Template talk:No source since

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

Please note: Old discussions are now on Template talk:No source since/en, since this was the former main template talk page. Feel free to open general discussions about this template here.

Comment[edit]

The file was created by myself with Photoshop CS3

--Dessy92 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding new language[edit]

How can I add Slovene to the link of all languages? --romanm (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, done by editing Template:No source since/lang. --romanm (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing?[edit]

I added sources to such phots which were marked with this template. Am I supposed to remove the notification myself or will the user who put it do it? --Gwafton (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

  • It depends. If the source is legitimate and there is very little question as to the license you may remove the template. A good example would be a work on Flickr with a good free license. If the source is good but the license is in question, removing the template may just create an edit war. A good example of this would be a work held in the National Archives or Library of Congress without clear indication as to when the author died or whether it was registered properly for copyright. Use your best judgement. If you have any doubts, you can always ask on my talk page or on that of the user who placed the tag. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add a comments field[edit]

{{edit request}}

This template should have a comment field, as there are cases where the editor adding this template to a page being able to add an explanation of why the given source isn't valid would be helpful. --Ahecht (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a case for {{npd}}? Hekerui (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It probably makes sense to have a comment field for all "no X since" tags. With {{no source since}}, it could be used to clarify why a given source is not sufficient. It's pretty common to see source fields that don't enable others to verify the copyright status as required by Commons:Licensing. For example, {{PD-AR-Photo}} states that the "date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old (sic) must be indicated," but that is habitually overlooked by many frequent users of that template. I've seen more than one case of entirely appropriate {{no source since}} tags being removed just because the source field wasn't completely empty.
It's not a small or simple change, though. It affects the main templates (like this one), the /layout templates, all the language versions, the auto-dated subst shorthands (nld, npd and nsd) and the QuickDelete gadget. LX (talk, contribs) 19:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Declined - not a simple (and terribly useful) change, and user has not provided replacement code. -FASTILY 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Valid licence/PD but lacking source[edit]

Shouldn't the instructions, especially the note to admins, include a comment about (old) files lacking source, but also lacking copyright problems? There is no reason to delete those. We have a lot of material that is unproblematic copyright-wise but where a good source is lacking. If a "scan from original" would do, then deleting is absurd.

This includes files uploaded years ago on other projects, so contributors would not have an information template to fill in, nor have any idea of present formal requirements on Commons. If there is a licence or PD template, and no specific reason to doubt the validity, or if there is text in a language the nominator or administrator does not understand, it is very much possible that the file is free, and can be proved free, and should indeed not be deleted in seven days.

See also Commons:Village pump#Big purge of old images?.

--LPfi (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:LPfi: I cannot find this thread in VP archives. I certainly agree that images that are clearly not copuyvio problems should not be deleted because they have no source. I totally agree this template can be abused to delete files which are not problematic. This seems to be justified by Commons:Deletion_policy#Missing_legal_information, which I believe should be more widely discussed. I fully support deleting copyvios, but missing a source is not the same as a copyvio. I agree this merits further discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(comment) Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/09#Big_purge_of_old_images.3F is the link. Reventtalk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • @Revent: Is there another similar template in order to notify the uploader? or another easy way to notify the uploader that the file is lacking of source? I mean when tagging the file, at least the uploader is notified. And if the deletion is unuseful in almost cases, at least when notified, the uploader, if he is always active, is aware and can help to fix the issue. I think when using "Perform batch task", in addition to "no source" maybe we should have a "no source for PD files" and if after being tagged with that "no source for PD files" since 7 days the source is not yet added by the uploader who have been notified, then {{Unknown}} is added inth field source. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. We need this kind of solution to prevent clueless or tired admins from deleting likely PD images for having no source, even if it is not needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: {{sourcefield}} exists, tho I don't think the scripts automatically use it... Reventtalk 01:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)