Template talk:Non-free use rationale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Field for NFCC#2?[edit]

Why does this template not have a field for information related to WP:NFCC#2 (commercial opportunities)? That's a crucial part of many rationales. I propose adding a field "commercial role". Fut.Perf. 08:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: the alternative {{Non-free use rationale 2}} does have that field. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I suggest we add an extra field "author", factoring out that information from the "description" field. Too many people never realize that they are supposed to add the author information under that heading. This change would also make the template more compatible with the free {{Information}} template (i.e., if you realize an image tagged with {{Non-free use rationale}} is really PD or something, you should be able to simply exchange the template name and end up with a valid {{Information}} template with all the relevant fields remaining the same.) Fut.Perf. 09:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Twice this template uses hyphens when it should use dashes. Could |''- WARNING: please be changed to |''– WARNING: and |''- NEEDS ARTICLE NAME'' be changed to |''– NEEDS ARTICLE NAME''. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Tra (Talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New field for copyright holder[edit]

Templates such as {{Non-free software cover}} specify that the rationale must include "the source of the work and copyright information", but this template does not have a field for copyright info. I propose to add one.

Should this expansion also deal with the unanswered point about "author" raised above? – Fayenatic London 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

apostrophe missing[edit]

In the section "...would be unlikely to impact the copyright owners ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work," there needs to be an apostrophe in the above underlined and bolded word. If a single owner, it goes before the s, if multiple, aftewards. If we are trying to be ambiguous, it needs to be rephrased as "would be unlikely to impact the ability of the copyright owner(s) to resell or otherwise profit from the work."

I prefer the third option. — trlkly 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


At File:Rongorongo G-r Small Santiago (raw).jpg, the tag says "This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use", but does not explain why or what to do about it. All it says is to add parameters which are already added. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Markup issues[edit]

When validating pages where this template is used, the follow errors are shown:

  • The cellpadding attribute on the table element is obsolete. Use CSS instead.
Caused by cellpadding="2". Convert this to CSS.
  • The summary attribute is obsolete. Consider describing the structure of the table in a caption element or in a figure element containing the table; or, simplify the structure of the table so that no description is needed.
This is caused by <code>summary="The non-free use rationale of this image; see WP:NFURG"</code>. The simplest solution is to remove this.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_header.
Caused by id="rationale_header". When this template is included on a page multiple times, the same ID is used. I don't see a use for the ID, thus the simplest fix is to remove it.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_desc.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_src.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_art.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_port.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_reduc.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_purp.
  • Duplicate ID rationale_otherinf.
These are the same as the previous issue. I don't see the need for all of these IDs.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that "converting" cellpadding="2" to CSS would require either editing MediaWiki:Common.css to add an appropriate class for use here or adding style="padding:2px" to every cell in the table. If possible, it would probably be better to just remove it entirely and use the "standard" padding.
Note that IDs are often present in this sort of template so user scripts of some sort can detect whether the template (and/or a certain parameter) was used. It might be a good idea to check for that before removing them. Anomie 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Example: File:Homenetmen.png; W3C markup validation for File:Homenetmen.png. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the IDs were added by B when the template was created. I have queried him on it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't remember why I would have added them, but I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were probably IDs in whatever I was copying it from and I just assumed that it was a standard practice to include them. I was strictly a C++ guy back then and didn't really know web standards so I doubt I even knew what HTML IDs were. (Obviously, I do know what they are now and if I were creating the template today, I wouldn't add IDs just for the sake of adding them.) --B (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Update at {{Non-free use rationale/sandbox}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


Why the hell isn't there an Author-Field ?? --Itu (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I support this, especially since it was discussed above at #Field for NFCC#2?. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Original uploader field[edit]

