User:STBotI/CodeCollaboration

Pardon me if I'm commenting in the wrong place. Here are my comments:
 * Your detection code for whether there is a rationale makes me dubious. What if there's a 24-word rationale that doesn't say "rationale"? It looks like it could even have a backlink to the article, as your bot previously required, and still get flagged as "no rationale". I see this being relevant in cases such as logos and album covers, which contain most of the rationale in the copyright tag already, so very little additional information is necessary for the article in particular.
 * Why does the article= parameter need to be followed by a dot, letter, or number? There are articles that start with weirder characters. Parentheses and exclamation points come immediately to mind.
 * The main thing I object to about the 10c check is that it tags the image for deletion when it fails. No automated 10c check can be that accurate. It looks like rationales written in "plain English" are going to fail the check very often, as you've written it. This routine should put the image in a category of images that need to be checked by fair-use people to see if there is a rationale.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Commenting here is fine. I've tried to write a valid rationale and make it as short as possible, and here's what I got:
 * Subject is dead
 * Low resolution, only uses front. (I was thinking of a CD cover here)
 * Source here. Either a name of a publication or a URL. URLs count as at least 5 words.
 * A link to the article, one word.
 * copyright tags, which count as at least three.
 * This gives me 17 words. I've never seen a rationale that satisfies me with that few words, and I've seen many images with that few that have no semblance whatsoever of a rationale.


 * Because that's how I wrote it :( I'm going to make that whole thing work better by having it actually look for the name of the pages it's used on.
 * Would you be satisfied if the 10c check looked for the name of the articles, as described above? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Including things like "low resolution, only uses front" in a CD cover rationale is frankly unnecessary. That's not specific to the use in the article, it's inherent to the image, and it's already stated right there in the copyright tag. The copyright tag also says "used solely to illustrate the article in question", so the backlink is only there for our bookkeeping and I wouldn't fault users who take the common sense step of leaving it out. Also, no source is a different problem. The source isn't part of the rationale. I don't think we're deleting images yet for having no source.
 * So here's a very short example that even includes a source and a backlink.

Album cover to illustrate Velouria, scanned by me. Fair use, see above.
 * That's 15 words, and we'd even give people the benefit of the doubt if they left a few of them out.
 * In general, I haven't been satisfied by any of your proposed 10c checks. They all seem to be checking things that are quite unrelated to whether the image is being used appropriately in its article.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Internal links vs article name
My only issue with your tagging rules is "#AND the image does not contain an internal link to anywhere other than these namespaces:" Basically, policy says "The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well)." I know you have mentioned loosening this requirement on another page, but I just wanted to put my support behind article name and not internal link. I just don't think it is right to mark an image for deletion that may conform to policy (especially given that admins don't always review each image they end up deleting), as I have seen many text only rationales that have a nice title with the article name and everything that have been tagged. Thanks. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a test for this issue. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)