Template talk:No rationale

message: I was patrolling CAT:NR for the first time in a while and had not noticed that the template no longer specifically referred to  and . 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#Fair use, there's a category "Generic tags" under which  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  for example applies to all album covers when in an article about the album itself (but its use in some other article would require ). 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. howcheng  {chat} 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion at the CSD talk page about this issue.  Basically, it was agreed that "generic" should refer only to tags like  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.  Mangojuicetalk 01:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Generic fair use template" 

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

message: I very strongly feel that any unfree licencing tag should fall into this speedy deletion category. , , and  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)
thread_title:  General fair use tag again 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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  or  tags had sufficient fair use rationales is just flat out wrong. Jay32183 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'd also like to see the I6 language clarified.   It is used in several places (including WP:IFD) and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations#Images 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)
thread_title:  Edit for clarity 

message: 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 | =/\= | 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 . Personally, if the uploader doesn't respond, I rarely tag with .  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 . —RP88 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  every usage 

message: * 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)
thread_title: book covers