Template talk:Non-free use rationale/Archive 1

message: Please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use_rationale_guideline#Template:Non-free_media_rationale.  Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The Resolution variable should be renamed Low_resolution for clarity. If no one objects, I will make this change and add code to grandfather in templates that used the old name. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The resolution refers to the size and quality of the image. It needs to be reduced in order to avoid the improper use of the image by someone who downloads it from this site, and thus violating copyright law. The question on this table asks whether the resolution was reduced in order to avoid these problems. This practice is employed by other webpages too. I've seen the technique on [cnet.com]. — Chris53516 (Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've seen is images that are already of sufficiently low resolution when they were copied off the company website. In this case, users do not have to reduce the resolution because it's already quite low. Thus, "Resolution reduced?" was really vague and unhelpful. "Low resolution?" is much better because it asks something quite specific. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean to ask is what is the proper way to answer the question to remove ?   I don't know if it is looking for a number, pixel size, one word answer or sentence.  TravKoolBreeze 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my impression that all of the sections should be answered thoroughly as sentences. I would explain with as much detail as possible the procedure for reducing the image resolution. You can include original size, new size, and other quality reducing changes. — Chris53516 (Talk) 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Low resolution?" question is more in there as a reminder...all we really need to do is make sure that the resolution isn't excessively high. One word, "Yes", should usually suffice. If the resolution is not low then the uploader should explain why a high-resolution copy is necessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution variable 

message: Why on earth are all those questions posted in the template?? They should be inserted as comments so that those who are editing the template see the questions, not everyone under the sun. It takes up so much space, too! — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also removed messages in the template, that are warnings for the uploader. Taric25 07:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The current solution looks good. Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the template work? I can put it in the page, but how do I edit the values within it? DuncanHill 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK I worked it out. DuncanHill 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I see that the template recommends a resolution below 300px width.  However, there are a nontrivial number of images that are considerably taller than they are wide.  Example: :Image:Nelzelpher.jpg.  I would certainly say that this isn't at fair-use resolution before it's 300px in the largest direction.  Opinions? --Pekaje 23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a rule of thumb. I've rewritten the rule of thumb to be based on the area of the image, which should help clear this up in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that cleared some things up.  I've seen others mention a rule of thumb stating that the resolution reasonably used in the article is the one to use.  In the image referenced before, that was the approximate height, so there was no visual change in the article, and I can't see a reason to allow anything in higher resolution under fair use.  AFAIK, there never was defined a policy for this, and for good reason.  It's a very tricky question, depending on a lot of factors.  For instance, game covers should generally be precisely 256px wide to fit perfectly in the infobox. --Pekaje 00:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the thing is, if (for example) the infobox layout changed to become slightly wider, you'd have to re-upload the image. It's better to upload an image a few pixels larger than strictly necessary (for example, 300px wide instead of 256) so that you have flexibility in the future. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The downside is of course that the MediaWiki software is not particularly good at scaling the often stylistic artwork, so it often looks quite fuzzy.  Hand-optimized rescaling gives much better results.  If a larger version should ever be needed, there is either the original source (which should be noted in the fair use rationale), or an admin could temporarily undelete the originally uploaded large version. --Pekaje 08:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't come out nearly so fuzzy if you use the PNG format instead of the JPEG format. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm just going by the format they're already in.  Also, since the scaling algorithm is (AFAIK) the same, I'm not sure how that would even help.  I just tried scaling a PNG through wiki, and it looks just as fuzzy.  As for JPEG use, I always save at the highest possible quality to avoid visible compression artifacts. --Pekaje 16:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Well, comparing :Image:Hodgman WikiWorld.png to :Image:Hodgman wikiworld.jpg, I see that when scaled down by the Mediawiki software, the PNG became blurry and the JPEG got extra artifacts:
←If I were you, I just wouldn't worry about this. I would just upload a 300px wide image and let the user click on it if they want a sharper picture. This is what we do with free images all the time, except that free images are generally of far higher resolution before scaling. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right, but I also don't see anything wrong with making sure the resolution it is used at in the article matches the uploaded resolution, to improve the readers experience.  For game covers there is also a general consensus to have them somewhere between 250px and 260px wide.  In the end I suppose it's a judgment call, and some images can be scaled down significantly more before they become unusable.  No wonder the attempt at forming a policy didn't work out ... :-) --Pekaje 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Without knowing the specifics, it does seem slightly overzealous to replace what sound like acceptably-sized images (the threshold being 300 pixels-ish) with even smaller ones just for the sake of it. However, to me it only matters if the "new" size has a negative impact on that article; that is, what is the display size and how has this been affected to the point where the image may appear "too small" or grainy/of less quality. It may be appropriate to revert these images back in this case, though to avoid an edit war you should probably discuss it with the editor replacing them and possibly have some open discussion on a talk page related to the image(s) to get some consensus. — TAnthonyTalk 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

