Template talk:Di-fails NFCC

Untitled 2009 section
Please note that another user's judgment is required to determine whether the image fails the criteria or not. Otherwise, users can just remove this from images and they will not be subject to further scrutiny. The primary distinction between this and di-disputed fair use rationale is that this template is primarily for uses where there is a rationale, but the image fails the fair use criteria regardless. I have therefore restored the reference to administrators; I would compromise if desired by suggesting that an uninvolved user (i.e. someone other than the uploader) can remove the tag, but the uploader can't be permitted to as he/she will obviously be biased in favour of the inclusion, thereby rendering the tag worthless. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or another alternative would be to add something like "removal of the tag without comment or attempt to explain why the image meets the criteria will not prevent it from being deleted". Stifle (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was merely bringing this tag into line with (almost all) the other tags used for NFCC problems. Those tags allow the uploader to remove the tag once they have corrected the problem. So, if this tag is going to be used as an alternate to those tags, this tag should rflect that wording similarly.

Therefore, restoring the version as previously edited. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree with that; see for example Di-replaceable fair use. And if you are going to edit it, at least include the part that prevents the instructions from running on the same line as the last bullet. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category parameter
This template has a  parameter. This means that if you tag a file with, say,, then the file isn't categorised. Instead, the word "foo" appears below the template box. What is the reason for this parameter? It looks weird to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is my fault. It's to keep Template messages/Deletion, which transcludes a live version of this template (by design), from being categorized. —Cryptic 23:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This should also be taken care of by the file other template which I just added which prevents the template from categorising pages outside the file namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4
There are 25 items in the File namespace that use this template, and it's causing Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 lint errors in all 25. I believe this is due to a recent change. I don't understand the problem, but it needs fixing. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , there are zero uses of or  in this template. I do notice that in the base template there is a  set that spans four lines - could that be causing the error? I seem to recall one of the AFC templates recently had that issue. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Primefac: These files, using this template, are each generating these 5 lint errors:
 * Missing end tag &lt;i>
 * Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 &lt;span>
 * Stripped tags	&lt;/span>
 * Misnested tags &lt;small>
 * Missing end tag &lt;i>

File:Gyro Gearloose in the 2017 reboot.jpg and File:Photo of Arshile Gorky by Xavier Fourcade (detail).jpg:

File:Haymarket pushcart assoc logo.jpg and File:Market at Blackstone and Hanover Streets Boston thumbnail.jpg:

File:Haymarket-Square-Hotel-rendering.jpg:

File:Freeband.jpg, File:Gargantuawar.jpg, File:Greathydra.jpg:

File:Guntur-city-map1.PNG:

File:HansGeering.jpg:

File:Hard-Fi - Better do Better - 7".jpeg, File[[:File:Hard-Fi - Better do Better - CD2.jpeg, File:Hard-Fi - Better do better - Promo.jpg:

File:Happynowttvideo.jpg:

File:FreeConferenceCall Logo.png:

File:From Ordinary to Entrepreneur.jpg:

File:Now That's What I Call 30 Years.jpg:

File:Pacific(album).JPG:

File:Sttomlogo.PNG:

File:Hunter (Björk song - audio sample).ogg

File:ISU Judging System.jpg:

File:Ipnops mead larva.png:

File:Ja'Net du Bois title card confirming spelling.png

File:Jacket Fuel Injection Pipes Produced By Donker Fuel.jpg

File:Selim Al Deen, Bangladeshi playwright.jpg

File:Izmir Adnan Menderes Airport, March 2014.jpg

Is this an error in the use of parameters, and if so, what is the fix? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed the italic error (the opening '' were inside an if while the closing were outside it), but I still can't find the span or small errors. Will keep looking. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Primefac: The five errors are all still there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what to say. There are no spans, smalls, or italics in this template, and the only thing that could possibly be throwing these errors is that you have code like  in Deletable file - would the presence of a param in a small tag throw an error? Primefac (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's related, but note that currently doesn't work (it returns a Lua error message). The idea is that   should add a   parameter to the template, returning . --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Izno edited the template and that seems to have fixed the problem. There are 7 remaining items with this template, and none of them have any lint errors.—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to hear that that change fixed the issue (for now), since I'm pretty sure there's still an HTML 5-invalid  which I could not obviously remove, due to how the base template works. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But I am otherwise glad that I managed to catch this one when 4 or 5 others didn't. ;) Basically what was happening is that due to the use of wikitext bullets, a second list was being opened directly inside the first list, which is invalid. ( .) If you go back to the broken revision, you'll see the styles on the bullets differ (at least in Timeless skin!) in the parser migration edit preview. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic template
I had no idea this template existed, as I've found the first time I've seen it that it creates a problem.

