Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo/Archive 1

Source
I'm not sure that saying the image can be obtained from the organization is enough. We need to provide "Proper attribution of the source of the material", which I take to mean the web address from which the image was obtained.  Λυδ α cιτγ  19:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy only requires that the copyright holder be identified - the requirement for a specific web link to where the image came from is mythical. (it is recommended, but not an absolute requirement - not everything comes from online, after all) —Random832 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

broken?
Did something break in this template? It used to display perfectly fine, but now on images where it's been used, it's showing the NEEDS ARTICLE NAME information for images where the name has been used. See this for an example of what I'm talking about. Esrever 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This template is working. What happened is someone reinstated the change to template:Non-free media rationale and the way it handles article names.  I flipped it back so things should be working now.  But if someone reverts the change to the other template, we'll have to revert the change to this one too.  Wikidemo 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Esrever 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice: proposal that will make this template obsolete.
There is a proposal at Non-free content criteria/Proposal that would create a templated use rationale for logos. That proposal would, presumably, make this template obsolete by authorizing a replacement. Comments about that proposal would be very welcome; please put them on the talk page of the proposal, not here. Assuming the proposal is accepted we'll probably deprecate it at some point and ask people not to use it anymore. Existing uses might be left alone or converted automatically to the new format, which will probably be simpler and easier to use. Wikidemo 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fields
I'd recommend changing a field name that displays in the edit screen. To Replaceability, one is inclined to type None, when in actuality, it should be No, because the display field is Replaceable?. - Dudesleeper Talk  16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

spacing
This template is to help users write fair use rationales for non-free logos as required by WP:NFC and WP:LOGO. Include this in the image description page after the template, once for each time you insert the logo graphic into an article.

Can the above change be made? This removes some hard breaks from the template, removing unneeded whitespace from above and below the template. This should have no effect on the functionality of the template. ~ Paul T +/C 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the change screwed up the spacing on some FURs. For example, check out Image:MozillaPrism.png, which I know looked fine before the changes. Specifically, there should be a space between the words "logo" and "for" in the title. Also note that, on Image:Tekzilla.png, there should be a space between the two sentences (one automatically created and one custom) under "Source." I don't know if this second spacing issue was caused by the recent change, but it would make sense. Please take a look. Thanks! &mdash;LinkTiger (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

singular vs. plural
Hi there! There's currently a grammatical error in this template. In the "Use" field, all of the use descriptions essentially include this same line "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the reader they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. (Emphasis mine.)" Reader is singular, while they is, obviously, plural. Can this field be reworded to say either "assure the reader that he or she has reached the right article" or, preferably, "assure readers that they have reached the right article"? Sorry to be a Grammar Nazi, but it's just wrong as written. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch article logo
This logo is locked. Would someone put in the template that the article is Quackwatch? It is the logo used for the Quackwatch website to identify the site. Is there anything else needed to allow it to stay on the article because I am sure it is copy protection. If this is acceptable then can a picture of Stephen Barrett be put back up under that same reasoning as the logo? Sorry trying to learn and understand this. Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  10:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uhh, that's not how you use it. Did you even read the instructions? o_0 ViperSnake151 13:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I went ahead and added the template to the image's page. I hope that'll be instructive to the uploader.  Esrever (klaT) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some fixes for "Replaceable" field
Please change "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent" into "As a logo, no free equivalent could be found" to eliminate some redundant wording. Alexius08 (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is clearer, actually. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I agree with Martin on this, the current version is clearer. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for detection
Please add the line  to an appropriate place in the template. For the purpose of this detection, see Category:Other information.