message: Hi.  I added a hidden / undocumented field Special_header.  The only thing it does is that if you use the field it will appear in the top blue margin.  The primary use is for any specialized fair use rationale templates that transclude this one, for example the new  that I designed.  That way anyone looking at a fair use rationale produced one of those templates knows where it came from.  I have tested it out and it does not interfere with normal operation of this template.  If you don't use the field it's simply not visible.  If you do it is a message in the header.Wikidemo 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added hidden field for transclusions 

message: I notice that most people who use this page don't bother saying what article it's used for and/or make the mistake of using it for two or more articles, when the policy is clear that there needs to be one rationale for each article.
To help with that, I propose we add a new field called "Article" where the editor says what article the rationale is for.  To see how that works I've modified the template and put a trial version for illustration at Template talk:Non-free media rationale/proposal (but no copy of the documentation there).  To take a random template usage, here is an example of the revised template in action.  You'll see that the editor who added the template didn't specify an article.  But if you add "Daydream Nation" to the "Article" field where it should be, everything works out.  I think this is a good compromise because it points out cases where the article name is missing, but is backwards compatible with existing template uses.  The only hitch is that it will say that the name is needed even in cases where someone has that in a header outside the template.  But I'll argue that to be clean and ensure complaince that info ought to be in the template.  What do you think?  Wikidemo 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an outsider's perspective:  I am in the process of trying to bring the various images used in the articles pertaining to the anime franchise Neon Genesis Evangelion into fair use compliance.  Currently, there are several images used in those articles which are used in multiple articles.  If an image is used in multiple articles, I have tried to account for this in the Purpose section of the image (examples: here and here) using the File Links section to make sure that I haven't missed a link.  Is this not sufficient? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell you whether it's wrong in an individual case.  People do that often.  And I haven't familiarized myself with proper use of anime character images in different sorts of articles.  You have been careful to state a different purpose for each use, which is great.  Most people are not that careful so when they use one template to stand for multiple uses the reasoning of all the uses is the same.  Or, as I said, they forget entirely to mention the article name.  Wikidemo 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with adding the field to the template; I found it confusing that there was none, given the policy saying "one justification per use". I would make the field display as "Article(s)", and allow > 1 - otherwise, I say "go for it". --Alvestrand 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This would seem to be a useful field to include in this template. I just got bot-warned for not specifying for which article(s) I was claiming fair use for an image I uploaded. I didn't use this template, but I came here searching for a way to remember to specify article names in the future. --zenohockey 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on this I am modifying template:logo fur and template:album fur (which both transclude this template) to feed their "Article" field to the article field here.  You might check or query to see whether there are any other templates that rely on this one.  The only hitch now is +/- 10,000 images that use this template and don't have an Article field yet.  We can add these by bot in most cases but they may still need to be hand-checked.  Until then people will have to accept that old images just don't have this field filled out.  Another possibility is that if nobody minds the change we can deprecate the old version in favor of a new version.  Wikidemo 05:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the addition of the article field redundant and disruptive. Please remove it. — WiseKwai 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The field is working fine, and is very useful, e.g. for creating the category of images that need backlinks.  Images used in multiple articles need separate use rationales - the one you point to is deficient in this regard.  The "purpose" field is also deficient because it doesn't say anything about the purpose of the use in the articles.  "Description" isn't the best place to put it because that's stuffing well-formatted once-per-record data in a free-form text field, a weak recordkeeping practice.  The automatic back-linking is no substitute for saying which use the rationale refers to as required by WP:NFCC#10.  When there is more than one use the purpose and description is often different for different uses, and the automatic links don't establish this.  When we don't require an "article" field it leads to a lot of errors, meaning someone has to fix them by hand or delete the images.  The automatic file likes will be useful, though, in the process of cleaning up all the noncompliant images.  Where there is a single use rationale and a single use link, we can probably assume that the rationale applies to that use.  That is not a safe assumption at all if there are frewer rationales than links.  Wikidemo 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose adding a field for "Article" 

