Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal

message: It's because Wikipedia can't set a permanent rule for this that I no longer upload images of any kind to the project and am letting all images that have been flagged by the bots die. You can't keep changing the rules every 4 months or people are just going to give up.. 23skidoo 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy has not been changing, but rather people are noticing the rules that have existed for years. However, this rule change would save a great many images from deletion. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very inaccurate statement.  2 years ago there was not a blitz against legally permissible fair use content.  Then, some people went on a bing about free content and managed to get a top-down policy enforced on the community.   This very page was created less than 2 years ago as a mere proposal.  Now it has been flagged as policy.  You are completely incorrect to say that policy has not been changing. Johntex\talk 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Historical revisionism.  Fair use images and "with permission" images were welcome until a year or two ago.  This crusade against non-free images is not beneficial to the project. — Omegatron 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Longer than that.  "By-permission" images were disallowed on May 19, 2005, and a good starting point for the "crusade against non-free images" would be June 30, 2005. --Carnildo (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-voting comment

message: :This is a repost of previous material from WT:NFC. Carcharoth 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: End repost.
Personally, I'm not sure many DVDs or videos have their own articles. Albums are different, as they are the primary product (as opposed to a film or TV series). I suspect many of the DVD or video cover images are used in "DVD" sections attached to articles. How would this proposal address such uses? Does the "used on an article about the product" reasoning extend to "used on a section about the product"? Carcharoth 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking an example at random, :Image:Dvd-cover-el-cid-movie-1961.jpg is used in three articles, none of which are the movie, which is illustrated by :Image:El-Cid.jpg (rather than the movie poster, though this may be one of the movie posters used for the DVD cover). Carcharoth 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We though through all of these in making the proposal and agreed that these are somewhat more compex situations and not as universally accepted.  Our proposal starts out with the uncontroversial "big three" (book covers, logos, and album covers) and adds one (2d art - why not?).  That gets us started, and initially these are the only valid templated rationales.  Proposals for others are welcome once we get these ones in place, and they'll go through a formal process and been put on an approved list.  Some may need additional parameterized fields, some free-form information, be limited to a small subset of the image category, and/or get a weaker presumption of validity.  We can certainly create more than one possible rationale to choose from for a given category of image.  But that's all down the road.Wikidemo 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of the issue here is what is meant by "free". "Non-free" originally referred to those files where someone hadn't explicitly stated that it was being given over to one of the free licenses. As it turns out, several twists developed. First, many free licenses have restrictions, so they're called "free", but have conditions attached by the person granting the license, such as demands that the photographer be attributed wherever the image is displayed. Further, it turns out many free licenses can't be double checked because they're anonymously granted, and some are fraudulent. Second, public domain images aren't free licensed either, so they're also "non-free" in the sense that no one has explicitly granted a license to use them, but rather one must do the necessary research and hope the research was correct. Third, it turns out that many "non-free" usages actually have less restrictions than many free licensed images. So it's not quite as simple as "free" and "non-free", and it's helpful not to be lured into a false sense of certainty by the uses of these words in the context of image licensing. The standard rationales for non-free/fair-use in Wikipedia are quite cautious in their interpretation of the categories in which these images are placed, and those WP users who focus on keeping things within bounds tend to be fairly agressive in removing images that do not comply with the Non-free content criteria, irrespective of whether the rationale is handwritten or whether it is standard for a class of usages. Currently, WP is at a stage where it's going to need to be standardized to a very significant extent in order to make them "machine readable", or trackable by a bot. This is a major aspect of what the Wikimedia Board has required WP to do by March 2008. ... Kenosis 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go further, and say that there needs to be at least as much scrutiny and scepticism about free images as there is of non-free images. The amount of free content is growing at immense rates as well, and the "free content warriors" may turn around from their battle to rid Wikipedia of most of its non-free images, and see Wikipedia as free as possible, only to find that they behind their backs an unmanageable mounds of "free" images have been spawned, all of which need to be checked to see if they are really free and that they really show what they claim to be showing. I can't emphasise that last point enough. Just browse through the free images we have, and you will soon come across images that are not really free, or that are of doubtful provenance (they claim to be something, but as they were uploaded anonymously there is no way to be certain they are showing what they claim to show). The answer, of course, like the rest of Wikipedia, is to have images be verifiable and checked by hand. If each article ultimately needs to be checked and referenced by hand, then checking each image is trivial in comparison. A key part of this is organising things so that the image data is machine-readable. In a