Note: A similar edit has been made to another 7 unprotected templates, and 2 more edit requests can be found at Template:Album cover fur and Template:Non-free use rationale. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See response at Template talk:Album cover fur. — RockMFR 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

After discussion at Bot_requests the easier solution was preferred. I also asked advise at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough. Please change  to. I'll update the documentation later (is after all not essential). Debresser (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

n.b. If it's not too much trouble, please also change "Non-free media rationale" to "Non-free use rationale", because the template was moved/renamed. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put this in the sandbox, created especially for this. And perhaps consider moving the protection template to the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Amalthea  14:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Double space
There appears to be a double space between logo and for, It's not on.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally broken
This template is totally broken. Whose idea was it to inject an extra full stop at the end of the commentary? Can't users be trusted to end their commentary quote with a full stop? Can they be relied upon to forget? Why, if you omit the purpose field, is an error message inserted before the commentary, that says "Purpose must be stated here.", but if you add a purpose argument, the purpose appears not "here", but after the commentary? Why is it I have to manually insert a non-breaking space at the beginning of the Purpose field in order to prevent the purpose following on spacelessly from that extra full stop that I didn't want inserted? It has been a long time since I had to work with such a badly implemented template. Hesperian 15:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's see:
 * Full stop.
 * Purpose message location
 * Break.
 * Give me a few minutes. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The fix is to replace

|#default= }}}} by |#default= }}}} Debresser (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your changes have broken the purpose field resulting in the template to state "No purpose specified. Please edit this image description and provide a purpose.". Salavat (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked a few files, and they are fine. Perhaps that text showed up because no purpose was specified? If you are sure there is a problem, please specify an example. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I solved my problem. The changes made means its necessary to put "Other" in the Use field if your writing in the purpose field which was able to be left blank before. No big problem. Salavat (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

case sensitive fields
Would it be possible to edit the template so that the fields aren't case sensitive? That is, it should be possible for it to accept both  and   as valid fields. Likewise, the appropriate values for the fields shouldn't be case sensitive either. Both  and   should be valid for   (or , as it were). Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is of course posible, but all templates in Category:Non-free use rationale templates take capitalised parameters. We should not change this one alone. Actually, IMHO, there is no need for this change. To have parameters capitalisation sensitive is encoded in the Wikimedia sofware. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would have been better to make all the parameters lowercase, but see no need to complicate the template by accepting either at this stage. Making the parameter values does make sense however and that can easily be done. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

❌ - to do so would make it horrible. You would have to have each line twice, one with capitals and one without, and lots of extra code to work out which one to display. This is one good reason why we have a blank one template shown on the doc page, so that users can copy and paste, thus getting the field names correct.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite, is the easy way to fall back on alternate parameters.  Amalthea  21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not so hard technically, but it would be a rather large step, setting a precedent for many templates from the above category and all over Wikipedia. And it doesn't really serve a purpose. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Use vs. Purpose
As witnessed two topics higher and again by Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Software change affects older "Logo fur" template? the previous construct regarding Use and Purpose was clearly a cause for confusion. I have made some changes that make missing or unknown Use params more visible. A category to track such incorrect uses can easily be added. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117Avenue, 11 April 2010
editprotected It appears the header of this box has two spaces between the words "logo" and "for", can this be remedied? 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is so, I can't find the couble space. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think 117 refers to this part: - non-free logo -. There seems to be a double space between "Logo" and "-", while the first part just has one. I cannot find any other occurrences though.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. Ok, it's trivial, but if somebody could please set it right. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - trimmed whitespace & error syntax
Whitespace is being trimmed in the #if templates in the Source parameter, meaning if Website and Source are passed there is no space between the sentences. Also this template could make use of error in a couple of places instead of colouring text red. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to make your requested changes to the /sandbox copy and then reactivate the request? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes made (diff) — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay it turns out that the sandbox wasn't synchronised so I reapplied your changes and also made some tweaks to improve the readability of the code. Also I note that TheDJ recently removed the space from the header - can you confirm that this non-breaking space is required? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is discussed in the section above, previously two spaces were being placed after the word "logo". 117Avenue (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I removed it again. Perhaps the sandbox was not updated. I've now implemented these changes. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

EP
editprotected Please make it so that the "Choose "Use=" Infobox / Org / Brand / Product / Public facility / Other" does not show up if already provided, like File:CarbideCppIcon.png. There's no reason to ask people to choose something already there. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to figure out what would make that part of the code disappear without messing something else up. It only shows up, though, after the latest revision (per the above EP).  — fetch ·  comms   21:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Having trouble with the template
I'm trying to use the template at this page, but the information isn't rendering correctly. Could you help me, please? --Maximz2005 (Talk)  19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request on 2 new automated purposes
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could check the wording of 2 new clauses I've added to the sandboxed version.