message: I propose that this template be moved back to its original name, Template:Fair use rationale. The phrase "non-free media rationale" is not used on Wikipedia:Non-free content or Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. Rather, the term "fair use rationale" is always used. We should try and keep the terminology consistent by moving this template. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rater we change the language in those other places. Calling it a fair use rationale is a little misleading since it's actualy a rationale to explain how it comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy wich is as you know just a small subset of what is actualy allowed by fair use law... --Sherool (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Against. As the user above noted, Wikipedia's policy is only a subset of it. I would rather not change the name. — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We ought to help people comply so yes, we should use the standard term rather than coining an awkward and misleading term like "non-free media rationale." Wikidemo 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Against.  Non-free is the better term, and there is a growing consensus to use this instead of fair use; too many uploaders are confusing fair use with free.  As Sherool points out, the language on the other WP pages should be updated to reflect this.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean "for".  I have no problem with clarity but "Non-free media rationale guideline" is a lot less clear to people than the old term.  Wikidemo 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC)The term might not roll of the thounge quite as easily, but the reason we renamed Wikipedia:Fair use to Wikipedia:Non-free content was to de-emphasis "fair use" when it comes to acceptable use on Wikipedia because we only allow a small subset of what is legal under fair use here. Basicaly a lot of people know what fair use is all about (or think they do), and so they don't bother reading the finer points of the policy, so by not calling it a "fair use policy" we make it more clear that just meeting the legal requirements will not be enough. I think that's more important than something that "soundes better". --Sherool (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Against.  I'm a little torn on this.  "Fair use" is a convenient shorthand, and the other phrase is a little cumbersome.  Unfortunately, I think there's enough likelihood of confusion to warrant avoiding the term "fair use" as a synonym for Wikipedia's non-free content policy. -- But|seriously|folks  19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Non-free" is longer than "fair use"?  Both are eight characters, so I don't see the length issue.    "Media" clarifies that it applies to images, video and audio.  Also, given that all templates for non-free media are currently in the process of being renamed (i.e. from Scoutlogo to Non-free Scoutlogo), the use of non-free here is consistent.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Count them.  Three more syllables, five more characters, and a dash.  "fair use rationale" is already a mouthful.  "non-free media rationale" is two mouthfuls.  If you can say "non-free media rationale guideline", or get your mind around the term, easily you are better at such things than me.  We really do need to come up with something...."unlicensed use rationale?"  "use rationale" for short? Wikidemo 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: I think some element of this template is causing many images to appear at CAT:CSD for no good reason.  Can somebody fix this? -- But|seriously|folks  21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it's fixed now.  I guess the move was not yet complete. -- But|seriously|folks  21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:CAT:CSD|C:CSD]] Insanity

message: I just revised two of the remaining instances of "fair use" language in the template.  I'll leave it for someone else to decide if we want to eliminate all references to "fair use". -- But|seriously|folks  21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Fair

