Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons incompatible image URL
Commons incompatible image URL edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Withdrawn
| Description | image with license not suitable for Commons |
|---|---|
| Data type | URL |
| Example 1 | MISSING |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| See also | Wikidata:Property proposal/external image URL |
Motivation edit
I would like to have images of all murders, killers and druglords and sometimes they are hard/impossible to find in Commons or with a free license so I can use Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765).
I propose we add a constraint so that this is not used on item which already have Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) or image (P18) or other image property.
For examples see the old property proposal or copy them in here.--So9q (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Oppose There are so many images that aren't compatible with Commons licensing that this would be never-ending, subject to spam, and not particularly useful (no pathway to bring them into compatibility with Commons without waiting 100 years or so). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- What for files whose copyright protection will expire in one or two years, like some old movies? They can be tracked with public domain date (P3893) qualifier. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 01:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A proprietary file (we don't have to limit with P18) can be linked doing <item>image (P18)somevalue
URL (P2699)<uri> copyright license (P275)proprietary license (Q3238057). And as I said above, we could store the copyright end date with P3893 --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 01:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC) - Oppose This has been discussed and rejected at least 6 times before. Please stop proposing this property every few months. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm marking this as abandoned now. I am adding described at URL instead on objects that are missing free photos, so others can click there to see what we are missing.—So9q (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @So9q: I'd consider that an abuse of described at URL (P973). The community has decided multiple times that we do NOT want this links. Please don't use properties in a way that make no sense ontologically. Quoting from described at URL (P973): This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists. Using this property to hotlink nonfree images is totally unacceptable in my opinion. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr.üsenfieber: Thanks for the heads up. I'll add useful described as URLs only as you suggest.--So9q (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- To say "we decided back then" is not a reason justifying why we can't do something in the future. All policies and guidelines are subject to change, and this "we won't link to certain images" is one that deserves to be scrutiny. Why? Throughout the various Wikimedia projects there are links to all sorts of coppyrighted, yet incompatibly-licensed works. So why does Wikidata apply a more restrictive rule than is necessary? Why doesa Wikidata essential say "We know useful information exist that can be linked to, but we will fail to add it to our database because... some influential person in the past had a prejudiced against it? But I'll stop there, because I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that "consensus" is a chokehold the keeps us from implemeimg even simple reforms, so something like this is doomed before it begins. Senator2029 11:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: have a look at this project , this is making linking possible outside Wikidata. Germartin1 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)