The 2 new clauses are
 * Event - which is intended to be for logos associated with events ( such as sports fixtures, tournaments, concerts or drmaatic presentations, and the like)
 * Broadcast - which is intend to be used for logos associated with broadcast presentations, an example being TV title cards.

Feedback on the intended wording and how they could be tweaked appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Bogle_Logo.JPG is an image on which the 'Event' purpose could have been used :). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to wording generated by the use of "Infobox"
Dont no if anyone watches this space but I was wondering if we could change the current purpose of use wording generated by the "infobox" use.

Currently it is: The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing 1986 Asian Games, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

However this focuses on organizations only. I propose a more general approach to dealing with logos in the infobox simply by changing the word "organization" to "subject" which would then allow us to apply it to more logos that appear in an infobox at the top of the aritcle:

The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing 1986 Asian Games, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the subject, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the subject, and illustrate the subject's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

Salavat (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This template allows users to upload copyrighted images without specifying a source
This template needs to dispense with the line, "The logo may be obtained from [whoever]" sooner rather than later. The problem is that the image source has always been more along the lines of, "Where did YOU find this image?" The boilerplate text basically says, "You didn't specify a source for this image, but that's okay." Not a good thing, when we need to specify sources of images. And yes, I'm aware that many images would be impacted by a change like this. But we need to explain all of our sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it would improve things to start enforcing a requirement to specify a URL for uploaded non-free images, that's probably best done on the copyright template and the automated upload procedure. An effort to backfill URLs for existing images makes some sense but may be a solution in search of a problem.  Presumptively, the source for a logo is the owner of the logo and you can find it there if the question arises.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See, we shouldn't be assuming. Did it come from the company's site?  Fine.  Say so (and a fully-formed URL may not even be necessary).  Was it from an old credit card?  Fine - say so.  Magazine?  Fine - say so.  You get the point.  The bottom line is that material that is sourced to the boilerplate text is and always has been improperly sourced.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In lieu of a specific statement it's a safe assumption. Again, it seems to make some sense to enforce on new uploads a requirement to state a specific source, and to organize a project to find sources for existing logos.  Frankly, I don't see the problem that solves, but it wouldn't hurt either.  Checkoff boxes and data fields are definitely better than free-form text if we ever mean for any of this to be machine readable.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone has any strong objections (and based on previous discussion, it sounds like I won't encounter any), I'm going to edit this section in a few days to indicate that no source is specified, and that images uploaded after whatever change date must be provided with a source or else they will be subject to deletion, and that images uploaded before the date need to have sources provided or they also may be subject to deletion. Who wants to help organize "WikiProject logo sources" or something to that effect?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong objection here regarding logos already on Wikipedia. There's no problem there that needs solving, much less a mass deletion of some of Wikipedia's least controversial free use images.  I'd submit that this isn't exactly a good time on Wikipedia to be proposing a large number of logos for deletion.  You could start a discussion somewhere regarding new images, but source shouldn't be part of the use rationale anyway - it ought to be specified by the uploader as part of the copyright tag when an image is uploaded, not something to patch in or correct with every use.   The necessity to provide a source affects all non-free uploads, not logos specifically.  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Then let's just ditch the source completely from the rationale box. This seems like an easy solution.  Would also give us a fine opportunity to clean up various logos, as I'll bet a number of logos currently tagged non-free are actually pd-textlogos.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all a good idea. What happens in cases where there's a source listed in one rationale that differs from the source listed in other rationales, or if the copyright tag doesn't list a source but the use rationale does?  