Is this the right place to request an original_uploader= field in all image info templates? If standardized, this could be filled in by the various uploading tools, and respected by the various bots, scripts, and editors who nominate images for deletion, or report that an image has become orphaned. For example: Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions.png), and image for which the original uploader info is not present in the current image html page "File history" section. Of course the Mediawiki revision history (View History at top of page) shows the original uploader (User:IbankingMM), but this is not used by Hazard-Bot AFAIK when reporting problems.
As we all know, resizings and re-uploadings by others over time tend to result in the original uploader's file being deleted, sometimes per WP:NFCC, sometimes due to space conservation.
I don't mind being notified about images which I've touched. But even though I (say) resized the image, I don't necessarily want to take over stewardship of it; that's the original uploader's contribution for which to advocate. But that person is, AFAIK, never notified of pending deletions, if a re-upload/purge cycle has taken place. Hence, the original_uploader= new field for all image description templates. Where should this be discussed? --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014[edit] (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 November 2014[edit]

Please make this change, so that the description and source information detailed in this template can be used by MediaViewer and other tools that require machine readable information, when a {{Information}} template is not present. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015[edit]

The City of Clinton has a new logo and motto. You Belong Here has replaced History Pride Progress. I need to change the logo on the page. Sincerely, City of Clinton Communications Dept. Communications Dept.Clinton communication (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done: @Clinton communication: this is the wrong page to make an edit request on. The correct place would be on the talk page of Clinton, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Many of the NFUR subtemplates are tagged as substitute-only but don't have any explanation why. Does anyone know? – czar 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 October 2015[edit] (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Metadata flag for nonfree content[edit]


there is a machine-readable metadata markup convention for copyright tags, originating from Wikimedia Commons which is used by various tools. to correctly understand image copyright properties (what needs attribution, what cannot be freely reused etc). This template implements most of it but misses the most the important one, the "nonfree" flag (which was added to the definition after the template was updated). Please add it to the template. (new template text, diff) I'm assuming that this template is used on the description page of all nonfree files, so this is the best place to add; if that's wrong, please correct me.

Thanks! --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, there is no policy that mandates a template based NFUR and there are other NFUR templates too which don't contain this one. So that won't work. However, there is Template:Non-free media which (apparently? Needs checking) is used in all non-free media templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Disabled request. Tgr: are you happy to add to the template mentioned by Jo-Jo? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, centralizing is probably a good idea. I did a quick search for templates which include a licensetpl class and have "non-free" in their name:

That's clearly unmaintainable. If you think this discussion is sufficient consensus then I'll go around and remove license markup from each of those and add it to {{Non-free media}} (which is included in each of those), as having it twice on the page would probably cause problems. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The copyright metadata has a bunch of different fields (license name, link to the license, is attribution required?, is it a free license?). For fair use most of those don't make sense or can be set to a generic value, so it can all be done in a single shared template. For free licenses those values change from license to license so it can't.

