Template talk:No source since/en

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Now that languages should say the same thing, templates should not be altered arbitrarily I guess.

This seven days rules is not enforced on Wikimedia Commons, and I haven't seen anyone proposing we should enforce it -- rather the opposite, we should allow more time for our users since they are not active here.

/ Fred Chess 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The one-week rule was discussed at Commons:Village pump archive-16#Speedy deleting unknown-copyright images. Though I guess the point of the rule is that a problem image can be deleted after a week, not that it necessarily will be. User:dbenbenn 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.
Fred Chess 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think this image should be deleted if it gets no source within 7 days? Image:0089jaguar.png
Fred Chess 17:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
From the original history on EN, I see that the image was apparently originally upload as a GIF by w:User:Zanimum on February 27, 2003, with the comment "Jaguar drawing, copyright free because of very old age of the etching." So you could ask Zanimum to clarify. User:MikeEdwards obviously can't provide any more information, since he simply copied it from w:Image:0089jaguar.png. User:dbenbenn 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay... do you think it's okay to delete this image if it gets no source within seven days? If you don't think so, the template shouldn't say it is okay. The backlog is filled with similar cases.
Fred Chess 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I would think we'd need two templates - one for copyvio cases , and one for cases that just lack the exact source but are still in the public domain. The current template says that source is important even if the work is in the public domain, but I don't agree with that -- I think it is really nice to have it, but not that it's vital enough to even be considered for deletion.
Fred Chess 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would be okay. The whole point is that we really don't know that the drawing is PD. All we have is an unjustified statement that it is "very old". (Another issue, not very relevant here: the image probably shouldn't be used on Wikipedia regardless, because it's impossible to cite a source for it.) User:dbenbenn 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Ideally, images should be put into a Quaranteen-Commons from where they can be retrieved again. As you can see on my talk page, someone requested me to restore his images. Even if I wanted, I couldn't.
I made some modifications to the template to highlight that the source and license are important to determine copyright status. Hope its okay.
Fred Chess 08:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be much nicer if we had image undelete. User:dbenbenn 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

When to use the template?[edit]

"Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged {{subst:nsd}} (no/missing source, tagged by date) or {{subst:nld}} (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date)." [1]

When does an image miss source information? Does this image have source information, Image:Micalet.JPG, or is "I, the author of this work" enough? -Samulili 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. / Fred Chess 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sufficient[edit]

{{nsd}} and {{nld}} are not sufficient. IMO we also need a {{npd}} -- that is, a template tagging for "no permission". Let's discuss this. / Fred Chess 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to have a {{npd}}, as the use of {{disputed}} is discouraged. We need a template like this.
Few users are watching Template talk:No source since, maybe we should discuss it at COM:VP instead? --Kjetil_r 22:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How would one use "no permission", for what kind of cases? -Samulili 08:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
When there is a source and license, but no evidence that the source agreed the license. / Fred Chess 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not everything is an image[edit]

The text of this template currently begins with "This image is missing essential source information" and later goes on to say "...the image can be speedily deleted..."

However, not every file to which this could be applied is an image. It might also be a video or a sound recording, for example. Most other licence tags use neutral language like "file," "work" or "media." I believe this one ought to as well.

The recommended message template, {{image source}}, should also be given a more media type neutral name and language.

LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to media file. So that people who don't know what a file is hopefully know what media refers to, and vice versa. / Fred Chess 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting newline removal[edit]

The newline between the |} and <noinclude> should be removed so that pages do not end up with inadvertant double newlines. Saligron 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done, i think. Yonatan talk 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs[edit]

Could anyone add a new paragraph before and after

{{subst:image source|Image:No source since}} ~~~~

(like nsd). So it is easier to copy/paste this tag. Thanks. ← Körnerbrötchen - @ 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks, Fred Chess! ← Körnerbrötchen - @ 12:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
no problem :-)
Fred Chess 10:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Change to 14 days?[edit]

Again, I would like to request feedback on whether to change it to 14 days. It takes longer on Commons for the message to reach the uploader. I think 14 days is more reasonable.

