Template talk:Di-disputed non-free use rationale

This template was considered for deletion on 2009 July 19. The result of the discussion was keep.

Correction

"Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed."

This is false. WP:NFCC#10c actually states that an article link is optional: "The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item..." —Torc. ^(Talk.) 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct.--Rockfang (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic dating

Wouldn't it be possible to use the {{subst:#time:Y F j}} syntax to generate the |date= parameter automatically on the template? This would probably make use of the template easier. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request an edit

I think that:

| note = that, per [[WP:NFCC#10c]], each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed

should be changed to:

| note = that, per [[WP:NFCC#10c]], each fair-use rationale must include the name of the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed

per the point made 2 sections above.--Rockfang (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit to link to Template:Non-free use rationale

{{editprotected}} To aid editors in resolving fair use rationale, the edit below is suggested to link to {{Non-free use rationale}}: before

| will be deleted unless = this concern is addressed by adding an appropriate [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|non-free use rationale]], or in some other way

after

| will be deleted unless = this concern is addressed by adding an appropriate [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|non-free use rationale]], such as [[:Template:Non-free use rationale]], or in some other way

Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 11:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader not to remove

In common with other templates which lead to speedy deletion, I feel that the uploader of the image should not be permitted to remove this tag but should instead make a case on the image page (or talk page) explaining why the image should be kept. Unless I hear any objections, I will add this in a few days. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. Speedy procedures should be used for non-controversial deletions only, not for cases of differences of judgment. The uploader should have the right to consult the wider community at IfD. Jheald (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no different to regular speedy deletions (e.g. for non-notable bios); the uploader may well believe that the article is about a notable person, but may not remove the deletion tag himself (the hangon tag is used instead). This would bring this process into line with that and also with Template:Di-replaceable fair use. The uploader, therefore, should write an explanation of why he feels that the image does meet the fair use policy, and when the image falls due for deletion, the admin reviewing the category can decline to delete the image or refer it to IFD as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? Some of the WP:NFCC criteria are sufficiently subjective that an uploader deserves the right to get the view of the community as a whole, not just two admins playing Tweedledum and Tweedledee. (Or, often enough, just one admin closing his own speedy, acting as judge, jury and executioner all in one). Jheald (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuffexists has nothing to do with this. And admins should not delete articles they tag themselves under the delayed deletion criteria; I know I never do. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from images which he uploaded himself, in the same way as removing the replaceable image and other speedy deletion templates is prohibited? !! time=11:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC) }}

If a better rationale is provided, it just seems like more hassle for the Wikipedia community to have to go through IfD to verify it is sufficiently better. Let the uploader remove it, and if the tagger is still unsatisfied he should then tag it again, at which point it should go to IfD. Computerjoe 's talk 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. Plus, generally I remove the tags after messing up or malforming a template, as I suspect others do as well; we don't need a process to fix our mistakes. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this proposal; I see the disputed fair use tag as more of a prod tag than a speedy tag. Powers ^T 13:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I view it as more of a prod-like process. In fact, when I originally created this template - not that that gives me any special !vote in this conversation - I modeled it after PROD and not the speedy image templates. I agree that we shouldn't be speedily deleting things that come down to disputed judgment calls. Although as I type that, it occurs to me that we handle replaceable images very similarly, and I have no qualms about deleting those even over the objections of the uploader. I don't know how to explain the difference, but I do feel that there is one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the template, the objector has the right to speedy deletion only if there is no response to the objection within one week. Once there is any non-trivial response, the uploader has the right to remove the template. Although I agree with Stifle's reasoning, I don't think he can change it unilaterally without a change in policy. Phil_burnstein (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. The above is totally off the mark. This template isn't a PROD in the least. Contrary to what Jheald says above, PRODs are specifically used for uncontroversial deletions. Speedy deletion isn't reserved for uncontroversial instances, it's used in specific situations. Certain criteria have to be met. An invalid fair use claim is CSD F7. To nominate a file for an F7 deletion, this template is used. Both universal consensus and long term precedent hold that you do not remove CSD tags. This is a CSD tag. Regardless of what everyone above says (strangely enough), if you use this tag to nominate an image you're nominating it based on a criterion for speedy deletion. The only difference between this and common CSD tags is this simply gives the user time to correct or counter-argue the nomination, rather than using a {{hold on}} template. It's a seven day period, but it's still meets a speedy criterion. The process is similar to PROD in that you tag it and wait, but while PROD is for uncontroversial deletions this deals with copyright and is highly controversial.

