Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-30/Images in Article Incubator

Where is the dispute?

 * File:En-derin-g-files.png from Article_Incubator/En_Derin
 * User_talk:Tim1357
 * Bot_owners'_noticeboard
 * Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator

Who is involved?

 * User:Eclipsed
 * User:DASHBot

What is the dispute?
Non-free Files used within Article Incubator pages are being tagged for deletion, with rationale based on CSD. ie: non-free images are only allowed in the main article space.

But because the Article Incubator project is for the fixing/creation of articles, in preparation for move into main article space, I disagree with the rationale used for deletion.

Note: This dispute is not about copyright. This dispute is about Files in Article Incubator being incorrectly tagged as Orphans, and thus incorrectly tagged for Deletion.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to change the following:
 * Files within the Article Incubator should not be deleted if the only claim is they are not used in main article space.
 * Thus, Article Incubator space should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions

How do you think we can help?
I think you can help by providing an independent view point.

Administrative notes
I think you would be better off setting up an Request for Comment on WT:NFCC. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks     Eclipsed   ¤     19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#CSD_G13:_Stale_incubated_article.     Eclipsed   ¤     02:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/RfC Removal Procedure.    Eclipsed   ¤     00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
As said before, article incubator is not article namespace. It does not matter if the image is on a page in incubator, in userspace, in archives, or anywhere else except the main namespace. It is the policy in response to a real law. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy is in response to a real law. But in this case, I find no violation of real law.  The image in question has a valid non-free rationale, that should hold up to scrutiny if the image was used in the mainspace.  The only point in dispute here is if Files in the Article Incubator are being incorrectly tagged as Orphans, and thus incorrectly tagged for deletion.  Thanks.      Eclipsed   ¤     11:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the CSD#F5. Unused unfree images criteria is:


 * F5: Images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain, that are not used in any article, may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days, or immediately if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.

My claims are:
 * images in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article.
 * images in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article.

Thanks. Eclipsed  ¤     11:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Article incubator pages are not articles; therefore images used in article incubator are not used under fair use (WP:NFCC). You are saying that this is not about the copyright, but a copyrighted image without any fair use is a direct copyright issue. You are essentially proposing to not delete a copyrighted media file on grounds that it will be used under fair use in the future. It is a valid proposal convenient for editors, but it does break copyright law. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Let me see if I understand you... would it be correct to state that you dispute the Non-free media use rationale on the file, specifically, disputing the 'Article' section because you claim content in the Article Incubator can not be a valid Article, and also disputing the 'Purpose of Use' section because of same rationale?   Thanks.      Eclipsed   ¤     13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Concisely put, yes. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For Reference, the criteria for WP:NFCC is:
 * Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions.

For Reference, the Non-free content criteria exemptions is/are:
 * Exemptions from non-free content policy are made for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, specifically for those that are used to manage questionable non-free content. Those pages that are exempt are listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions.

My claim is that the Article Incubator is a valid exemption to WP:NFCC#9, and thus the Article Incubator space should be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Thanks. Eclipsed  ¤     13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Article incubator (in my opinion) does not qualify for fair use criteria exemptions. Pages in incubator are drafts, just as any userspace draft. They don't have a deadline and may remain drafts indefinitely. And I think drafts are hardly "administrative purposes". The main work on articles is producing prose, and images can be uploaded at any time afterwards. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for quick reply. Actually, the Article Incubator does have a defined time period of 1 month for working on an article.  Anything longer than that requires seeing real progress on the article.  See section 4 of INCUBATE.   Also (in my opinion) the Article Incubators main work is to produce all-around quality articles.  This includes illustrations.  Thus my claim that this is a valid exemption because this deals directly with creating or managing the encyclopedia.     Eclipsed   ¤     14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding an image placeholder to an article and uploading the real image later on is much quicker than the work required on prose. The article quality does not suffer from the lack of the "real" image. There is no reason to keep copyrighted images on the incubator pages except for editor convenience. And I don't think that the small benefit of having "live" images in the incubator articles warrants an exception to the fair use criteria. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: if the article in question (Article_Incubator/En_Derin) graduates from the Article Incubator into mainspace, then the issue that started this discussion is moot. I can't do this myself, as I edited the article. But other editors can review the page and decide for themselves it they want to click 'Move to mainspace' in the tool box.
 * the issue that started this discussion is now moot. However...     Eclipsed   ¤     04:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

However, the ongoing issue of images in the Article Incubator would still be open, and I hope a consensus can be reached via this mediation. Thanks. Eclipsed  ¤     15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I see this is a discussion going on in several locations. I am opposed to excluding/exemptions for non-free material in the Incubator. In regards to fair use images I am going to paste what I said at Wikipedia talk:NFCC here as well. I know there was not explicit wording saying "any material taken from anywhere would become exempt simply by placing a FUR on it and putting in the incubator" but it clearly *does* imply it: Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as a Reasonable Exception for an upcoming article. certainly seems like "an actual proposal for exemption wording." So does Non-free content in the Article Incubator qualify as very likely to have use on a valid article. and I would argue that even The Article Incubator is a valid use of creating or managing the encyclopedia sounds like exemptions for any non-free content to be exempt from following any policy. I use the "if" "and" "than" plain English wording - in this case all three of the proposed wordings suggest that "if" there is non-free material "and" it is used in Article Incubator space "than" it would be 1> " a Reasonable Exception" 2> "very likely to have use" 3> "a valid use." And, when combined with the current wording at the incubator, any such material could be left for at least 3 months without being questioned. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if the NFC is related to an incubator candidate article, then the article itself was already questioned, and evaluated to have a 'reasonable chance of improvement'. Thus, with the Incubator policy of 'activity and progress required within a short-ish time span', the NFC is actively supporting an article-in-creation.  If the activity and progress stops and the article is not-ready-for-prime-time, then it will get deleted or userfied, and the NFC would become an orphan and deletable uncontroversially.  (And yea: there are now multiple discussions going on, all related to management of the Incubator, and the threads are getting looooong, and a bit confusing at times!)     Eclipsed   ¤     09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to Close
I'd like to request this case be closed, and possibly the RfC also. It has generated many other discussions related to the Incubator. I think it'd be best for the various proposals to be reviewed/rewritten/merged by the participants in the incubator. Then we can decide what to request.

Until then, there would be no change to NFC policy, and NFC in the incubator will be tagged as orphans, and deleted.

Thanks! Eclipsed  (t)     14:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)