links to templates for Fair Use Rationales. This could be copied to the top of each backlog page, and would help users who click the link on the watchlist, but are otherwise unaware of what is going on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes i think that this is one case where a small "howto" might be useful. We could just put it at the top of "todays backlog" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see it now. "Thanks for helping. This is the issue, and this is what needs to happen now. Pick 5 of the images below (or as many as you like) and see if they have the following: (list) If they don't, please edit the page to include the following: (list) You might want to use one of these templates as a guide: (list), or have a look at these examples of correctly composed Fair Use Rationales: (list)." Obviously, I still need to flesh it out a little, but that'd be my general idea. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind fleshing that out as a page like at Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Image Project/Backlog header that I just made for you? :) Someone very familiar with the Fair Use rules in question here like you would be best (I don't know the intricacies quite as well). Lawrence Cohen 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a first draft up. It's way, way too long, but we can trim it down quite a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we add a template, say "today-image-unsure" (or some easy name to remember) to allow users that look at an image and are unsure to have that image pop up into a category that would then be non-obvious cases of failure or non-failure for fair use rationales? Ideally it would remove the image from the proposed list but even if it can't, this would then be (hopefully) a very select category that people more aware of FURs and copyrights can look at. Not to necessary compare editors to phone support, but this provides a way to "escalate" a problem image to a better level of support. --MASEM 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added language to include the template in the header. We might also want a template that says "I've reviewed this image, and it's not eligible for use under the Fair Use policy". I don't know if that would mean tagging the image for deletion, or using some other process - but that might be something we ask users to escalate as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured backlog

Just kidding about the title ;-) I like the idea! It would be nice if we could somehow include a dynamic list of 5 pages that need cleanup, which would encourage more users to participate. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort of like the recent changes header? here? Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Also, someone might want to send this to the list-serve. I'm gonna post it as part of a suggestion for the SignPost on this new phase of BcB. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone that is subscribed mind sending it? Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Information and advice

We need to prominently link to places to get information and advice. We don't want people doing things wrong and revert wars springing up. Image talk pages can help for a while, but after that some obvious places to go to for advice and discussion: WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, WT:NFC, WP:PUI, WP:IFD and that new media and copyright noticeboard I can't remember the name of... Carcharoth (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions its a mouthfull. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Ah. It's Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk! Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What about links to a couple of images in the backlog headers with very clean, clear, well-done Fair Use setups, as examples? Lawrence Cohen 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the best images I've ever seen for that purpose is Image:FirstUnionLogo.png and the company no longer exists, so its not a Advert issue. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken that example (which is a good one), and used it to start an Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Example Rationales, which (I hope) will eventually serve as a set of live examples of real images with good rationales. I had wanted to put actual images and rationales on the page, but I now realize that - look at that - we don't actually have a valid rationale for using non-free images in that context. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. There are examples using templates, some examples using the 10 NFCC, and some unique examples. Off the top of my head, I remember seeing some very good examples, but will struggle to remember them. Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg (used in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), Image:WorfTNG.jpg (used in Worf) are two that I saw recently. There are some examples of really long and detailed rationales around as well (literally pages and pages!). Carcharoth (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Iwo Jima photo is an excellent example, even with someone having added a rationale for an article currently being written in the userspace. I've added both examples to the Example Rationales page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Using Category:Disputed_non-free_images for our purposes

Betacommand just pointed out Category:Disputed_non-free_images to me, and I made Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Image Project/January 3, 2007 as a test with it. How about simply including the category contents there? Easier solution on the botters/taggers since the category already exists, but we need to be able to make getting the images easy. I'm just thinking of being able to still use our header to instruct people on what to do with the images they find. Lawrence Cohen 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even better - there's a tracker that lists the images under each of these categories. I'll transclude it below for discussion, but I also think it may prove useful once we go live.

Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, note the number of images from Wednesday's bot run. We may wish to seek Admin opinions on the feasibility of delaying those mass deletions for at least a few days. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're only dealing with 70,000 images overall and tops 1,500 new ones per day, maybe BCB could re-run that category and spread those images out in the range of 14-21 days from now? MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've requested it, although I'd prefer BCB stay focused on processing images for the first time, does anyone have a spare Bot lying around that could do this? MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

BC says its not a problem, since it'll just take more than a day for the admins to process it, so as long as there aren't any deletionbots running (and I think we'd notice it) it shouldn't be an issue. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone review the image deletion logs for the past few months and see who has been doing mass deletions (ie. helping to clear the backlogs). There are people using scripts and TWINKLE. We don't want them to suddenly start deleting things (helpfully "clearing the backlog") because they weren't aware of what we are doing here and because they weren't aware of Betacommand's note above. The only mass deletion I personally saw was by User:Maxim using TWINKLE. I think User:East718 may use the same method. I'll notify them. Note that different peopel deal with different categories, and that some categories are harder than others to review and fix adequately (eg. the lacking sources one). Are we just dealing with disputed rationales here, or more than that? Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on doing the January 1 and 2 DFUI backlogs until the rate of fixing images peters off, at which point I'll sic my pack of adminbots on it... kidding... east.718 at 10:21, January 5, 2008

Thanks East, as far I know, BCB only tags images that lack a rationale or that lack a valid article name. There is a bot that checks sources, but for the life of me, I can't remember it. So really our goal here is making sure that under FIle Links are only articles in which the image is appropriate and that those EXACT (down to the space and caps) are mentioned in the image summary/rationale. If a user wants to be nice and reformat the rationale into a template (I think there are only 600-1000 non-conforming template images), thats just extra icing. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been inspecting the categories daily, and removing some images. I'm ready to run TWINKLE on it. Just give me a timeline on how much to hold off, and I can do the deleting part very easily. Maxim_(talk) 13:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By my rough math, 11,000 images is 7 times, the normal load of 1,500 images per day. So assuming we're processing the 1,500 correctly now, its probably not a reach to process 3,000 with the current focus. For Jan 2 only I'd suggest a 7 day lag, but thats just from my matchbook math. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Th Jan 2 total is now down to 6180. Were the other 5000 fixed or deleted? Did anyone get a list? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out

I was looking at this proposed page Wikipedia:Task of the Day/Image Project/January 3, 2007. Is there going to be a way users can comment/move out images that SHOULD unambiguously be deleted, so other users won't have to review them? Sort of like patrolling in the backlog. Also, some formatting (boxes, subsections, etc) would probably improve usability and appeal of the page, but the main goal should be getting it LIVE, asthetic changes can come over time. MBisanz ^talk 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just replace the di-disputed tag with another one that sticks in the same date category but says it has been reviewed and passed for deletion. When the date expires we could let loose an admin deletion bot. I have no objection to deletion bots running through lists that have been passed by humans, as long as a descriptive and informative deletion summary is used. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Specific categories

If anybody wants a list of images that are in specific categories, such as only album covers, books, or logos from the 1/1 and 1/2 DFUI backlogs, get in touch with me. I think it would be good to group images like this, because people can concentrate on adding what is essentially a boilerplate rationale on several similar images. east.718 at 10:24, January 5, 2008

I'm happy to do book covers. I don't mind grabbing a list, setting up my own gallery using preview, and picking out the book covers, but if you have a better method, please send me a list (copied to talk page as well). Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on this. A couple test runs have shown that a complete run will take around five hours. east.718 at 12:17, January 5, 2008

Could you run one for logos? Thats my personal hobby. MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for setting this project up! East718, could you make a list of disputed promotional images - {{Non-free promotional}}? Bláthnaid 14:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Go here to see the various category trackers. Cheers, east.718 at 15:19, January 5, 2008

Thanks east718. Is it OK if I remove the images from the the list once I've checked through them? Bláthnaid 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want with the lists, they'll be bot-refreshed when I feel like it. east.718 at 14:22, January 6, 2008

Great, thanks. Bláthnaid 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jogers and User:SkierRMH also have some bot-created lists of disputed images divided by category in their userspace, which can be used:

• Book covers
• Film posters
• DVD covers
• Album covers Bláthnaid 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

There is a seriously bad backlog at Wikipedia:Editor Review. While it is an informal process and not essential to Wikipedia unlike actual articles, I am hoping that it is possible to incorporate this into the project somehow, perhaps as a one off thing? I think this proposal is a very good one and I believe that this could provide a solution to these types of backlogs too, somehow. .:Alex:. 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A good suggestion

I'd link to find a fault with it, but I can't; seems like a really good idea actually. I would like to see it rotated through the major backlogs, trying to get as much done as possible. Good work and good luck! GDonato (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates for this/possible abuse/doublecheck?