If the above represented consensus, uploaders would have the right to remove CSD tags and force it to go through discussions in an essential "appeal to the community". Swarm ^X 11:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The difference is that (unlike your typical CSD tag) what is, and what is not, a "valid rationale" is very much a subjective value judgement, involving assessments of significance, contribution, relevance, replaceability and so on, none of which are necessarily cut-and-dried. That's why it makes sense for the uploader to be allowed to ask the view of the wider community.

CSDs are supposed to be for uncontroversial decisions. It's a basic principle of using CSD that if there might be a reasonable case under policy that deletion might not be appropriate, then CSD is not the right tool for the job. Jheald (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD are a specific set of rules where deletion discussions can be bypassed. If something meets a CSD, discussion can be bypassed. Uncontroversial maintenance tasks fall under CSD G6, but there are 22 other criteria that may apply to files (11 general, 11 File specific) that have nothing to do with controversy. In fact, WP:CSD doesn't even mention the word "uncontroversial" outside of CSD G6. The basis for your argument appears to be the allegation that the CSD are for uncontroversial instances only, while in reality controversy has nothing to do with whether an image gets deleted. If it meets a CSD, it does get deleted without need for a discussion. This is a tag that applies to CSD F7, thus a discussion can specifically be bypassed. Someone can dispute the argument if they wish, but, just like all the other CSD, it's up for an admin to decide in the end. Swarm ^X 12:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, ask on the CSD talkpage if you like. But the point is that the philosophy of CSD is that CSD is for cases where it is absolutely cut-and-dried clear as to whether or not something falls into the CSD category. It even says so at the top of the page: Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.

When that is not the case (ie when something might have a practical chance of surviving discussion), then CSD is not appropriate. Jheald (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm right, then the template should say that the uploader shouldn't remove it. If I'm wrong, this template is being misrepresented as a CSD tag (I don't know if you realize this), and WP:CSD needs to be changed to clarify this. Either way, something is wrong! I was previously assuming that this was a CSD tag, as supported by everyone. If that's not the case, I'm going to change it to specify that it's not. There may be no consensus one way or the other regarding this issue, so I'll probably try to see if the community can reach a decision over at WT:CSD. Swarm ^X 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "removal" clause

The idea of tagging an image for several days before it is removed from an article is madness- instead, discussion belongs on the article talk page. A tag on an image page should refer to intended changes to the image, not to articles in which it is used. This template should only be used with a view to delete the image. In an uncontroversial case, the image should just be removed- no need to waste time with a template. In a controversial case, a template notice and wait seven days isn't good enough- discussion is required. Either way, this template should not be used. Instead, this should purely be a deletion notice. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If it is only disputed in some articles, why can't we do that? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, because tagging an image with a template does not prove that it should be removed from an article. If you want to make an edit to an article, discuss it on the article talk page or do it, don't tag some image and wait. Think about it. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant wording?

I just realized the wording comes off as redundant.

This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed.
Unless this concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale...

The assumption for using this template is that a file "has a non-free use rationale that is disputed", as opposed to a file not having a FUR so "by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale" it would be fine. Could that second part be removed? In other words the end result would be:

This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless this concern is addressed, the image will be deleted or removed from some uses...

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is redundant. Also, "appropriate" is so incredibly subjective in this use that it's almost meaningless. If it's in dispute in the first place, who's to say that a rewritten non-free rationale is "appropriate"? Doesn't seem controversial, so I'll just go ahead and make the edit request. Swarm ^X 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Requests

Can someone remove this redundant, vague and unhelpful phrase?

Current wording: This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless this concern is addressed by adding an appropriate non-free use rationale, such as Template:Non-free use rationale, or in some other way, the image will be deleted...
Requested change: This file has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless this concern is addressed, the image will be deleted...

Second request: I feel that an additional phrase should be clarified: Whether one has "successfully addressed a concern" or not may differ from person to person. The wording should be clarified so that it isn't removed until all parties in the dispute are satisfied, not when someone feels they have addressed the concern.

