Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 14 November 2008

Sort key

{{editprotected}}

Change ] to ] – that is, add a sort key. That way, the images will be sorted by their file name, rather than the word "Image:", in the category -- 86.136.74.61 22:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorize template?

The template shouldn't be in the category, should it? Superm401 - Talk 11:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template should not be in category

{{editprotected}}

Howdy, this template is in the All non-free media category, which is meant for non-free media, not GFDL templates. There is some funny <noinclude> </noinclude> business that moves it to the top of the category, but it seems more useful to leave information on the Category page itself, and include this in one of the template categories. I suggest Category:Non-free image copyright tags, but I am no expert.

The current code:

]<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{template doc}}
</noinclude>

Proposed code:

<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{template doc}}
]
</noinclude>

Thanks, JackSchmidt (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Category:Non-free image copyright tags was aded to the non-protected documentation page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding NOINDEX

I am going to add {{NOINDEX}} to this template to reduce the number of non-free images that show up on their own on google, see , technically, we are violating the NFCC #2 and #9 by making it available to crawlers both in the article and on the Image: page, instead of simply in the article. MBisanz 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If there's a legal issue, let the Foundation's paid legal counsel make the edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its fair to toss Mike Godwin an email asking if there is any legal implication of having google or other engines index non-frees. If obviously there's a problem, then there's no debate, otherwise, we'll decide here. --MASEM 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a legal problem with indexing non-free images, or with allowing a search engine to do so. I offer no judgment as to whether this is a violation of any NFCC. (My general belief is that if it is okay for Google to index and even thumbnail something, it's okay for us to allow Google to do this, apart from any lawyerly interpretations of any NFCC. But this is a personal view and not offered as any kind of ex cathedra pronouncement.)MikeGodwin (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though MBisanz posted this idea, I'd still support it ;-). I'm not looking at this from a legal standpoint, nor a technical one - I just think, if we're so strict on our NFC policies on the wiki, this probably should have been done a long time ago. I also like the idea as it will prevent more work for myself and other OTRS people, who have to deal with companies who contact us complaining that their logo, for example, is being hosted on our website without permission. And they don't notice this from their article; they notice it from Google, often the first result for media. So, simply put: Why do we want to host non-free content for search engines? To be honest, I don't feel that "why don't we" and "we have been for a long time" are good arguments, but I have a feeling they're coming. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. There is no reason for google to index these. Garion96 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)