few years we may reach the point where the non-free image content is better organised and more reliable (and verifiable) than the free images. Carcharoth 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example is a generic picture of a toaster. We don't hold the photographer to high standards here, and any high-quality free picture showing a toaster will do. A free picture of, say, the current protests/crackdown in Burma, is different. That requires a high degree of verifiability and a reliable source. Historical photos are another example. A random picture grabbed off the web with no source quoted is no good. For a reliable, encyclopedic historical image, you need to establish provenance. You need to be able to trace the history of the photo back and ascertain and verify details of when and where it was taken, who took it, and what it shows. This applies regardless of whether it is hundreds of years old and as public domain as the dodo, or whether it was taken in recent times (say, the last 50 years) and the copyright is still held by the photographer, or whether it was taken 10 years ago by someone who has released it under the GFDL, or a free picture taken in Burma yesterday. The best thing about non-free content is the assertion of a source, and, usually, the reliability of that source. Carcharoth 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Responding to the IP: "not every DVD cover is deserving of a fair use claim" - I agree, but the aim here is merely to organise what we have and how it is being used. After that has been done, the debate over what to do with the content can proceed in a much more meaningful manner. It is entirely possible that entire swathes of images will be wiped out. But that is more efficient than deleting each one individually. It is also entirely possible that when the same process is applied to free images, that many of those will have to go as well, due to lack of sources and unreliability. Carcharoth 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is important that the licensing tags reflect how the images are actually used.  For example, many articles about a particular book include an image of the book. The purpose of this use is something like "to illustrate the book's appearance". This use is accepted right now, in the sense that nobody is removing these images or challenging them.  But instead of imagae description pages being accurate about the reason for use, they instead often have very generic rationales (e.g. 1) or no rationales at all (see: 2 3 4). There is not agreement to remove images from these articles; the use of a cover image in an infobox is extremely common and generally accepted in practice. The point of this proposal is to put an honest rationale on images like these. Other forums can debate whether the use is acceptable; at least with honest rationales we can tell which images are used in this way. We can also avoid needlessly tagging the images with no rationale for deletion (examples above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Carcharoth. The rationales need to be accurately used for the relevant categories. WP can choose to provide as many rationales as is seen to be appropriate. For instance, I advocated combining 2D and 3D art, still being discussed (and there's a good chance I'll get rejected on that). I also, for instance, advocate separate rationales for book covers, e.g., article discussing the book, article discussing the subject and article discussing the author. Agree or disagree about the validity of the latter two uses under NFC/fair-use, they're simple enough to implement at the local level once users become more accustomed to the approach. ... Kenosis 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't general agreement that most instances of a particular type of use are appropriate, then making a template for that type of use is probably just going to cause trouble. For example, "image of book cover on the article about book" is a uncontroversial use, but "image of book cover on the article about author" is an uncommon use and not at all generally accepted, so in the few cases where it is a valid use a custom rationale will have to be written anyway. The goal of the present proposal is just to cover a few of the most common and widely accepted uses. Later, we can worry about the less common uses. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, yes. Point being, there is a significant degree of flexibility in how and when they're organized as such, depending on how WP wishes to automatically track these usages across the wiki. But it shouldn't wait endlessly. And, yes, obvious standard categories of usage, such as "article on the author" and "article on the topic" can always be added later; until then there's the "Rationale = Other--specify rationale in the space provided:___________", or however exactly it's chosen to be done. ... Kenosis 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a little broader than that, even.  Brands, product lines, specific products, tartans, insignias, highway signs, and certification marks, are all part of this puzzle.   There is also the peculiar case of logos of fictitious entities, especially in video games.  I wouldn't want to encourage fancruft but as long as we allow it we have to deal with those trademarks.  Trademarks in virtual worlds, however, is an utterly new field of law.  Wikidemo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that nonprofit, real-world organizations (fraternal organizations, charities, scientific research institutes, etc. ) should be included in the scope of the logo rationale in this proposal. Fictitious organizations are another issue altogether, which I don't think we have to resolve here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you want to handle product logos, e.g. Lay's?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable to me to include them with company logos; the rationale is "logo about a trademarked brand used in the article about the brand". What do others think about that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, but that's taking the title of the template even further afield. It's starting to get back to  -- wasn't that where the whole thing started?--SarekOfVulcan 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non free use breakdown 