Current wording: Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern.
Requested change: Please remove this template if the dispute has been successfully resolved. Swarm ^X 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am removing the edit-request template for the moment, because I object: the edit is neither uncontroversial, nor supported by consensus:

Objection to the second request</red>. See the discussion "Uploader not to remove" above -- which was agreed that forbidding uploader removal was justified. If someone objects that the rationale given is sufficient, then a quasi-speedy-like process is not appropriate, and discussion should be taken to a wider forum, like WP:NFCR or WP:FFD.

I also object to the first request, since it is a good thing that the template gives the uploader some concrete indication what is expected of them. Jheald (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has objected for a month, forgive me for assuming there were no objections. However, I think you're misinterpreting the requests. They're merely issues to clarify wording and wouldn't effect usage at all. Can you detail your objections some more? The second request has nothing to do with changing the rules for removal. It simply clarifies the wording. If someone counters the template by saying the rationale is fine, it goes to FfD. That doesn't change at all. The rules for outright removal of the template are "successfully addressing the concern." That means the exact same thing as "successfully resolving the dispute", the latter wording is just more clear. It's not subjective to opinion of one party, it's subjective to actual resolution. Again, it still gets treated like a PROD. I have no idea why you think that would change.

The first request wouldn't remove a concrete indication of what is expected of them, it's simply redundant. Swarm ^X 15:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2016

This edit request to Template:di-orphaned fair use has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please add tfm tags to all of these template-protected templates linked:

Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale with Template:Dfu (shorter form already tagged)
Template:dw-nld with Template:di-dw no license
Template:dw-nsd with Template:Di-dw no source
Template:dw-nsdnld with Template:Di-dw no source no license
Template:nld with Template:di-no license
Template:nsd with Template:di-no source
Template:nsdnld with Template:di-no source no license (tag already on longer name)
Template:npd with Template:di-no permission
Template:nrd with Template:di-no fair use rationale
Template:or-fu-re with Template:di-orphaned fair use
Template:rfu with Template:di-replacable fair use.

Pppery (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Done most. I believe you meant "Template:di-replaceable fair use". I submitted a WP:RFPP request for the fully-protected Template:di-orphaned fair use with ~520 transclusions. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escalating issue to full-prot edit request. Template:di-orphaned fair use, fully protected (I submitted a RFPP), remains to be tagged. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: The remaining page has been reduced to template protection. Pppery (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

This edit request to Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The tfm debate I mentioned earlier was relisted by a non-template-editor, so a template editor is needed to change |link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 28 to |link= Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5 on all of the following templates:

Ppp ery 13:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove TFM banner

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The banner should be removed. The TFM discussion is closed as "kept". --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately applying this template to certain files

I don't know what the community thinks about this template and the File PROD process. However, I think PROD is more appropriate than this template and more effective. Indeed, I don't use this template anymore, but it is still used on certain files that should have been more suitable for PROD. Also, the length of leaving the template remaining is the same as leaving the PROD tag remaining: seven days. Also, applying this template to a dePRODded file (or a PROD-deleted file that is undeleted) is inappropriate, especially considering how one-shot PROD is. Also, if this template is used, it might be removed but then reinserted cyclically, leading to edit warring, unlike PROD. If making the template strictly used is out of question, then how else can this template be appropriately applied to files? --George Ho (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:NFCC § Di templates

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC § Di templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions still remaining

This tag still restricts uploaders from removing the tag from their filepages and urges others to address issues before removing the tag. On the contrary, File PROD doesn't do any of that that. File PROD can be removed by anybody, while this tag has some restrictions. I still struggle to figure out, especially after discussion at WT:CSD, why the more restrictive tag is still used. I still haven't seen the tag as a good alternative to PROD. --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory wording

If the uploader thinks they've addressed the concern, they're effectively being told both Please remove this template and do not remove this notice. Which instruction takes priority here, and how can we convey this more clearly? jlwoodwa (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to get rid of the "Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern." and reword the last paragraph to something like the following:

Note that if you are not the uploader of the file and are able to successfully address the concerns described above, you may remove this template. If you are the uploader of the file and are able to satisfactory address the concerns described above or otherwise disagree with the shortcomings of the non-free use rationale, please do not remove this template but instead discuss the matter on the file's talk page.

I also suggest adding a {{Please see}} for this discussion to WT:NFCC and WT:CSD to let others know about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]