message: We should consider semi-protecting this template.  While not highly visible like infobox templates, it is now highly used.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection wouldn't be bad. Why would anons ever need to edit this template, seeing as they can't upload files? —Remember the dot (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Currently, part of the documentation is on the template page and part is on the doc page- this needs to be moved all to the doc page.  As I understand it, whenever the template part is updated, all uses of the template must be refreshed on the server.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercifully, we can ignore performance issues. If it creates a serious problem then the developers will fix it on their end. It just makes it a lot simpler and easier for us to use the reference system for explaining this template. See #Questions above. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but if we look at the bottom of the page, we see "Examples of places where performance has been erroneously cited in the past:" and a link to Wikipedia:Template limits.  If we check under Documentation of templates, we see how documentation should be handled.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that the referencing system can work through transclusion, so I've moved the Notes section onto Template:Non-free use rationale/doc. That should be a little nicer. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes- I was going to do it in a bit, I just wanted to provide the rationale (If I didn't write it down, I would forget it).  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: Someone just reverted the edits, and someone else just protected the template in its old form, without any discussion, claiming that the matter should have been discussed on the talk page first.  It was, and the comments were unanimously in favor of the changes.  Based on the change I updated two other templates that rely on this one; now I will have to revert both.
The failure to state which article an image is used on is one of the single biggest failings of all use rationales, including ones using this template.  The template makes matters worse; by not having a field for this important information it suggests that the information is not required.  This is a present issue because many images are proposed for deletion based on a claim they lack this.
I don't want to make a fuss of it just yet because it's better to simply deprecate this template in favor of the new one so as to leave existing use rationales in place.  Also, we'll probably eliminate the "source" field (which is once per image, not once per use) and some other tweaks.  Deprecating might be a trick because there are quite a few pages that link to this template that will have to be updated to say there's a new version.  Wikidemo 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why they reverted that, I re-added the parameter. I also created :Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, wich we can use to find and fix images that don't use the Article parameter (which is most of them right now seeing as it's a new parameter) before they get tagged for deletion. --Sherool (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That's about 30,000 to 40,000 images that need this field added to their template at this point.  Most could be done by bot based on the image's "file links" info.  To be extra cautious a bot could add a dummy field, e.g. "hand_checked_for_article_use=no" or "article_name_added_by=botname".  I'll probably wait a few days before I flip the logo and album cover rationale templates back to transcluding this properly, just to see that the change stuck.  That's about 1,000 images each at this point.Wikidemo 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Gah, whose idea was it to use a well-established template for this kind of fundamental parameter change?  I don't mind the concept as such, but using an existing extensively used template for it is madness.  Thousands of templates in need of correction, many of which have no WP:NFCC#10c problem, and absolutely no way a bot can fix it.  Please, consider reverting the template and make a new one if you must.  This is not an elegant solution, because multiple valid uses would undoubtedly require repeating some of the information.  Why not just fix the documentation to explicitly state that for each "Purpose" mentioned, the corresponding article must be wikilinked, and leave it at that?  Why did I ever take this page off my watchlist ... --Pekaje 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hazard a guess that most uses of this template are not in connection with appropriate statement of article name.  Whether now or later we're going to have to whip a whole bunch of images into shape soon on this account.  That will inevitably involve automatically tagging a bunch of images as unverified, needing hand-review, and/or needing remedial work to add the article name.  For what it's worth, this template may be deprecated soon anyway given the new proposal discussed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal.  -- Wikidemo 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just fixing the documentation won't get the tends of thousands of "legacy images" fixed. Sure there are lots of images that do link to the article without this parameter but those cases are the easiest of all to fix as we come across them. This way at least anyone adding a new rationale will be told an article name is expected, even if he haven't re-read the guideline recently. I'll try doing my part by populating the parameter for a handfull of images each day, if more people pitch in we should be eable to get a good portion of these fixed up in a couple of months. All images that do use the parameter can then very easily be automaticaly converted to whatever new system we may think up down the line. --Sherool (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue that the articles which may not contain an article link within the template are also missing other key items, because the template was added after the fact; as long as the "Needs Article Name", "No Source listed" and other alerts are visible, many of these will probably be noticed and fixed during the course of other fixes brought to editor attention by BetaCommandBot or whatever. Making a special effort to correct 30,000 images for this one issue is a waste of resources. TAnthony 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not smooth - be careful what you revert and protect 