Fred Chess 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Image in top left corner[edit]

Would it be possible to add a symbol in the top left corner similar to how this is done on fr.wiki (like in fr:Image:Armoiries troisieme rep france.jpg). /Lokal_Profil 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this template is not entirely right[edit]

Source information is not necessary for all images. For images that are rightly licensed as PD-old and/or PD-art, it is enough to just state the author (or an educated guess as to the period of creation, e. g. "18th century", or another rationale why the license has been chosen) and such a license. The requests for deletion that keep flooding my talk page in the last couple of days using this template are IMHO completely silly and should be stopped. --AndreasPraefcke 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the recent requests on your talk page were for images that didn't have any source at all, [2][3] so I think it is fine the way it is. It is not too much to ask for a source. Furthermore, obviously you got the images from somewhere and I don't think it would be too hard for you to say where you got them from, for verification purpose. / Fred J 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A source obviously doesn't hurt anyone. But what "hurts" is that thousands of images will be wasted because some insist on sources whose lack doesn't hurt anything either. Samulili 18:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering the limits on when PD-art is valid all those images technically need a source to prove that the photographer either released the image under a free license or came from a country where such a photograph doesn't aquire any copyright. /Lokal_Profil 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How Does One Fix this Problem?[edit]

I want to add a source to an image that's tagged for deletion. How can I do this - can't seem to find a template or any other way to achieve this. The link in the problem template opens the image for editing, but does not say what tag needs to be inserted... Socrates2008 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just add
|source = own work (or an URL for example)
into the {{information}}-tag. ← Körnerbrötchen <✉> 13:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ru-wiki[edit]

{{editprotected}} Plz, add ru-wiki [[ru:Шаблон:No source]]. Alex Spade 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --GeorgHHtalk   23:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Images using translated tags[edit]

{{editprotected}}

  • Why must this license and {{npd}} place images into a category they will never get deleted from when the translated tag is used? Why couldn't the translated tag also place the item into the correct Unknown category? -Nard the Bard 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know - but that's nothing to do with editing this template. It might require edits to the translated templates though.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the space before the four tildes[edit]

So as not to make the signature appear formatted as code. Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

✓ Done, thanks for pointing that out! --Waldir talk 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge template[edit]

Please make this template smaller. Would an inline version be useful? Mange01 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a warning-tag. Files with this tag applied will be deleted after 7 days, if one Essential information is missing. I think it is a good idea making everyone who visits the file description page aware of this issue. If you think the content of the file is not correct, you may use {{Fact disputed}} or one of the templates listed in the See also-section. -- Rillke(q?) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Obvious pd[edit]

why is this template being used on files that are obviously public domain, for reasons of age?

& more importantly, are there admins (or their bots, for that matter) "out there" who are stupid (or unthinking) enough to DELETE an obvious-pd file, because it has this template on it?

(not directed towards anyone specific, but the second question could probably be considered as rhetorical...)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that one could be more careful, I doubt that those who delete the files have the time to check each file closely. As for the question why this is used on files without source that may be in the Public Domain due to age -- it is still important to mention the author (as some related rights never expire or have a longer term) and the source -- because you must be able to prove your claim [I doubt that it is so OBVIOUS for re-users who seldom come in touch with copyright] and, of course the photographer as -- even if the WMF claims that photos of plain 2D-works are PD, this is not true in many countries. If all this is provided properly, the template should of course not be applied. -- Rillke(q?) 22:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
with respect, i understand your point, BUT, today i found the tag being used on this file Jacob Lerche.jpg & it is (by far) not the first time i've found it being used on a file that was obviously not a candidate for deletion, due to age (pd old, pd art, etc.). the only thing that is different about today, is that i took the time to open this discussion... xD Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggest adding at least another date. Even modern artists are able to produce images like that. -- Rillke(q?) 23:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
artists can do anything, these days. the question is "how plausible is it?" that a modern artist would deliberately create an "imitation" of such a picture, showing a minor official, from 18-19th century norway? baring evidence of a modern fake/hoax/artistic-creation/etc., the reasonable assumption is that such an image is what it appears to be. anything else takes you deep into the realms of subjective existentialism... (i.e.: "what is real?") xD Lx 121 (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Some editors here want to apply standards higher than would be required in most courts of law. (If there is no legitimate rights-holder, such as in cases of anonymous art, no one has standing to bring a case in court for a so-called "violation" of copyright, so it should not be a concern to us.) In my opinion, the lack of a source is not an issue, if there is no reason to believe the image is not in the public domain. Unlikely scenarios have little relevance. After all, very little in this life is known to us with absolute 100% certainty. We need to use some common sense. Certainly, there seems to be little justification for nominations of a speedy delete in cases like this. They should always be discussed. Perhaps the template is flawed in this respect. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)