Template talk:No rationale

elabouration?
The template now states: "with either template fairuse or Non-free fair use in", but all of the other fair-use templates also require a detailed fair-use rationale (tv-screenshot, albumcover, film-screenshot, etc.). Should this template read along the lines of "with a template which further requires a detailed fair-use rationale"; or something akin? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of:


 * Mebbe? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the catch is that the sixth speedy deletion criterion for images applies only to images tagged with or, and only to such images uploaded after 4 May 2006. The  tag is used as part of the speedy deletion process, so it is designed to apply only to I6 images. I think what is needed is a tag that can be placed on missing-rationale fair-use images that do not qualify for I6, that is, on images tagged with  for example, or images uploaded before 4 May 2006. Does such a thing exist? —Bkell (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But the Db-norat template only stipulates "Image with no fair use rationale", but which specific copyright templates it's used in. Shouldn't/doesn't that mean that all fair-use tage fall under this?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see it now at Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.  After I've removed my foot from my mouth, I'll ask how that policy can be amended to include any image missing a fair-use rationale — as all fair-use images (regardless of copyright tagging) require them.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The template says 7 days before deletion, but WP:FUC says 48 hours. Shouldn't this be updated to say that? -- Ned Scott 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be a discrepancy. The seven days that this template refers to comes from CSD I6. —Bkell (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Generic fair use template"
I was patrolling CAT:NR for the first time in a while and had not noticed that the template no longer specifically referred to fairuse and Non-free fair use in. User:Yamla pointed out to me that apparently it's applicable to all fair use images now. However, the wording on this is still ambiguous. It talks about a "generic fair use template" but if you look at WP:ICT, there's a category "Generic tags" under which Non-free fair use in and its siblings are listed. The logical interpretation of the wording is that this template is applicable to images that have one of these generic tags on them. Also, I believe that most of the non-generic fair use templates were created in order to relieve editors from having to enter identical fair use rationales over and over again. The boilerplate for albumcover for example applies to all album covers when in an article about the album itself (but its use in some other article would require Non-free fair use in). As such, if the intent is to make it applicable to all fair use images, then the wording needs to be redone. Additionally, I think the expansion of scope should be something discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use (unless it already has and I just completely missed it) and not be implemented unilaterally.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion at the CSD talk page about this issue. Basically, it was agreed that "generic" should refer only to tags like Non-free fair use in which give no rationale at all.  Basically, even specific tags do require a more specific fair use rationale for each page they are included on, but it's only images that effectively have no fair use rationale at all that should be deleted (or ones with bad rationales, per CSD I7.  So I changed the template to refer specifically to the generic tags.  Mango juice talk 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

?
Why May 4 2006? Did Jumbo officially do something, like the noncommercial buissiness, on that date? 68.39.174.238 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's when the rules were changed to allow enforcing the requirement for a rationale. There was too much opposition to applying the new rules to images uploaded before then. --Carnildo 06:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

General fair use tag again
I very strongly feel that any unfree licencing tag should fall into this speedy deletion category. tvscreenshot, logo, and albumcover all state that the user needs to supply a detailed fair use rationale. By not treating all of the fair use images the same in this regard, we're encouraging people to be lazy about particular types of unfree images. It's still required and we wouldn't want to overload IFD. Jay32183 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit for clarity
Since there's some confusion about what this image tag applies to, I propose changing with a generic fair use template such as Non-free fair use in or fairuse to simply with Non-free fair use in or fairuse —Remember the dot (t) 02:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree with that change. All fair use images require fair use rationales, not just images using fair use and Non-free fair use in. Jay32183 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if the above discussions are correct, only those without rationales tagged with Non-free fair use in or fairuse are speedy deletion candidates. —Remember the dot (t) 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It should not be correct. There are not separate rules for each fair use type. It free or not free. All not free images need fair use rationales and need to be held to the same standard. Jay32183 04:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 16 as well as Category:Wikipedia:Generic fair use tags show that this template applies only to Non-free fair use in and fairuse. If you'd like to propose a change to the speedy deletion policy, please do it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. —Remember the dot (t) 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did the generic come from in the first place? It should never have been there. According to the fair use criteria no unfree image may be used without a fair use rationale. The fact that people have been lazy about this is one of the reasons fair use images have to come under review so frequently about whether they are actually a significant contribution. This is not a request for a change in policy, I'm attempting to inform people how this fair use criterion has been gravely misinterpretted into not applying to all fair use images. Jay32183 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all unfree images must have a fair use rationale. However, only those lacking rationales and tagged with Non-free fair use in or fairuse are speedy deletion candidates. Others must go through WP:IFD. —Remember the dot (t) 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How could that conclusion have possibly been arrived at? The debate you pointed me at was about the confusion of the word general in the first place. How did the word general ever end up in the template or the criterion in the first place? It is just flat out wrong. I may be calling for a new wording but not a change in the rule. The word general never should have appeared and anyone suggesting that the logo or tv-screenshot tags had sufficient fair use rationales is just flat out wrong. Jay32183 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I have read the policy and I agree, all fair use images need a fair use rationale no matter what they're tagged with. The question is, does "general" "generic" refer to any fair use tag or to only Non-free fair use in and fairuse? I think the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 16 show that "general" "generic" means these two tags. Therefore, images lacking a fair use rationale and tagged with Non-free fair use in or fairuse are speedy deletion candidates and images tagged with other tags must go through WP:IFD.