message: Just letting people know that I'm in process of developing some templates to go with this proposal.  Even though the proposal describes a single template per rationale it's really a family of nested templates.  If I have time I can post them within a few days.  They'll need some discussion, clearly, and also some work at some point (possibly after approval) by a master template writer so we can do nifty things like making them case-independent, giving useful error messages for required fields, add all the right categories, etc. Wikidemo 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to make sense as an intermediary measure. Most of the categories in Betacommand's running tally seem to be fairly stable at present (i.e., no major growth in any of them AFAICT, and gradual slight reductions in a number of NFC categories over the last month or so). ... Kenosis 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever anyone's opinion is, would you kindly share it over at WP:CSD or WP:NFCC where that's getting discussed, because the same editor has now reverted twice (and I'm not about to break 3RR over it) as being nobody's idea but my own, which is frustrating because we've spent nearly two months on this.Wikidemo 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  You might want to flag those as proposals and hold off on using them extensively until things get sorted out.  The bots may not recognize them right now - I believe STBotI and BetacommandBot are specifically programmed to look for  so be sure to check with the bot owners.   At the end of the day there may be only one approved template format.   will likely be deprecated to something closer to these two.Wikidemo 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A template isn't policy; as long as information is provided per WP:NFCC, how can a certain presentation be made mandatory?  Especially when a relatively small group of editors have taken control of it. Same for the bots, which are two of who-knows-how-many: they can use whatever parameters they want, but if they tag  :Image:Super Friends.jpg as "in violation," they're just wrong. They need to adapt if they're going to take it upon themselves to police things. — TAnthonyTalk 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it is quite possible that there will be a single mandatory format for templates under the new system.  If so it will become part of policy, perhaps in NFCC or elsewhere.  That would happen through the usual consensus process.  For now there is no mandatory format but the bots may not recognize it.  Whether that is wrong or not you would do better to communicate with the people running the bots beforehand than trying to deal with a bunch of tags after the fact.  In the future, the existing templates may be deprecated in favor of new ones.  Wikidemo 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, according to BetaCommand, his bot only looks for image description pages that don't reference the articles; I assumed it did more than that. — TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the latest.  But when it was checking for missing use rationales it was looking for 20 characters of text outside of a template, so if you put the rationale entirely inside any template it would flag it as having no rationale even if it had one....except that it had a short list of templates it recognized.  The upshot is that even though bots don't make policy, as a practical matter you had to tell/convince Betacommand to overlook your template or else your template was always going to get tagged for deletion.  If you simply removed the tag the bot would re-apply it again and again, and some over-zealous administrator was likely to delete the image either out of carelessness or out of a position some hold that templates should not be used.  I don't know how all the other bots work.  The point is, even though there is no policy reason we have to use bots, as a practical matter it may be the only way to patrol the images without a lot of work.  It's best to  for people to agree and work together to make one or perhaps a few acceptable formats.  The alternative is either that automated image patrol is impossible, meaning we never clean the images up, or more likely, that people will keep making bots that are buggy and delete a lot of images unnecessarily.  I like your designs, my only point here is that we ought to coordinate.  Wikidemo 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, I certainly didn't take your comments personally and you're right in everything you've said. I'd worry more if my templates weren't built off of . — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Due to persistent image tagging by people who seem to be unaware of this project, I proposed and instituted a temporary suspension of tagging and deleting pre-2007 images based on 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c) grounds, the areas covered by the pending changes.  This was summarily reverted .  I'm not sure if this represents a sentiment that deletion of pre-2007 images should proceed, or merely rote opposition to changes in policy language.  I think we already have a consensus that people should work on the new images first to allow us time to address the older ones.  We can't go through the usual slow process of trying to get a permanent change in NFCC and CSD to reflect that.  That would take weeks, and probably lots of acrimony, if it even works at all, while in the meanwhile hundreds of the old images get deleted everyday that we are hoping to save.  In a couple months there may be nothing worth saving.  That's why I proposed a temporary, partial suspension, not a change.  At any rate, I don't see any point continuing this project until and unless I can see that the legacy images aren't going to be all deleted in spite of our efforts.  