Two things: I mentioned above and in the current rewrite its present that we want to provide a passthrough template for any of the TODAY projects that need more expert review. I'm thinking that since this project is potentially modular, we want to keep the list of templates consistent so that those that participated repeatedly don't have to keep looking for the instructions. Thus I propose that templates should be named {{today <project> <result>}} where project is the day's task ("image", "cleanup", etc) and result being "unsure" or some other result. Redirections from dash versions should be made available, and while I would be tempted to make TLA redirects ("tiu" for "today image unsure") that may hit conflicts later.

Which brings me to the question of: besides noting images or other articles where one is unsure, do we want to mark those that have been reviewed as well ("today image done") ? One reason to do this is to track possible abuse: maybe someone simply goes through and removes the warning tag but doesn't fix the article up , and does that for several images, or maybe that someone is confused but tries to fix such and maybe makes the rationales worse inadvertently. If we have a second "private" version of BCB or a similar bot that ran only on the images passed the previous day, we could report the results to a different category so that abuse may be caught or small mistakes fixed. A second and more vanity based reason is that we would be able to track how much participation there is in the project somewhat easily and maybe adjust the rotation of the Task of the Day to try to get more involved in one sub project by presenting it more frequently. --MASEM 15:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting a bot to check the images again is a good idea -- I'd like to let Wikiproject Albums and other relevant wikiprojects know about the lists of disputed images divided by category, but I'm concerned that some editors might just remove the delete tags without adding the rationales. Bláthnaid 12:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the day

I think this is a really great idea, but it could use one more thing. Currently the plan is to give users an alphabetical list of ten thousand-some articles and to improve five. I think there should also be an article collaboration of the day which would be one or more specific articles shown to everyone for improvement. I know a good number of important articles needing improvement, and one person doing it isn't going to get anywhere. There could be a suggestions list and each WikiProject would get a fair share at the collaboration; going in a rotation, trying to give each WProject an article.

Example:

Today is Verifiability Day on Wikipedia! Please help to clean up and add sources to at least five of these articles today, and update the tagging on them.

The collaborations of the day are XYZ from WikiProject:ABC and WXY from WikiProject:DEF. Please do whatever you can to improve them.

Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to keep the whole idea more open, and leave it up to each editor which articles to work on. Part of the reason why Wikipedia works so well is that people contribute most in areas where they're most knowledgeable. Why not apply that principle to this, too, and have people clear backlogs on whatever articles they choose? I think more people will contribute to this initiative if there isn't a specific group of articles specified. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but editors obviously aren't required to contribute. If it happens to be a topic that someone isn't interested in, he won't have to edit it. I just thought that a wide-spread mention of an article will bring more edit traffic to it. Many people who are interested in a topic might not have even heard of the article. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, every user knows about every one of those backlogs in the proposal. I'm fine with it, and I'm sure it'll do good for WP, but surely many users won't want another link they've seen many times shoved onto their watchlists. One thing I hate about those backlogs is that there are so many stubs and short articles I've never heard of cluttering them. Including specific articles needing work intoduces something new to everyone that isn't just another list of stubs. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just sort of stumbled upon this discussion and I'd like to add that this seems like a great, brilliant idea. The problem I would see is deciding what will be collaborated on. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another image-related backlog

Durin created a chart User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse that shows which articles have the most fair-use images. Following the march deadline, this might be an interesting task to tackle, to both evaluate if all the images on these pages are needed and if any free images can be found to replace them. Just an idea before I forget it. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New tool

Per [1] BC has created basically an NFCC-checker tool that looks very promising and should be easy enough for even a beginner to use (I understand it at least). MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As he says, that only checks 10c. And only part of 10c at that. I wouldn't get too excited about it. The idea of explicitly stating in the rationale the full name of the article an image is used in is not that difficult to understand or remember, and is easier than using that tool. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just saw that, still for all those multi-line posts of, "So I fixed it and it still got re-tagged" this might help. I also predict that if BC hasn't figured out a better to bot-review all articles, the foundation probably won't have anything better come March and might even just rely on a port/run of his software. In which case, compliance with the above, would be compliance with EDP. And if the foundation does have some better scanner, could they please run it now soe we won't all be surprised come March!. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Next steps to implement this?