Either by hand or bot, we'd need to extract the source fields and put them all in one place in the image record. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Going through, this is more complicated than I thought. Look at Category:Non-free use rationale templates when you get a chance.  Just about everything has multiple styles for the same thing.  Some have that awful tagline that started this discussion, and others don't, and so this would be a project.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please first change the name of the template to replace the word 'fur' with an English word everyone understands ? Thank You. Anish Viswa  08:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * fur is short for "fair use rationale". The original thought was that "logo fair use rationale" is a bit awkward to type - at first they were called fair use rationales but later, non-free use rationale became the term.  If we moved the template then all 80K or so images that use this would then point to a redirect.   We could also create a redirect from "logo use rationale" to this page.  That's okay in terms of server load because people don't look at the image file all that often.   - Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, and a good idea. This template is now located at Template:Non-free use rationale logo, which harmonizes with the main FUR template, and the old Template:Logo fur redirects to the new title.  Thus, nothing is broken, and I'll bet a lot of people will never notice that anything changed, as it should be.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several similar templates that could be standardized. There's Template:Album cover fur, Template:Book cover fur, Template:Historic fur, Template:Photo fur.   You can find a list of all the templates with "fur" in the name here.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Single Logo for multiple articles
How should the articles be specified in the license information if a single logo uploaded is to be used in more than one article ? Anish Viswa  02:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As per WP:FURG, "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." Because a fair-use rationale explains why it is fair to use a non-free image in a specific way on a specific article, a separate rationale is required for each use. --LinkTiger (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are five specific uses that are standardized in this template, as well as an ability to hand-write a purpose based on an "other" use. The most common case is to use a company's logo in the infobox of the article about that company.  I'm working on a template that can handle multiple logo uses at a time (potentially with different explanations for each), though there are still some kinks to work out.  I'll let you know if and when that's ready.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A complete template for each license is making the logo page very big. For example, see DLF IPL Logo.svg image. There the last 3 licenses differ only in the year of the tournament. This will grow every year. If we can improve the template to capture these in a single license with the comma separated values, it will make it compact.
 * eg:) Articles: 2009 Indian Premier League, 2010 Indian Premier League, 2011 Indian Premier League and so on. Anish Viswa  01:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's actually better to use a single template, because if there's a change to make or error to correct, that would ensure that all of the identical uses can be managed at the same time.  As a point of reference, the template I was working on is template:logo fur multi.  It allows for 10 different article name, Article, Article2, Article3, and so on.  Correspondingly, you can use separate "used for" and "purpose" pairs - Used for2, purpose2, used for3, purpose3, and so on.  If you leave any of these ones blank it assumes (and warns you) that it's assuming the use / purpose are the same as the first set from the list.  Unfortunately, it's way too complicated and unwieldy.  Currently, this template (now renamed non-free use rationale logo) and my new template both feed their fields directly into template:fair use rationale.  For simplicity, the new template should probably create N different instances of this one, and let this template sort out the details.  Again, please don't use the new template except for testing purposes.  It's not ready for prime time yet.  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gooeypeach, 31 August 2011
There is a problem with a call to the template at the line

|

The template system doesn't seem to like the equal sign in the first argument and the template is called with no arguments causing it to output '  '. This is remedied if this argument is explicitly set as 'messsage', like so

|

Gooeypeach (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, well done. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from FleetCommand, 18 September 2011
Current code looks like this: |Source=

This code inserts a the contents of |Website= parameter regardless of whether the |Source= is given or not.

But since |Source= is an override field, I think it must be like this: |Source=

Or... perhaps I am missing something! Am I?

