Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Archive 108

section
This discussion concerns recent edits to the section.

Werieth, yesterday (3 April), citing WP:NFCC in your edit summaries. After your edits, the discussion no longer made sense. Furthermore, NFCC#9 doesn't apply here, since no non-free images are displayed (the discussion merely links to them, which is permitted). Hence,.

Today (4 April), I see, which again disrupted the meaning of Redrose64's comments. I also undid these changes.

I hope the edit summary on my first undo made it clear that NFCC#9 doesn't apply here. I suspect you are now trying to clear this page from some report or other that is listing it in error. If you can find a way to do this without disrupting the archived discussion, I would have no objection. However, a report with a few false positives is preferable to losing the meaning of an archived discussion. (I'd suggest getting in contact with whoever generates the report, to ask them to correct it so it no longer gives false positives.)

If you make further edits to this particular discussion, please note the following:
 * Redrose64 is specifically discussing use of the Media: namespace. Do not change this to File:.
 * Tazvidyagame.jpg is used as an example of an image redirect. Please do not replace it with Example.jpg, since that is not a redirect.

(I'm also not sure why you were mucking around with changing non-breaking spaces. Is this some Manual of Style rule? If so, please do not try to enforce the MOS on talk page comments; that's a sure path to madness.)

Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the files you will see that for some reason they are generating file usage links, and not just regular wiki links. These uses are coming up on the NFCC#9 violation reports. See File:Taz-Mania_game_cover.jpg Werieth (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I thought it could be a buggy bot-generated report at first, but since the file links show up on the file page itself, it is MediaWiki's behaviour that is an issue. It is by design that a file link refers to more than just embedding an image in a page. A file link refers to anything where MediaWiki must access the image file itself (rather than just the description page). Ideally, whatever generates your report would check the linking pages to see if they really do display the image, though this type of thing is probably rare enough that it's not worth bothering. After all, the report is reviewed by humans, and humans should be clever enough to ignore the false positives (perhaps an explanation could be added to the report?).
 * If you're wondering what causes the file links in this case, it appears any use of Media: will generate a file link. This makes some sense for wikilinks that use Media:, since such links go straight to an image bypassing the copyright info on the description page. I've de-linked the links in this discussion that used Media: while preserving the text of the link. (Bypassing the copyright info wasn't a problem here, since there are links to the file description pages right next to the Media: links.)
 * Media: inside also generates file links, though there is no visible link on the page. To get rid of these file links, I've effectively subst'd the uses of #ifexist that were not inside &lt;nowiki> tags. I've left the original code inside &lt;!-- editor comments -->. This change makes no difference to the display of the discussion. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten my comments to use a non-copyright image File:A-36 "Apache" of the 27th Fighter Bomber Group.jpg. The choice of a specific image was immaterial: what I wanted was an image hosted on English Wikipedia, one which also had a redirect. Since the image was not actually to be displayed, I assumed that copyright would not be a concern.
 * Please note that the paragraphs concerning [[Media:BSicon .svg]] and [[Media:BSicon .svg]] should not have been altered, since the image File:BSicon .svg is not just hosted on commons, but is so WP:NFCC cannot apply. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did that to maintain consistency. I have no objections to them being put back as they were. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mangled threads
Please can somebody explain ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh... Looking through the history, I think that was me, though I have no clue how it happened. (As I recall, I used the "" link on, entered a summary, possibly did a "", then hit "". I'm not sure where I could have gone wrong in that.) I've my mess now. Thanks for spotting it. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)