Template talk:Di-no source

Iwiki
editprotected Plz, back iwiki ar:قالب:لا مصدر fr:Modèle:Source inconnue ja:Template:No source ml:ഫലകം:No source ru:Шаблон:No source sr:Шаблон:Нема извора th:แม่แบบ:ไม่มีแหล่งที่มา vi:Tiêu bản:Unverified Alex Spade (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌, but I set it up so that non-admins can do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Increased User Friendliness is required
This template does not contain enough content to be of any use to a new user or one uploading an image for the first time. Although the article "Template:Di-no source-notice" does contain some information available to alleviate this problem it still does not contain the valuable information helpful to a first time upload. I had suggested using a template that used to exist at "Template:Information needed", but it was deleted without meeting a consensus. (in my opinion) See Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_8 for more information and the discussion of the deleted template. (The preexisting template and its documentation appears below). Although it may not be the best solution, a solution needs to be found nonetheless. Wikipedia's obscure policies and guidelines need to be more friendly and more easily available to the user. Enforcement bots on Wikipedia need to be evaluated for productivity and user friendliness. Policies and guidelines that have been counter-productive and abused by administrators and experienced users need to be removed. All-in-all, the Wikipedia landscape needs to be drastically changed to benifit the end user and this template and its corresponding templates are the best places to start.Spitfire 19 (Talk) 00:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Template code:

Usage
For Use on Free content without a Summary and on Non-Free content that does not contain an adequate Image Summary and/or it does not contain an Image Source. Do not add this template to a Image: page that has both the source and Fair-Use Rationale listed. 1. Copy the exact code found in 2. Place any Image violation templates (when applicable) in the second parameter. 3. Notify the Uploader with the code displayed below the horizontal rule on the template. 4. Follow all Usage requirements of all Image violation templates you embed in the Template.

Purpose
The purpose of this template is to reduce the number of Image: pages with improperly placed or no rationale. It also can help with a reduction of improperly placed edits by the Fair-Use Bot. This Template can also notify the uploader of any problems with their image and help them correct it.

Why was this placed on my image?
This template was placed on your image because you did not an adequate Image Summary and/or it does not contain an Image Source. It is suggested that you place these elements in the description page, and required if you are have uploaded Non-free content. It is not required to have a image summary on a Free-to-Use image, though making a good image summary lowers the change of your image accidentally being marked with a Copyright violation. To fix this please add the code found inside the template that corresponds to the correct type of image you have uploaded. Also, make sure you have added the appropriate information for the use of Non-Free Content. Code can be found by clicking the "hide" link on "Bare template code to add" bar at the bottom of the template

Spitfire 19 (Talk) 00:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add disambiguation hatnote
editprotected Please add to the top of this template, which will produce:

Thanks, Waldir talk 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Slight wording change
edit protected

Most images have a license of some sort that indicates a copyright status - such as PD-self that says I, the copyright holder of this work.... So when this template is used the idea is not that we don't have a copyright status, it is that we need to verify the copyright status. The current wording implies we also need the copyright status.

Currently it reads (Problem wording in red):


 * This file has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given, the image will be deleted...

I believe it should read (Changes in green):


 * This file has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless a source is given the copyright status can not be verified by others, the image will be deleted...

However that also seems redundant. So the other option is to simply remove part of it.


 * 'This file has no source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the copyright status is provided and a source is given the image will be deleted...'

I think the last one would work fine. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Seems sensible and uncontroversial. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend documentation to exclude PD-USGov
I recently observed a number of images which were licensed as PD-USGov-NOAA, PD-USGov-NASA and similar being tagged with Di-no source. A quick inspection of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 8 September 2010, for example, showed images such as File:MercuryBPparachuteTest.jpg, File:MercuryBPwaterTest.jpeg, and File:Pioneer34.gif – all PD-USGov-NASA. You'll need to check the file history to see the tagging; fortunately did a search on the NASA site and quickly found the sources. I had previously done the same for File:SEALAB III.jpg where the source on the NOAA site revealed the source within a couple of minutes.