Fleet Command (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No I think you are right. And it seems it was me who broke this with my edit last year! Thanks for pointing this out. By the way the website parameter does not seem to be mentioned in the documentation - perhaps this could be rectified? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see to it. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wcquidditch, 21 September 2011
It appears that, fixing the previously-discussed issue relating to the website parameter, has now created a new problem: the website parameter is now completely non-functional — and as a result, a number of images are now erroneously in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source. Now that the parameter is in the documentation, this probably should be rectified somehow…

 WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  19:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just flat reverted the previous change for now.©Geni 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mr JTall, 23 September 2011
We would like the City of Belmont logo to be removed as the image for this site. Reason being is that the logo/image is used as the picture for Facebook Places and is the same image as our Facebook page. This is causing confusion so please change it out with a picture of City Hall or contact me for further assistance. Thanks John

Mr JTall (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This request has nothing to do with this template -- it should be made on Belmont, California. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry
This template uses a hyphen where it should use a dash. Could  please be changed to  ? Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archiving
Just a notice that I set up auto-archiving on this page. Any thread older than 30 days will be archived, with a minimum of 4 threads staying on this page. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Modify to cope with seals, crests and insignia
Subject to testing could the template be updated to use the code in the sandbox which extends this template so it can be used for crests, symbols, seals etc by addition of a type-param? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please, update documentation. Ruslik_ Zero 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This change resulted in 7,282 files being placed into the non-existent category Category:Non-free logos lacking an owner. The request from Stan00 IMG mentions type, but nothing about this change.  How will this additional administrative burden allow anyone to "cope" with seals, crests, and insignia?  Please revert until further discussion can take place. Senator2029  ➔leave me a message 08:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the category from the template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 December 2013
The "Replaceability" parameter includes a spelling error: "repesentation" should be "representation". -- Perey (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not working
Why doesn't this template actually display the FUR text? See File:Reese's-PB-Cups-Wrapper-Small.jpg: I and another editor have written specific reasons why using this image is an acceptable fair use, but you'll only see them if you open the editing window. The regular reader is only going to see boilerplate text, which produces the nonsensical statement "The image is used to identify Candy, a notable product or service." Yeah, well, it's not being used to "identify Candy"; it's being used to identify the specific product that is #5 in the table of the world's best-selling candy. Is there a way to make this template actually display the true purpose instead of the boilerplate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi WhatamIdoing. I'm surprised that someone working for the WMF can't figure this out. This template, and frankly, everything to do with legal issues regarding files, is pretty confusing for us non-lawyers. I know that the WMF doesn't want to "muck around with the content", but since, I'm a volunteer, and not a lawyer, and I am volunteering to muck around with this, I hope that the WMF has my back if I inadvertently screw this up. Anyhow, in answer to your question, if you read the template documentation closely:


 * Use: Specifies how is the image used in the article? Choose one of the following:
 * Infobox: Use when the logo is placed in a company infobox to represent the company. Do not use for other types of infoboxes.
 * Org: Use when logo identifies an organization in an article or section about the organization
 * Brand: Use when logo identifies a brand in an article or section about the brand
 * Product: Use when logo identifies a product or service in an article or section about that product or service
 * Public facility: Use when logo is used to identify a road, airport, station, route, city, neighborhood, government service, etc.
 * Other: Use when none of the above applies. In this case, you must fill the "Purpose" field.
 * Purpose: If use is not one of the above categories, explain how you use it and why.
 * So, if anything other than "Other" is provided for the value of parameter Use, then one of five boilerplate texts (presumably written by WMF lawyers), automatically fills the Purpose of use field that the template displays, and the Purpose parameter's text is not displayed by the template. If you want the Purpose parameter's text to be displayed in the Purpose of use field that the template displays, then the Use parameter must be set to Other. So, with this edit I changed Use from Product to Other so that it would display the custom purpose text that you entered.


 * Now with this 16:30, 11 March 2010 edit to "Separate true errors from missing param.", TheDJ changed the template so that, if the Use parameter is omitted, rather than just quietly default to display the value of the Purpose parameter, now an error is transcluded on hundreds of files demanding the attention of an editor to fix the error, which I have been working on with WP:AutoWikiBrowser, e.g., if the Purpose parameter is set to "Infobox", then I assume that the file is actually used in an infobox and accordingly set Use to "Infobox" as well.