message: I propose that "#if" ParserFunctions be added to all the fields of the template so that  becomes ,  becomes
, etc. etc. Any thoughts? Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editprotected tags are for changes that have consensus. --MZMcBride 00:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix ParserFunction 

message: The new "Article" parameter doesn't seem to be fully thought-out. A non-free image may be legitimately used by more than one article (e.g., a picture of several people, each with their own article), but the singular form implies only one article. Worse, the parameter is currently being used in a caption as well:
: Non-free / fair use media rationale for whatever you put in the "Article" field
Not only does this further prevent proper citation of use in multiple articles, but it's also just plain wrong. The non-free use rationale is for the image, not the article, and the image is the title of the page, making the caption completely superfluous. For a concrete example, please see :Image:Trixie and Dean Koontz.jpg for why this doesn't work. (Before arguing that one of these articles is currently a redirect, I can point to other images that will eventually have to use this template that have multiple live articles, but I'm not going to fix them until the template design and bugs are worked out.)
Please revise this template to make more flexible and/or limited use of the "Article" parameter. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The requirement is one rationale per use in an article, not one per image.  Please take a look at WP:NONFREE - it's at 10(c).  I don't know what you claim is "wrong".  We're encouraging people to enter the article name correctly, which is verified when the article becomes a live link.  The image you point to, of author Dean Koontz and his dog Trixie, is currently used in a single article about the author.  If you were to break it into two articles, the second one about Trixie, the rationale would be very different for the two images.  In fact, going through the exercise you would find that the image is not appropriate to illustrate Dean's article because it's a nonfree image of a living person, and therefore replaceable.  Trixie is no longer alive so it may be appropriate for an article about her if there is no nonfree image of her to be found.  All this is described in WP:NONFREE.  Wikidemo 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article parameter need fixing 

message: Could we please add:
 
To the beginning of the template?  After creating /sandbox and /testcases, this will give a clearly defined space to edit and test updates and then gain consensus before they go live.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: The changes that are happening to this template are great...one minor annoyance is the redundancy when an image is used in more than one article. For example, the description, source, and author should be the same for each use. I believe what we should be doing is using  for description, source, and author, while this template should only include the additional info required per WP:NFCC.  really should be used to organize image metadata for all images into machine-readable format, for both free and non-free images. Videmus Omnia  Talk  14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I think that's coming in version 2.0 as part of the new proposal on image pages, but would be hard to implement in place on this template without disrupting all the images that use it.  So we'll probably have a pair of new templates, one with the per-use information and one with the per-image information, and then slowly phase out this template for any new images.  Wikidemo 23:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Article parameter is a recent addition, and don't know how many articles have actually implemented using multiple templates for a single image, it may not be that big of a deal to implement such a change. TAnthony 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, instead of having to use the template three times for an image used in 3 articles, can't the "Article" and "Purpose" fields have some sort of "Use 1" - "Use 2" - "Use 3" functionality to save space and avoid confusion? I adjusted :Image:Super Friends.jpg to reflect how it might look, though of course the template would need to be changed to not automatically place the article name into the header (which isn't necessarily important anyway). And regardless if this change is implemented, I think I prefer that the article parameter not automatically link entries; then multiple articles can be noted in cases where the purpose is also identical for all uses, like :Image:Filmation Teen Titans 1960s.jpg. TAnthony 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, my comment above is a bit outdated considering the new template proposed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Proposal, but assuming it will be a separate tamplate to be implemented and replace this one over time, this one should still be fixed (however messily) to accomodate multiple entries in a better way. TAnthony 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant information 

