Template talk:AutoReplaceable fair use people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Needs a fix

This template in its current form has a problem. It says "add to this page..." and then gives a link to {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, which has a facility for offering your objections or fair use rationale. While I've edited the markup of {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to try and make it really obvious not to put your rationale in the template itself, this particular template is practically inviting people to do it, and I just had a new user do just that. Accordingly I would like to replace it with the version currently located at User:Dgies/sandbox. —Dgies^t c 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: This change should be made to all 4 templates in Category:Replaceable_fair_use_images

1. Template:Replaceable fair use
2. Template:AutoReplaceable fair use
3. Template:AutoReplaceable fair use people
4. Template:AutoReplaceable fair use buildings

—Dgies^t c 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions link

As this tag is placed after it has been selected from the licence selector, can a link to the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page be added so that users have a relevant point of contact? After using {{rfu}}, the uploader should get a notice on their talk page which links to the questions page, or they can ask the user who left them the message, but with this tag the uploader doesn't get the notice so they don't get the links. Suggested format:

'''Questions''' about this message can be asked at [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]].

Please also update Template:AutoReplaceable fair use buildings if this is updated. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidate the categories

Any objections to changing this template to use Category:Replaceable fair use images as of XXX rather than the current "to be decided..." It would still be 48 hours, while the manual one would be 7 days. This causes some complication for the main category, Category:Replaceable fair use images, and some of the parser templates used on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I'll give this a few days for comment. - cohesion 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed, this is a little weird now. It will put the template in a category backwards 5 days making it pending for deletion in 48 hours. I do not think this is a good idea, but the two solutions are 1. make everything 7 days regardless (I think this is a good idea!), or 2. change everything to a "to be decided by" system. - cohesion 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to wait 7 days or even two days. The "grace period" that images have is a holdover from the days before images could be undeleted. Now there's no reason at all not to just put {{db-i7}} on them immediately. —Angr 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree :) My only concerns are workflow related. (and maybe OCD related as I want there to be only one time-frame). Anyway, I changed my mind somewhat and don't really think this is a bad plan. You will end up with an influx of images to the category on one day, then 5 days later some more, then 2 days later they are all pending deletion. That seems ok. That's not to say I'm opposed to making it all 48, or making them all speedy though. - cohesion 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The drawback to the changes you've made is the loss of transparency. The way it is now, if someone uploads a fair-use image of a living person or building today (April 19), it will be put into Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 14 April 2007. While the ultimate effect is the same (the image will be eligible for deletion on April 21), it is going to greatly confuse people to find that the image has been put in a category dated five days ago. There will be lots of people scratching their heads and asking "WTF?" Maybe we could rename Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 14 April 2007 (etc.) to Category:Replaceable fair use images eligible for deletion on 21 April 2007 (or "...after 21 April 2007"), though that would certainly need to be discussed in a more widely watched venue than this page. —Angr 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem I was trying to solve, having two category systems for the same thing. I'm willing to bet most people don't notice the date the template adds, those that do might have some searching though. What I was trying to do was make this arbitrary date, 13 July 2006, where the same file gets only 48 hours less of a pain to deal with. Changing this to the "to be decided after" wording is fine, but if we do I would like to change the {{rfu}} wording also. Even changing both of those I don't think would make too many people upset. - cohesion 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed both templates to "to be decided after" for clarity and consistency. ed g2s • talk 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You changed {{replaceable fair use}} and {{replaceable fair use 2}} but not this one, or buildings, so now they are not consistent, right? I don't care what they are called really, but there should be only one category for these 4 templates. - cohesion 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed AutoReplaceable people and AutoReplaceable buildings now so they also feed into the "to be decided after" categories. It's ridiculous to have two differently named sets of categories here. Hopefully in a few days there won't be any more "images as of" categories being created. —Angr 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)