User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2023/October

Query
Hello, JJMC89,

Category:Wikipedia unreferenced articles improved was moved yesterday but all of the contents in the category have not been moved over to the new category. Is there usually a delay like this? I'm not sure what is normal for this bot. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The category is populated by a template, so the bot will not move the contents. I see attempted to have the bot not process it but didn't do it correctly – "NOBOTS" needs a space.  —&thinsp;JJMC89 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like everything is fine now. Thanks to both of you for checking on this. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Shutoff
The bot shutoff does not work. EJD799 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The bot doesn't need to be shut off because it did exactly was it's supposed to do with respect to Piccadilly line and File:New tube for london final design.jpg. A non-free file requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file in order to meet non-free content use criterion #10c. So, if you feel the file's non-free use in the "Piccadilly" article can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, you will need to add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why. Simply adding such a rationale doesn't mean the use is necessarily policy compliant as explained here, but it will at least stop the file from being removed for criterion #10c reasons. If you keep re-adding the file without providing a corresponding rationale for its use, the bot or a human file reviewer will continue to remove the file. Do that too many times and an administrator might step in and issue a formal warning to stop. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Grotto in the Gulf of Salerno
Excuse me, I understand that it's unsourced, unencyclopaedic, but the evidence of the photo still. Golfodisalerno (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Place-based "participant" categories may be OK to create (in general)
I noticed that your bot was helping to move some "members" categories to "participants" categories, per this CFD, but that it seems to be paused. For example, it looks like some subcategories of were moved, but others were not. My total guess is that there was a bit of a chicken/egg situation in which the categories couldn't be moved until there was something to populate them. I and others have made some adjustments to uir and user WP that might help. One or both of those templates tests for the existence of a "participants" category, or defaults to that category name, and uses it if it exists. This means that it may be safe to move most "WikiProject place name members" categories, and many pages will follow the move as null edits re-parse the related userbox templates.

If this doesn't make sense, or if you have some other plan, don't worry about it. If you are working with other editors somewhere to implement these moves, I would love a link to that discussion. I've been whacking away at some of the categories and userboxes semi-randomly, but a systematic approach might be more effective. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any discussion. Based on the history of WP:CFD/W/L, is working on it and listing them there in batches for the bot. You could coordinate with them. —&thinsp;JJMC89 19:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not processing retains
JJMC89 bot III has not processed the entries at Categories for discussion/Working even though they appear to follow the standard format. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Yugoslavia‎ group was missing the action. I added it. The science museums won't be processed since there is more than one instruction on the page involving them. Removing the merge or retain will let the other be processed. (This is a safety measure to prevent admins from accidentally providing conflicting instructions.) —&thinsp;JJMC89 23:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Astronaut mission patch
Twice now, this bot has automatically removed 'Fair Use' images ( File:Muninn mission patch.jpg and File:Axiom 3 mission patch.png ) which I recently uploaded, from articles which thought I had documented correctly, but it said "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". How do I adjust the templates on those two files to stop this bot from reverting me again on the pages Marcus Wandt and 2022 European Space Agency Astronaut Group ? Note: normaly astronaut mission patches are public domain because they're published by NASA, but in this case they are not and therefore are Fair Use. Wittylama 12:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not JJMC89, but I'll try to answer your question on his behalf. The bot that removed the files has been tasked with finding non-free uses that violate non-free content use criterion #10c. All non-free files are required to have two things as explained in WP:NFC. The first thing they're required to have is a non-free copyright license and pretty much all cases one such license is more than sufficient regardless of how many times a file is being used. The next thing they're required to have is a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. This means that if a file is being used more than once, a separate rationale specific to each of the file's uses needs to be added to fhe file's page. Trying to combime multiple uses into a single rationale is not really considered appropriate since not all non-free uses are considered equivalent and the same justification doesn't usually apply to multiple uses. The bot is looking for files that are lacking rationales for some or all of their uses and it removes them when it finds them. So, the way to stop the bot from removing a file is to make sure there's a rationale for each of its uses on the file's page. This will stop the bot, but providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criterion that need to be satisfied for a non-free use to be considered valid. With non-free patches such as this, a non-free use for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the patch itself or about the mission it represents is usually considered OK, but other types of uses or uses in other articles tend to be much harder to justify in terms of relevant policy. It almost certain that using the patches in the infoboxes of the astronauts who particupated in the missions (like you're trying to do for the Marcus Wandt article) is going to be seen as WP:DECORATIVE and not complying with WP:NFC, WP:FREER and MOS:LOGO; in other words, it's unlikely a consensus in favor of such a non-free use would be established at WP:FFD. The same could be said about using the files 2022 European Space Agency Astronaut Group. In both of those cases, a WP:HATNOTE or a WP:WIKILINK to the stand-alone articles about each mission is going to be preferred as an alternative to an additional use of the non-free file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed reply. Wittylama 14:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had added a new, separate Fair Use justification for the mission patch to be used on infoboxes of biographies of the crew members - which is something that is absolutely standard practice on all other astronaut's biographies. But then this bot removed those justification claims https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAxiom_3_mission_patch.png&diff=1182065239&oldid=1181848139 and then, citing the lack of those claims, removed the file from the article. Again! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcus_Wandt&diff=1182065029&oldid=1181848328
 * How do I actually interact with this bot to get it to stop undoing my work? Wittylama 09:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed them. Those uses don't satisfy WP:NFCC for the reasons that Marchjuly outlined. —&thinsp;JJMC89 13:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the File:Muninn mission patch.jpg this is the graphic which represents Marcus Wandt's component of the Axiom 3 mission - there is no one else that this illustration applies to - its the logo of his part of the mission - as is described in the image's description. Surely that is a valid fair use claim for the biography article about him and the article about Axiom-3? As for the claim that File:Axiom 3 mission patch.png is WP:DECORATIVE - all NASA astronaut biographies have the mission patches of their flights in their infoboxes. The fact that the NASA images are public domain is irrelevant to the 'decorative' critique. The commander of the Axiom-3 mission is Michael_López-Alegría and he has 5 other mission patches in his infobox, representing his 5 previous spaceflights. It would be weird to not include his 6th patch for his sixth mission. Wittylama 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again . It might seem weird to not include the patch for his sixth mission if you're going to include the first five, but "being weird" is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The fact that the NASA images are in the public domain and the Munnin mission one isn't is entirely relevant because it policies applicable to the Munnin patch aren't exactly the same as the policies applicable to the NASA patches. The other five patches aren't non-free content so they're not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy like the sixth one is. Non-free content isn't added to articles simply to complete the set because the other images in the set are within the public domain or are otherwise freely licensed. Moreover, there's no policy-based requirement that patches or any images for that matter, regardless of their copyright status, be included in the main infobox of articles; so, removing the remaining five PD ones is just a matter for editorial-based consensus, whereas adding the non-free one is a matter of policy-based consensus. If you truly feel that adding the sixth patch is policy compliant, you can seek a consensus at WP:FFD and explain why.The point you make about the Munnion patch being specific to Wandt, however, has the makings of a possible justification for non-free use in the Wandt article. If you can find sourced critical commentary that supports the patch was designed specifically to represent him, then perhaps you could add a section about it to his BLP and then display the image there. Such content needs to be in the article (not just the description on the file's page) and it needs to be sourced just like anything else on Wikipedia to avoid being considered WP:NOR.Finally, it's important to remember that what's being applied by JJMC89 is Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use and that non-free content use and fair use aren't exactly the same thing in terms of this policy. Wikipedia's policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use and that's how it's applied; so, this isn't really a "fair use" issue per se. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)