Anyway, if there are no objections to the changes I listed above, I'll do them over the weekend. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Yay, I figured out a while ago myself that using that for free media would require a per-template fix. Anyhow, I endorse the edit(s) to {{Non-free media}} and removal of the license microformat from the other templates. Wonder if {{Puf}} and other "probably non-free" templates should be marked with the "nonfree" microformat, since by definition their freeness is iffy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The non-free parameter should be added to all non-free copyright tags unless it already is there. A fair use rationale is not a copyright tag and should not have this parameter in my opinion. Note that {{non-free media}} is both transcluded by copyright tags and by FUR templates.
Per WP:NFCC#10b, all non-free files are required to have a non-free copyright tag, so if the parameter is added to all non-free copyright tags, then this should be solved for all images which are used in accordance with policy.
If {{puf}} and other templates mark files as unfree, then I suspect that B's bot would find that unused files at PUF are 'orphaned non-free files' and tag them for deletion per WP:F5, but we'd at least want to keep the file until the PUF discussion has ended. It would also make it harder to search for WP:NFCC#9 violations. It's inappropriate to remove files from userpages and similar locations before the discussion at PUF has ended. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
licensetpl should be set by copyright tags (for example, {{non-free logo}}), but not by fair use rationales (for example, {{non-free use rationale}}) since a fair use rationale is not in itself a copyright tag. Once it is available in all free and unfree copyright tags, it will be easy to find files without copyright tags, for example files which violate WP:NFCC#10b.
Data for information templates should be set by fair use rationale templates (for example, {{non-free use rationale}}), but not by copyright tags such as {{non-free logo}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll update the templates individually for now, but in the long term I think that's suboptimal because the same machine-readable markup would have to be added to every new non-free license template. It would be more maintainable to have something like {{Non-free media template}} which wraps {{Non-free media}} and is used instead of it in license templates and adds the markup. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Tgr (WMF): Unfortunately, adding the information to {{non-free media}} isn't possible since the tag mustn't be added to templates which are not copyright tags. The information must therefore be added to the copyright tags manually, unless a switch is added to {{non-free media}} to distinguish between templates which are copyright tags and templates which are not copyright tags. For example, licensetpl can't be added to FUR templates, since a FUR template isn't in itself a copyright tag. I see that you added licensetpl to a few FUR templates - please revert! --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Stefan2, I only modified license metadata of templates which already had it. Having incomplete license metadata in those templates would cause problems. Not having any metadata in them probably wouldn't, but I'll leave fixing that to someone else as I am not sure which templates are used together with a license tag and which not. (If something has a fair use rationale template but no license template, it's better to have license metadata in the rationale template than not at all.) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
In theory, any FUR needs to be accompanied with a license template. WP:NFCC#10b says so. As for adding metadata to FUR templates, I think we'll need a discussion about whether {{Non-free media}} should be transcluded on FUR templates first; that template is per its documentation a meta-tag for copyright tags.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they often aren't :) --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, Jo-Jo Eumerus: I looked through Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags and the majority of those do not have license metadata of any kind. Separately adding metadata to ~100 templates and then making sure it is added to every new member of a category is unmanageable, and the lack of that metadata is causing problems (e.g. this - I'll need to create a couple hundred more of those pages).

{{non-free media}} might be used in some non-copyright-tag templates, but those templates are used on the description pages of nonfree files anyway, and there is no disadvantage from having multiple instances of license metadata on a file description page. Adding metadata with a "nonfree" flag to that template seems the most reasonable appreach to me, but if it is really important to limit metadata to copyright tags, then I could create {{Non-free media template}} with the content {{Non-free media}}<div class="licensetpl">...</div>, and then search and replace for invocations of the Non-free media template inside the members of Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. What do you think? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • {{Non-free media}} is the template that says in its documentation Thus allowing a machine-readable list of all non-free media to be created. so I think your proposed template would be a duplicate and will oppose on that reason. If it's really true that not all {{non-free media}} tagged things merit copyright metadata and that removing that template from the inappropriate instances is not a fix, modifying that template to have a parameter |metadata=yes or |nometadata=yes may be more suitable, depending on performance and complexity considerations.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    {{Non-free media}} is used in 150 templates, while Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags has 84 pages. So |metadata=yes and |nometadata=yes (or rather, |metadata=no) seem equally viable approaches. I would go with the latter as it has a more benign failure mode: a non-free image template that adds metadata even though it doesn't need to is rarely a problem, while the opposite usually is. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Per discussion above, please change {{Non-free media}} to {{Non-free media|metadata=no}}. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Doubled punctuation problem[edit]

If the name of the image ends in punctuation, right now we end up with doubled ending punctuation: "This is the front cover art for the book Are You Dave Gorman?."

Could someone either add a parameter that removes the ending period (something like, "ending period=no") or somehow restructure the sentence so that the title does not appear at the end?

Sorry all I can do is point things out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing any more and I might not make it back here. Thanks in advance if you can work on this! — Geekdiva (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016[edit] (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place as this page is only to discuss improvements to Template:Non-free use rationale.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017[edit] (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)