message: To help measure compliance with the new article parameter -
Date  Blue links Red links No data in article parameter
10/03 07:47650144?
10/04 08:463,83512133,083
10/07 03:047,1614133,062
10/09 03:278,1465632,687
10/10 03:428,4456032,375
10/13 13:129,7875031,963
10/17 01:3610,8135031,149
10/26 02:1314,0784529,866
10/29 02:1316,5665528,904
11/01 02:2017,4804328,750
12/14 04:5933,9564023,234
12/18 00:1834,9267022,331
-- Wikidemo 07:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, just in case anyone interested hasn't noticed, Polbot (operated by Quadell) is working like crazy adding backlinks to images with the template but without the "Article" parameter; the bot's on "C" already, and this will obviously have a huge impact on the many images lacking backlinks. I've already given a pat-on-the back here but surely a barnstar will be in order when it hits Z. — TAnthonyTalk 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Polbot is clever and is also generating User:Quadell/Report on backlinks (articles with only one use rationale but several images used). This will be useful for repeated runs through the category. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the bot was skipping those but not that it was keeping track!  Awesome. — TAnthonyTalk 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The count 

message: Look at :Image:Air Atlanta Icelandic logo.jpg. The template says that the article listed does not exist, but it does... can someone help? – Zntrip 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Don't include the brackets in the article field. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that simple... thanks. – Zntrip 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I must confess I've made this error on several images. How about if we add information in the Notes section that tells editors they don't need to include the square brackets? Bryan H Bell 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be very much appreciated, as I didn't know to leave off the square brackets and had the same problem. Now I have to go back through (takes off socks...) lots of images and correct the article reference. Something in the directions to say "Leave off the square brackets!" would be A Good Idea (tm), IMHO. Thanks. -    ¥    Jacky Tar  00:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's talk of developing a new template, so there's not a whole lot of effort going in to updating this one.  There is a category, though, for red linked article names, which would include the bracket error.  Only 45 in the category - :Category:Non-free images with red backlink.  I think some people have been going through the category and fixing these.  Wikidemo 02:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the template? 

message: I'd like to suggest usage instructions in the documentation listing each field and what info/format (brackets or not around the "Article", for example) should be used.
In addition, I'd also like to suggest that auto-bracketing the article field be removed, as I could use the same rationales for multiple aritcles; however, if wikipedia guidelines force me to use 2 of these templates if an image is in 2 articles, I guess there's no point in this suggestion; I'd like to be able to do multiple aritcles (by filling articles in as: Blah and Blah2). Thanks TheHYPO 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-article brackets? 

message: This template is now needed for all media (User:Betacommandbot is now tagging audio samples and such as needing to comply with 10c, and this template is the easiest way of checking off that all the Ts are crossed. However, it specifies 'low-resolution'. Can this either be marked as 'Low resolution/bitrate' or could it be turned into an optional field, perhaps requiring that *either* 'Low resolution' or 'Low bitrate' need to be included in order to cover all *media*, instead of just the visual ones? ;-) I'd looked for an equivalent audio-specific template (not finding one), but really, this template otherwise covers the same bases audio files need.--Thespian 09:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Change? 

message: 
Can we throw some brackets around ?  It's odd to specify an article without linking to it at the same time (the redundancy in the template header notwithstanding).--Father Goose 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I think I was thinking about making this exact change earlier on fixing a transclusion of this template to include the article parameter, but I must have gotten distracted or something. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2¢ a little late... but isn't it redundant to wikilink the "Article" link inside the template when the same thing is linked in the title line? The title line makes sense, first occurrence of the "Article" and it's the reason the template is being placed. The line inside is effectively buried. (As a side note on that, the internal article line could just as well be hidden... it's a repeat.) - J Greb 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that we should include in the table part of the template every required or important optional field, verbatim as the user entered it.  That way someone looking at the image page does not have to use the "edit" button to see what the data looks like.  Wikidemo 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, but the doesn't really address the redundant link. - J Greb 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the redundant entry that's weird (linking in the header and also in a field).  The redundancy doesn't hurt, though; the link in the header is easy to overlook, and if we are going to have an "article" field, it should be wikilinked.--Father Goose 09:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected request 

message: Is it necessary to mention in "portion used" section if I for example removed extra white space from the original image? --Mika1h (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a big deal but why not simply say it.  You could say something like "Entire image, but cropped to remove whitespace."  The white space around an image may or (more likely) may not be part of the copyright.  You're basically using the entire image if all you do is crop white space around the edges.Wikidemo (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portion used 