Wikidemo 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to make sense as an intermediary measure. Most of the categories in Betacommand's running tally seem to be fairly stable at present (i.e., no major growth in any of them AFAICT, and gradual slight reductions in a number of NFC categories over the last month or so). ... Kenosis 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever anyone's opinion is, would you kindly share it over at WP:CSD or WP:NFCC where that's getting discussed, because the same editor has now reverted twice (and I'm not about to break 3RR over it) as being nobody's idea but my own, which is frustrating because we've spent nearly two months on this.Wikidemo 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: With the BetacommandBot being especially annoying lately, I thought some of you might find useful an alternate to the  template. The  and  templates (used in conjunction with each other) allow for mutliple uses/rationales without duplicating the image description/source info. They are basically an adaptation of  using the genius idea of this proposal's mockups. Check out :Image:Super Friends.jpg to see them in action. — TAnthonyTalk 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  You might want to flag those as proposals and hold off on using them extensively until things get sorted out.  The bots may not recognize them right now - I believe STBotI and BetacommandBot are specifically programmed to look for  so be sure to check with the bot owners.   At the end of the day there may be only one approved template format.   will likely be deprecated to something closer to these two.Wikidemo 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A template isn't policy; as long as information is provided per WP:NFCC, how can a certain presentation be made mandatory?  Especially when a relatively small group of editors have taken control of it. Same for the bots, which are two of who-knows-how-many: they can use whatever parameters they want, but if they tag  :Image:Super Friends.jpg as "in violation," they're just wrong. They need to adapt if they're going to take it upon themselves to police things. — TAnthonyTalk 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it is quite possible that there will be a single mandatory format for templates under the new system.  If so it will become part of policy, perhaps in NFCC or elsewhere.  That would happen through the usual consensus process.  For now there is no mandatory format but the bots may not recognize it.  Whether that is wrong or not you would do better to communicate with the people running the bots beforehand than trying to deal with a bunch of tags after the fact.  In the future, the existing templates may be deprecated in favor of new ones.  Wikidemo 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, according to BetaCommand, his bot only looks for image description pages that don't reference the articles; I assumed it did more than that. — TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the latest.  But when it was checking for missing use rationales it was looking for 20 characters of text outside of a template, so if you put the rationale entirely inside any template it would flag it as having no rationale even if it had one....except that it had a short list of templates it recognized.  The upshot is that even though bots don't make policy, as a practical matter you had to tell/convince Betacommand to overlook your template or else your template was always going to get tagged for deletion.  If you simply removed the tag the bot would re-apply it again and again, and some over-zealous administrator was likely to delete the image either out of carelessness or out of a position some hold that templates should not be used.  I don't know how all the other bots work.  The point is, even though there is no policy reason we have to use bots, as a practical matter it may be the only way to patrol the images without a lot of work.  It's best to  for people to agree and work together to make one or perhaps a few acceptable formats.  The alternative is either that automated image patrol is impossible, meaning we never clean the images up, or more likely, that people will keep making bots that are buggy and delete a lot of images unnecessarily.  I like your designs, my only point here is that we ought to coordinate.  Wikidemo 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, I certainly didn't take your comments personally and you're right in everything you've said. I'd worry more if my templates weren't built off of . — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate to {{tl|non-free media rationale}}

message: Logos apply to more than just corporations. Consequently, I have changed the proposal to read, "An image of a logo on the article about the company, institution, or group." Johntex\talk 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much worse: there are logos for particular products. We have at least fifty logos for Intel products. Also, I see no reason th restrict the logo to an "article about xxx". We should be able to use a logo in a "section about xxx" instead. XXX may be notable enough for a section, but not notable enough for an article. we do not want the image policy to drive notability or editorial considerations. For example, I merged a set of small articles into a single article about the Intel Itanium processor, and retained multiple logos. a similar situation occurs for Xeon. -Arch dude (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: If this is going to be done, I'd suggest also including images of currency & stamps to the list that could have templates at least in some instances.  That is, it should be dead easy to establish "fair use" of an image of a Faroese króna in an article about currency of the Faroe Islands.  And with currency and (most) stamps, the issuing authority is going to be obvious because it appears on the face of the item.  (I say "issuing authority" because some currency/stamps are not protected by "copyright" but rather by anti-couterfeiting laws.) Crypticfirefly 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea IMO, all images of currency don't have the same copyright status (and some countries have harsh rules on how you can reprosuce a currency image) -- lucasbfr talk 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point being made above.  Counterfeiting laws have nothing to do with copyright or "fair use."  Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should not have any currency or stamp images?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.45.216 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency & Stamps

message: Due to a combination of real-life business and a desire to see this proposal develop on its own, I haven't commented here in some time.  Reading through the above, I don't see any substantial objections to moving forward. What are the next concrete steps that should be made? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 2007-11-12 