Thanks to the help above about the LOCALDAYNAME code, I've fixed up Wikipedia:Task of the Day#Sample rotation, after the Image Project is resolved. The mechanism for the basic 7-day rotation idea is basically set now, which leaves just the initial image project. The Watchdetails mechanism there is even simpler.

1. Bot/image taggers tag away as always.
2. We put our link/text into Watchdetails, with our transcluded image project code (this will be a protected page).
3. Admins update our Image project page as soon as the oldest image category with pending images is cleared.

That's it, isn't it? Am I missing anything on the technical end? Lawrence Cohen 19:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we need any tags or templates to mark images as reviewed (or, to mark them as "I've reviewed it and concur that the image does not meet fair use guidelines, and should be deleted")? That's the only thing I can think of, though some existing template might work as well. Did we decide on one? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations/suggestions

I think this is a great idea. I have a few suggestions:

• Don't always have images, I realise it is only for the first few months, but people will get bored of fixing images so I would suggest 2 (if not then at least 1) day a week which is not image related.
• Make sure when they arrive at the backlog there are very clear/simple instructions otherwise many will be discouraged.
• Try to vary as much as possible from day to day. Two very similar tasks next to each other might deter some.

I think that these would encourage people to keep contributing to the TotD instead of growing bored. James086^{Talk | Email} 03:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything that would help, really. Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Another recommendation

Although many people will be happy to participate, participation is not mandatory and there will always be people who object to the messages popping up on their watchlist page. Letting people know that putting #watchlist-message { display: none; } in Special:Mypage/monobook.css would hide this message would be a good idea. Neıl ☎ 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If people would actually get upset about the extra line of text in the Watchlist, then it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have the hide option. Lawrence Cohen 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about implementing it without the hide option, but then if there are lots of complaints a hide option can be added. Not having the hide option will mean more people will see the different tasks on different days instead of seeing one task they don't like and dismissing it permanently. I think it would be better to have the hide button than to disable watchlist messages in their monobook.css because that will prevent other important messages displaying (I think). James086^{Talk | Email} 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tools for making FURs

There are plenty of automated tools for notifying/removing images, but few to help fix them. It would be nice to see some of the FUR templates built into Twinkle or something similar. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would you be looking for it to do? I wrote a userscript (based on Twinkle) that simply provides a more friendly GUI when adding a fair use rationale. It is not as automated as many of Twinkle's functions (this is somewhat intentional, as there are many people who object to fair use rationale writing in a very automated fashion), but it helps when you are looking to add a template to the page (I have yet to write functionality that allows for editing an existing template). As of now it doesn't do much more than provide a structured input format (with a few added perks for convenience). If there is anything in specific you want a userscript to do, I would be happy to look into it. - AWeenieMan (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll test that. It looks like it might be helpful. I've been mainly working on albums. I'd like a tool to automatically ascertain whether the use is infobox, and, if not, to open any articles that contain the image so use can be ascertained. Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly helps. It means I only have to do one cut & paste per fur. If it could pick up the article link automatically and also delete the dispute tag and cat, we'd really be talking ! Could add singles, books, and DVDs. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is now deleting the dispute tag (which should remove the category also, unless someone manually places it). I would add books and dvd covers, except there is no template FUR for them (that I know of) like there is for albums and logos. There is a book cover fur ({{book cover fur}}) template that seems to be being worked on, but it says not to use it yet. So, short of taking the example text and shoving it in the {{Non-free use rationale}} (which doesn't seem ideal to me), it's not something that can be done yet. - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasks on the front page

I think it would be nice to show of some tasks on the front page, just to draw people into the project. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Success?