 * As I'm not an administrator, I can't edit this template—I can only submit an edit request—and besides, I wouldn't feel comfortable editing this template without consulting a WMF lawyer first—so, the path of least resistance for me has been to take on the time-consuming task of fixing these "errors", which I've boldly done. So far, no one has objected.


 * Actually, it was this 03:29, 26 May 2010 edit by MSGJ that changed the template from showing a local message to transcluding an error. I'm wondering whether this "error-after-the-fact" is really serious enough to justify that. Maybe it can be downgraded back to a soft local error that doesn't solicit attention from error patrollers? Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is another example of an error correction that the template demands. Perhaps Company can be allowed as an alias for Org?
 * "Purpose was stated, but Use parameter of the template was not set." Not true in this case. It was set, just not set to one of the defined acceptable values. FYI, . This is the biggest remaining issue with transclusion of errors. I've got main space and talk space pretty much cleaned up. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo/Archive 1 for the rationale for the 16:30, 11 March 2010 edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, does this image even pass our criteria for fair use in the article Candy ? I mean there are plenty of images in that article already, sort of indicates that it would fail our Non-free content criteria. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya got me. Reading that document, I don't even get past the lead before asking my first question. What the heck does Exemption Doctrine Policy mean? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Now we're getting into the realm of pages that we can't edit. Wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy. is a space that I'm barely aware exists, I guess I should spend some time exploring it.  and . Easy to get those two confused. The 3-character abbreviation for  is, so wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC) "Feedback" is wmf: code for "View source". Wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it passes NFCC, although I don't claim to be an expert in this. I don't think that "there are plenty of images (of other stuff)" is actually an NFCC problem.  Under "minimal use", NFCC rejects "multiple items of non-free content". That is, you can have one image of one (highly relevant) candy bar wrapper, but you can't have a dozen images of that same copyrighted subject (a dozen images of the same candy bar wrapper).  Whether that one fair-use image is the only one on the page, or one among 20 free-use ones, is not something that NFCC worries about.
 * Wbm1058, "EDP" is wikijargon. The Board passed a resolution demanding that every separate project (every separate language of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.) write a "policy" about whether they would accept fair-use images and, if so, under what circumstances.  As I understand it, WP:NFCC is the English Wikipedia's "EDP".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

See Template:Non-free use rationale logo/testcases, which I updated to include more testcases, which shows that this template's diagnostic logic for errors needs to be fixed/improved. It complains: "No purpose specified. Please edit this image description and provide a purpose." when the supposedly optional parameter Purpose is not set, while neglecting to say that the required parameter Use isn't set to a valid value either. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Uppercase parameters?
This and many other fair use rationale templates use capital parameters. Why? I often find myself going back and editing the case after seeing the template produce an error. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. It shouldn't be that hard to support both parameters Use and use, for example. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

'History' field
Could someone please elaborate on History: If logo is discontinued or modified, use this field if it is necessary to explain when and how was it used historically.? Does this refer to historical use of the logo in the real world, e.g. by organisations, or historical instances of the file here, as detailed in the 'File history' section? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would assume the answer is "historical use of the logo in the real world". – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at this example: File:RollerGames logo.png. There is both a Previous file history, which is editable, and a File history, which is not. It appears that there was an older method for maintaining the history, that was replaced by the current method sometime between October 2006 and January 2007. Neither of these are part of this template, so "historical use of the logo in the real world" surely is what the history parameter is for. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. The original file was named File:RollerGameslogo.gif. Per Automatically converted to PNG, it was actually User:PNG crusade bot that left behind the "Previous file history". – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I updated the template documentation to elaborate on the purpose and use of this parameter ("field"), as I understand it. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternative template?
The Template:Non-free use rationale 2 provides an alternative to Template:Non-free use rationale. Is it necessary to provide an alternative to this template that have (WP:NFCC) -style link? Timothy Gu (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the nowiki tags around WP:NFCC? Doesn't this template already make sure that:
 * Use in article (WP:NFCC#7)	No article specified. Please edit this file description and add the name of the article the file is used in. (get help with syntax) – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I added a test case for "No article specified" to Template:Non-free use rationale logo/testcases. Yes, that could reference WP:NFCC#7 as the reason for the error. Curiously, that error doesn't transclude an error. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Populating Category:Wikipedia non-free files lacking article backlink is the obvious solution. It's an omission, so probably shouldn't transclude an error. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And Category:Wikipedia non-free files with red backlink. There's even a Category:Wikipedia non-free files with valid backlink. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I see that this template Non-free use rationale logo actually calls Non-free use rationale, which populates Category:Wikipedia non-free files lacking article backlink. That category is populated by both Non-free use rationale and Non-free use rationale 2. So one solution to give Non-free use rationale logo the improved WP:NFCC#7 messaging is to have it use Non-free use rationale 2 instead of the older Non-free use rationale. Another solution would be to upgrade Non-free use rationale so that its messaging was like that of Non-free use rationale 2. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