There are several subjective aspects of NFCC, particularly #8 but includes others, that should not be treated as a "seven days to fix or semi-automated deletion", and instead should trigger an FFD to discuss that point. Other NFCC, such as #2, #9, #10 and a few others certainly are objective, and thus can be handled this way, but we should leave subjective judgments to this type of semi-automated process. I would recommended significantly trimming which reasons can be used on this, and adding doc language that you can FFD images that otherwise you believe fail NFC but not objectively. --M asem (t) 15:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * please stop using this template, at least for now. It is incredibly problematic to tag an article for relatively speedy deletion when there are subjective problems that can be discussed. A deletion nomination makes much more sense for this. And the fact that the text seems contradictory, allowing a challenge but keeping the deadline, needs to be changed. ɱ  (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, WP:NFCCE states that "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." (my emphasis) Note, "will be deleted", not "will be nominated for FFD". As such, this template does comply with policy as written, in fact it allows 5 more days than policy requires. In this respect, it works similarly to the templates Template:Di-replaceable non-free use and Template:Di-disputed non-free use rationale, which send files to an automatic deletion after the requisite warning. If you are of the opinion that this policy should be changed, feel free to gather a consensus for the change at WT:NFCC or another suitable location, but until then, it will continue to be used. For the very modest number of cases where a tagging is disputed, the reviewing administrator retains discretion to send an image to FFD. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a discrepancy between different policies. WP:NFCCE states that files will be deleted 48 hours after notification, but WP:CSD sometimes states 7 days. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these comments address my complaint. We can't lock in a fast deadline over subjective issues and ban the uploader from stopping it. Seemingly every other template at Category:File deletion templates is rational enough to allow the uploader to remove the template in an initial challenge of the deletion tag, pausing the countdown. ɱ  (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the OP that criterion 8 is incredibly subjective, and really requires an FFD if you wish to contest it, not a 'will be deleted but you can try to use the talk page' template. ɱ  (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * JJMC89 themselves added this restriction without any apparent discussion; I am not sure what lets them unilaterally set image deletion rules here. ɱ  (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That edit reads like a completely uncontroversial restatement of the fourth paragraph at the WP:CSD policy page. —Cryptic 18:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that needs to be changed as well. It's frightening that a, lets say, 30-year editor with dozens of FAs isn't allowed to directly contest and stop the speedy deletion process while his friend or some other editor he recruits would be? What sense does that make? I haven't seen that actively practiced either. The only thing that'd seem to encourage is canvassing and/or sockpuppeting. As well, the sentence says For most speedy deletion criteria, which doesn't support the notion that all of the subjective NFCC need to follow that. Some editors seemingly later added a list, but that needs to also add some of the incredibly subjective NFCC. ɱ  (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is that a dispute shouldn't be decided by the two disputing parties, unless they somehow manage to reach an agreement which both are happy with. Instead, an uninvolved user should make the decision. Both the tagging user and the uploader are clearly involved. An uninvolved administrator will of course only delete the page or file if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criterion. By leaving the tag where it is, you ensure that an uninvolved administrator will take a look at the page or file. Besides, if you think that a file which was deleted didn't meet the speedy deletion criterion, you could go to WP:DRV after the event, so it is not as if deletion necessarily is the end of the world. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well it's safe to say it's a bad idea. When does this actually happen? I've never witnessed it. And I'm so very tired of being told to go to DRV after a farce of a deletion discussion or close. I'm so tired of all the b.s. that takes place on Commons that I'm just going to start uploading on enwiki instead. ɱ  (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are getting files deleted from Commons, then they are either copyright violations or out of scope. Copyright violations are not allowed here either, so they would still be deleted if uploaded here. If a file is out of scope for Commons, then it would also be out of scope for Wikipedia. Uploading the files here instead wouldn't change anything in terms of deletions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, policy says that non-free images which don't comply with policy will be deleted after 7 days warning. If you would like to change that, you need to gather a consensus for that change at WT:NFCC or other suitable venue, not the template talk page of the implementing template. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

#switch instead of #ifeq
Hello!

I tried to replace the #ifeq that each criterion had with just one #switch in the sandbox of this template. It doesn't work though when using it on file pages, do you think you can take a look at it? The change would be that instead of writing 2=yes you would just have which is good for lazy people like myself.Jonteemil (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial error check wasn't updated correctly based on your proposed parameter syntax. It is still looking for "yes". It shouldn't be changed to a switch since that would only allow one criterion instead of multiple. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I've never though about using more than one criterion.Jonteemil (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)