message: I one reason we have a problem with fair-use rationales is that the system is complicated, and editors do not add a fair-use rationale when they move the image to a new article. This could be fixed by adding a fair-use checking system to the image display portion of the mediaWiki software: If the image description page does not have a rationale for the page, then the image will not be displayed. This provides immediate feedback to the editor who adds the image to the article. Note that it is the editor's responsibility, not the image uploader's responsibility. -Arch dude (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea! — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea.  Maybe any template that questions the legality of the image will also cause the image to no longer display.  Then there won't be a paranoid rush to delete it ASAP. — Omegatron 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Under such a system, anonymous users will have the power to effectively delete non-free images by vandalizing their description pages. Or if a non-free image's description page is protected, this would imply that people need to get an administrator's permission to add an image to an article. Is either of these side-effects desirable? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic enforcement for fair-use rationale 

message: Is the intention still to have the new system in place by 1 January 2008, just over 3 weeks from now? Addhoc (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've lost some momentum...I got about 2/3 of the way towards designing some new templates to match the proposal but grew discouraged after people kept tagging and deleting the old images we're trying to save. The major bot operators were holding off and concentrating their efforts on 2007 files, but people were breaking rank and refusing to listen to appeals (or permit a temporary change of the policy), so I pretty much gave up.  I'm not sure where we stand now.  Wikidemo (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I got majority sided tracked in other areas, but I'm still very interested in this effort. I'll try to make some time for it. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned, I should show you my templates....well, they're not hidden.  They're in my sandbox somewhere, or maybe I was creating them in template space.  The idea is to put everything in a template within a template, so even if you type a rationale completely free-form, you have something like .  And then the copyright tag has something similar like .  That forces the uploader to input the required fields or else the template issues a warning.  xxxx functions like the existing template's article, and yyyy is just an empty field into which you can just type stuff, use a template similar to the existing rationale template, or else use one of the new standardized rationales.  aaaa is a code for which of the current copyright tags applies, bbb and ccc might be redundant but we should require some statement of source, dddd is like the existing field (but it's moved to the image tag, not the rationale tag).  I hope that's all clear.  Wikidemo (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I think this proposal is good, but it suffers from a common flaw: thinking of images as being acceptable or unacceptable, instead of uses as being acceptable or unacceptable. If an album cover prominently shows a singer's face, and that image is use both in the album article (to illustrate the album) and the singer's article (to illustrate the singer), then one of those uses is invalid. Assuming this proposal were in effect, one of the two rationales would be invalid, but that doesn't mean the image needs to be deleted -- it just needs to be removed from the article on the singer. We all know this, but it's important not to lose sight of it.
Because of this, I think it would be better to approach the March deadline this way: By March 1, if an image is used in an article for which there is no rationale (specific to that article), then a bot automatically edits the article to include a warning in the caption. "The use of this image here is not authorized by a use rationale. If a valid rationale for this use is not provided on the image description page, this image will be removed from this article on [date]." Then a bot would remove from articles any images so flagged after their expiration date. Technically the image wouldn't be deleted for having an improper rationale; it would be deleted for being an orphan (if none of the rationales are valid). 
Benefits are:
* This focuses on the validity of an image's use (helping to change the culture from thinking "But album covers are valid!")
* This prevents an image from being deleted if it's used correctly, with a valid rationale, even if someone adds it to another article inappropriately
* This will remove images from articles where they don't belong.
* This notifies everyone watching the article, not just the those watching the image, to encourage people to help fix the rationale.
In addition, the "rationale" tag could have an additional parameter: contested. Normally this would be empty. But if any user contests any rationale as being invalid, a bot would add a note to the article page about it, and say that after a week an admin should decide whether the rationale is valid or not, please comment on the image description page, yadda yadda yadda. Kinda like . After the expiration date, the processing admin would either remove the rationale as invalid, or change the "contested" tag to "resolved" or something.
Comments? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal follows the existing policy and guidelines on image use (other than things that are intentionally changed).  As such it is all about image use rationales.  The focus of the immediate effort is image appropriateness because images are being deleted.  But like the current regime, it is still one rationale per use.  One thing to change, however, is that certain information currently in the rationale template is really per-image information (e.g. source, resolution).  Rather than duplicating that with each image, it is better to put that in a template for each image.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen  and ? Carcharoth (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing on image ''uses'', not ''images''