File Upload Wizard is the current default standard means of uploading files, and it uses Template:Non-free use rationale 2 for logos; so in effect the File Upload Wizard has "deprecated" both Template:Non-free use rationale and Template:Non-free use rationale logo. Which I think is a good thing, considering how confusing this template's syntax is. So, at this point I just want to primarily clean up errors in historical usage of this template, as I suspect that there is relatively little new usage of it. But, both of these "deprecated" templates could be upgraded to show the same helpful WP:NFCC, and WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC, etc. links that Non-free use rationale 2 does. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just found that this template isn't entirely deprecated by use of File Upload Wizard. The Template:Infobox company documentation says: Upload a wordmark/logo graphic using the organization logo upload form. Note: uploading trademarked corporate logos by other means or uploading corporate logos to Wikimedia Commons is likely to result in deletion of the logo.

This "upload form" prepopulates the file upload summary with: logo fur redirects to Template:Non-free use rationale logo; note that this method defaults the required Use parameter to "Org". – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 March 2014
The grammar in the "Replaceable?" field is incorrect. It should either have a comma between the subordinate clause (i.e. the bit from "because" to "logo") and the main clause (i.e. the bit from "there" to "representation") or the clauses should be swapped around. So either:
 * "Because it is a non-free logo, there is almost certainly no free representation."
 * or
 * "There is almost certainly no free representation because it is a non-free logo."

would be fine.

 Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  12:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ – I added a comma. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Override fields
Images that use the "override fields" are being added to the new maintenance category Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Using the same name for essentially different parameters seems like a very bad idea. Perhaps all the "override" fields should be renamed with "_alt" appended. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. The four 1931 wine images where I just undid edits are now appearing in this category. I'll see if I can sort this out. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding renaming fields, I don't think that will be worth the trouble. This template is very confusing to use, as evidenced by the file-namespace edit count I ran up repairing bad usage of it. It should probably be deprecated in favor of a newer, better-designed template. See above. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Image page?
"You may copy the following to your image page." What does this mean? Does it mean "You may copy the following to the page to which you want to add the image"? "Image page" has no meaning for me. Please respond here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "You may copy the following to your page in the File namespace." Does that help? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2015
Please change the text  to   so that the links are more straightforward and easier to understand. Thank you!

—Granger (talk · contribs) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Be able to tag multiple articles for use
Be able to tag multiple articles for use under article variable: Reason being, for example is used on 3 University of Pretoria-related articles, namely: University of Pretoria, University of Pretoria F.C. and TUKS Rugby League.

Should one be able to tag multiple articles that the logo is used on as non-free use. I think it's appropriate as all 3 articles are of the same university and therefore need to use the UP logo. This evades having to upload 3 non-free logos for non-free use. As the latter is typically done, there should be a way to simply tag multiple articles for use. (Obviously within reason and avoiding overuse with a warning). -- Waddie96 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Policy requires separate WP:FURs for each use. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)