Now, I don't resent spending time finding these sources because it improves the encyclopedia, but I do have a worry about how many perfectly legitimate PD images we are losing, if nobody spotted the 'di-no source' tag. Bearing in mind that this is a speedy deletion process (the files are placed in F4), and that "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (WP:CSD para 2), I simply don't agree that placing these tags on images licensed as 'PD-USGov-' is appropriate. It is a violation of the speedy deletion process, since every one of these images that I have examined has a source that was found fairly easily, and that does not fit with the assumption that those files have no practical chance of surviving discussion. If a good faith attempt to find sources for PD-USGov- licensed files has failed, then I still feel WP:IfD would be the appropriate venue.

I therefore propose that the documentation for this template be amended to make it clear that this template is not to be used on files claiming PD-USGov- and similar licences. Any other thoughts would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is a semi-speedy template. It allows 7 days for a source to be placed on the image page, that can be done ideally by the uploader or by an editor who could, as you just said - "search on the NASA site and quickly found the sources". Seven days seems more than enough time in that case. All images must come from somewhere, and it is always a good idea to list it because the license and copyright need to be checked, and sometimes re-checked. Saying something is PD-USGov-NASA, for example, does not mean it actually is. And not everything with a PD-gov type tag on it really is. But without a source nobody can check. I always inform editors they should use the Summary template found in the Mini how-to section of Uploading images when they upload images. It is not required but I feel it should be. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept of semi-speedy is interesting, but seems to be ill-defined. The problem is the same for any CSD process: pages stand in danger of being deleted instead of improved, if tagging is done indiscriminately. For that very reason, the CSD process for articles has sharply defined boundaries, and no article that asserts notability (for example) can be speedied for lack of sourcing. I am asking no more than that an analogous caution be exercised with images, and that IfD be the appropriate process in those cases where there is a reasonable chance of survival. A credible assertion of PD status should be sufficient to require some discussion, in the same way that many articles are exempt from CSD. I do understand the importance of sourcing for any material on the project, and if sources are not found, then deletion via IfD is appropriate. Nevertheless it is just as inappropriate to use a speedy deletion process to force sourcing for images as it is for articles. There needs to be a good-faith attempt by the nominator to look for sources before any speedy process is initiated. An additional concern here is that many images date back many years, and notifying an uploader who has not contributed in several years does nothing to increase the visibility of the impending deletion. I agree that a PD-gov tag is not a guarantee of PD status, but surely it's sufficient indication of the likelihood of available sources that the speedy process becomes inappropriate. --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another option might be having a way to flag files that need a source, but are significantly more likely to be legitimate than not, for attention. Cover art, USG materials, etc, where there is either a clear fair use exception, or a very strong likelyhood that the source is public domain.
 * While I understand the need for sources on files, there is obviously a significant risk of legitimate material being removed under the current system. Using some NOAA files as examples, the images of "Wet" and "Dry" microburts aid in the reader understanding the topic being discussed, and are clearly labelled as NOAA/Skywarn. Doing a Google search for '"Microburst - Wet" site:noaa.gov', for example, (Using the title on the image, and it's claimed origin) leads to "http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mso/train/img29.html" as the first result. I'm not sure the problem here is neccessarily that the label is being applied, (though, I agree with RexxS, that IFD is probably more appropriate for images claiming USG origins) so much as it's being applied without any effort to find a source, or check for a fair use exception. If the notice were simply informational, that wouldn't be as much of a problem, because editors could simply work through the backlog, but since it's being done under speedy deletion, that means there's a significant risk of losing the image if it is not caught by someone within the 2, or 7 day window.
 * In the end, I think everyone would agree that what needs to happen is that these images need to be sourced. The current system puts a time limitation on that, but tagging an image as "no source" does not actually accomplish much towards the ultimate goal of getting the legitimate images sourced, if no research is done before placing it. Surely there is a better way to keep a list of files needing work done on them than the speedy delete system.
 * Theastromutt (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Request addition of another optional input field
Several images have been tagged with di-no source and what the person that added the template means to state is that the image needs more information on the source or other clarification is needed. By adding another field (like "msg=XYZ PDQ"), it allows the user to better specify what needs to be done with said image. Buffs (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor link on providing sources
Over at File:Card trick.jpg, under the source blank, it says: "No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source." The words "provide a source" link to Citing sources, but that page has no section with that name. I suspect that this semi-broken link is part of some boilerplate message and that it appears on thousands of image description pages. Where should that link point to? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)