Perhaps we should go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and propose that the speedy deletion criteria be clarified. —Remember the dot (t) 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I introduced the wording "generic" because previously the criterion only listed those two templates when it is clear that all images require a rationale. The wording "tagged only with a generic fair use template" is intended to cover all of the templates. --bainer (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I assumed the criterion had meant. It seems I was not alone in this assumption because the TV-screenshots I tagged two weeks ago were deleted today, huge backlog. Jay32183 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to see the I6 language clarified.  It is used in several places (including WP:IFD) and Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations is no help.  The  last time this was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion confusion abounded. —RP88 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

every usage
As it's currently protected, can somebody make an edit to the template which clarifies that a detailed fair-use rationale is required for each usage of an image, not a generic, sweeping "this is fair-use because's it's low rez and stuff" comment? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to just use this template for images that lack a rationale altogether. If an image has a rationale, but one that you feel it is inadequate or otherwise doesn't meet WP:Fair use, I recommend you instead tag the image with  .  If they don't respond within the time limit (48 hours or 7 days, depending on when the image was uploaded) you can then tag the image with db-badfairuse. Personally, if the uploader doesn't respond, I rarely tag with db-badfairuse.  I usually see if I can write an adequate fair use argument for one of its uses and then remove the image from the other articles.  Only if I can't do that do I end up using db-badfairuse. —RP88 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

May 4, 2006
Is this template supposed to be used on images that were uploaded before May 4, 2006? I mean, in the cases I've seen where it is, that's a blatent lie! --Sonic Mew 00:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this template should never be used directly - fair use images without a rationale that were uploaded after May 4, 2006 should be tagged for speedy deletion with {{subst:nrd}} (which invokes this template). Older images that lack a fair use rationale should not use this mechanism.  For older images there are currently three ways to see that they either get a fair use rationale or get deleted: (1) tag with Fair use disputed and if no fair use rationale is added in a week then it can be tagged with db-badfairuse for speedy deletion, (2) list for deletion via WP:IFD, or (3) list for deletion via WP:PUI. —RP88 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Current fair use policy states:
 * Images that were uploaded before 13 July 2006 may not be immediately deleted. The editor should be alerted as to the problem with the image and will be given seven days to comply with this policy. The image will then be deleted without further warning if corrective action has not been taken.
 * and
 * An editor uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia must provide a detailed fair use rationale; otherwise the uploaded material will be deleted.
 * There is no mention of May 4, 2006 as a cutoff date in the policy. Under the current Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy resolution, that document is the rule. Either the cutoff date must be removed, or the fair use policy changed. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If that old of an image is deleted right now for having no fair use rationale, it would hardly be a speedy deletion. Not when the uploader has had at least a year now, possibly a lot longer, to explain why a free image could not serve the same purpose. Granted, we might have a lot of images where this is clearly the case, such as album/book/video covers for which a free equivalent cannot possibly exist, or photos of recently deceased people for whom we believe no free photo was created during their lifetime, that no photo of the subject is old enough to be in the public domain due to expired copyright protection, and that no copyright holder of an existing non-free photo is willing to release it under the GFDL, or public domain, or whatever. These are images where a strong, but never airtight, case for "fair use" could be made, but nobody has bothered to do so. However, no image and no fair use template speaks for itself. There is no automatic fair use. What's "obvious" to some users might not be obvious to others. If a non-free image is worth keeping, explain why. Don't just neglect the old images on the basis of an arbitrary and legally meaningless cutoff date. — CharlotteWebb 10:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

book covers

 * I don't mean to intrude, but in cases where this template is applied to images of book covers, the boilerplate text of Template:Bookcover does provide an adequate fair use rationale when the image is used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question. Any further explanation would be redundant, and the allegation that no rationale is provided is mistaken. --Dystopos 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)