So of the 11,000 images tagged on Jan 2nd as being non-NFCC compliant, only 6,000 remain in the category. This means either we screened 5,000 in 10 days (and could screen the remainder in time) or that some weird category thing happened. MBisanz ^talk 06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Also a reply to Carcharoth's question above) The book covers, promotional images, historic images, newspaper images, stamps, and web and software screenshots have been screened and fixed/deleted. Of the remaining images, the largest amount of image types left are the album and logo images. Bláthnaid 14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Or they were deleted? Is there any/enough momentum to move this forward to wider attention? Lawrence Cohen 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked through lists of those image types and fixed those that were fixable before the rest were deleted. I let Wikiproject Albums know about the list of disputed album covers, but I don't know if anybody is working on that list yet. I think that User:Quadell is interested in fixing the logos, he has a request for his bot to fix logos, but the request has not yet been approved. Bláthnaid 16:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Per this list of logos User:East718/DFUI/Logos it seems that all after M were deleted/fixed/de-catted. Not an admin, so I can't see deleted contributions. MBisanz ^talk 18:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This old revision seems to suggest that quite a few were deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, of the images that were not deleted past M, I'd say I did the work on 90% of them (meaning few people are working on logo images). Any idea who did the deletion? MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008

Work on this category has kinda slowed down. Would there be objections if I cleared it out (ie delete)? Maxim_(talk) 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has been adding rationales to album covers in this category today, but the amount is still huge. I'll go through the posters and DVD covers this evening, we should be able to get those fixed or deleted by tomorrow. Bláthnaid 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, just add a note at my talkpage, and remember to give me specific and proper instructions if need be. I don't need a repeat of the last time. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do :-) Bláthnaid 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would object to deletion of the images in this category. There are still images in there that are perfectly justifiable fair-use images. This indicates to me that the category has not yet been properly screened and cleaned out. This is hardly surprising give the volume. How about allowing people one more week before starting work on those images? Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could you cross-cat it with Category:Brands of the World images and NOT delete those images. Those images all have perfect sources, and just need standard logo rationales, backlinks,a nd screening for over-use. All of which can be fixed in my opinion, as opposed to unsourced images, which are almost never fixable. I'll ask Betacommand if he can run that cat and drop it in a sub-cat to let me work on it better. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say at this point, as much as it pains me, this cat can be trashed. There are many logos with sources that should be saved, but I've canvassed for interested parties at Wikiprojects, and if they don't want to save images related to their work, we can't make them. Plus we now have 1700 images from Jan 15 to process. MBisanz ^talk 07:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also burned out with adding rationales, its probably time for the cat to be emptied. Bláthnaid 14:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC) My mistake, I did not realise that others were still working hard on these images. Bláthnaid 12:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably going to do it at around midnight (00:00 20 January 2008). I'm probably starting to inspect the categories in maybe 10 minutes. Maxim_(talk) 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finished looking yet. I found several images I was going to add rationales to (and some I just did without noting it - see my image namespace contribs). But in the middle of this, I found some images were being deleted from under me. Please, stop until the agreed upon time. I'm going to post at ANI to raise awareness of this for now and for next time (for the 15 January images). Please don't quote times and then renege on them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working my way through User:Jogers/Disputed_album_covers. I manage about 20 a day and there's a couple hundred left. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is now an ANI thread about this (which I started). See here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong objection

I don't like the idea of using the watchlist notice for this at all. The watchlist notice hits almost every logged-in user. It should be used for large community announcements that are of importance; abusing it (i.e., using it frequently) diminishes its ability to work effectively. The purpose of a watchlist to list articles and pages that you are interested in, not to display things that you may or may not be interested in. While this concept of collaboration is admirable and nice, it should be done via a template that users can elect to put on their user page or user talk page, similar to the Signpost or {{cent}}. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Things done through templates such as what you're proposing rarely work as well as intended. Wizardman 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thought that I can simply hide whatever I don't like with CSS slipped my mind yesterday, though I think making a broad change like this will invariably need people to be upset. I should also note there is a proposal on WP:VPR to add {{cent}} to the Watchlist notice. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)