Template talk:File source

message: The idw templates use the image name as the header. That's nice because you don't then get 10 headings all the same, I've tried to do the same here. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 08:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header choice 

message: Why does this say "it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag" when it's supposed to be about the lack of a source?   Bovlb 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering about the same thing... Thue | talk 20:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the template. Thue | talk 20:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "copyright tag"? 

message: ‹The template Image_source has been proposed for deletion here.›  // Pathoschild 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template survived this nomination. See here for the discussion. -Splashtalk 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template nominated for deletion 

message: I reccomend the image at the top of this template be deleted as it seems like an imposing warning to people who don't know the copyright policies for Wikipedia images. Despite whatever the text says underneath it, the image sends clear message of "STOP" when we should really be saying, "Hey, just letting you know..." Any opinions? JHMM13 (T | C)   05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to say the same thing.  I agree that the big red image should be removed as I think it really gives entirely the wrong message, and potentially will frighten off new Wikipedians, whose first action may have been to upload an image without thinking of copyright. The first sentence should however make it clear that the image may be deleted.  --RobertG ♬ talk 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top image 

message: Media is always a plural in proper usage. Shouldn't we just change the template to read this image? HAM  20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sometimes refers to PDFs or ogg files. - cohesiont 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re ''This media may be deleted'': it's ungrammatical

message: The Untagged images project is going to start a new help page for people that get their images tagged as no source, or no license (see discussion ) At Wikipedia:Image legality questions. ,  and Orphanbot's message will all point there as a centralized clearing house for questions so that they don't sit on individuals talk pages for long, and to help with the automated notifications. - cohesiont 06:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image legality questions 

message: I notice that the headline says "Image tagging Image:x".  Shouldn't it say "Image tagging for Image:x"?  Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor wording issue 

message: The current template reads:  If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
An either nor?  These two if not's need combining, or fixing.  Should the first sentence be if you did ?  There should  be direction for folks who did create the image themselves as to how to source.  Is a  enough combined with edit history, or is an explicit author attribution required in the image description?  I'd like to see a similar pointer to the  template, see Template_talk:No_source#Help_for_the_recipient. ∴ here…♠ 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User created images, how to attribute? 

message: Rather than boldly editing such a high-profile template, I propose that the first two paragraphs be changed as follows:
This will keep the template on topic (it is supposed to be about image source, and so that's what the first paragraph should be about, the rest is incidental), and it also complies with the copyright policies, particularly fair use policy #10.  Also, I think the template should say "please"!  If there are no objections I will implement the change.  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification and on-topic edits 

message: Please remove the  suggestion. We shouldn't suggest users to even consider this impractical and obsolete license. We should suggest  and Creative Commons instead. --MGA73 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol it was not protected so I fixed it myself. --MGA73 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2021