message: See :Image:Frederator Incorporated.gif. Sure does exist. :) The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put brackets around the article name. I fixed the problem. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well well. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning, does not exist! template awry 

message: Please add  (or convert the uses of Template:Fair use media rationale and delete it, or whatever). Thank you. --NE2 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil ☎ 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add a merge tag

message: Note the problem here: :Image:!!! (album).jpg. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be choking on the first two "!"s of the file name itself, and not the backlink. Is there a way to escape the file name so that it doesn't interpret "!!"s as column separators? Maybe adding an empty row at the top would also fix the problem? Would something similar happen to a file named with two pipes ("||")?  --Storkk (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can't have pipes in their names. I thought of using "Image:%21%21%21_%28album%29.jpg", but there's nowhere to enter that -- the template pulls the pagename automatically. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Larry V if he might take a look at it, since he put himself in :Category:User template coder-4 and is an admin. --Storkk (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Larry's User_talk states that he's currently busy with problem sets. Nmajdan is the only other admin that has self-identified as :Category:User template coder-4. I have not asked Nmajdan yet--I'll wait to see if Larry responds first. (I checked the list alphabetically, and it might be a little rude to ask both at the same time) --Storkk (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked Nmajdan-- Larry V is extremely busy "until the summer" --Storkk (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Doesn't work: Works halfway: try previewing the page using , where I've made the changes. Nice idea though. Maybe it's not not only the . Seemed promising. --Storkk (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is now, " for  " is still choking. --Storkk (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would subst. the template, then just put in the name - seems simpler than changing the template.  We're probably not the only place where this typographically provocative group is causing problems.Wikidemo (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to fix it once and for all, if it's possible. That way it'll work for others that potentially might occur. --Storkk (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, until a new band comes along and decides to name itself after some other hypertext markup characters.  Someday there will be a nerdy band called <nowiki>.  You will only be able to talk about it if you also mention their sister project </nowkiki> Wikidemo (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Using "|Article=%21%21%21 (album)" solves one problem, but kills the ifexist. sigh. --Storkk (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to have broken other links, so I reverted. Hm, I don't understand. Why would this new version work fine in :Image:!!! (album).jpg, but turn spaces into pluses in :Image:AOV Adult Movie channel.jpg? The former also has a space. I don't get it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with exclamation marks 

message: Is it true what they're saying: if we don't add this, and only this template on a image description page, it will be deleted?, because we only needed to use Fair-use rationales long ago. ? --Andersmusician VOTE 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point you don't have to use this template (or  and ), but you have to include all of its elements, like source info, a link to each article which uses the image and a purpose for each, etc. Images without some of this information will be tagged, and then deleted within days. So in most cases it just makes the most sense to use a template because it will alert you to missing info. — TAnthonyTalk 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Convert this template to use  syntax rather than wiki-markup tables, to avoid the continued mis-display of the template on :Image:!!! (album).jpg – Gurch 17:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, but premature for an editprotected request. Someone needs to write and test the code. You could bring it up on Wikipedia:Requested templates to find a volunteer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected edit request 

message: Why is the documentation for this template protected? Furthermore, why is the explanation for the the fields supplied as "Notes" from the template (which should clearly be protected). Unless I hear a good reason, I propose the "notes" to be migrated to the /doc subpage, and the /doc subpage to be unprotected for regular wiki users. The documentation is found → Template talk:Non-free use rationale/doc. +mt 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected documentation? 

message: Since the article is protected, remove the silver padlock from the template and keep the golden padlock. Some Wikipedians find it confusing. --iaNLOPEZ1115  TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 10:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: —Remember the dot (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix teh protection template 

message: Can someone remove the low resolution guidelines from this template. This is definitely not the appropriate place to make blanket suggestions (which end up being enforced as if they were part of the policy proper). As an aside, I think 300px is ridiculously low; in an age of HD material being easy to come by (and promo materials being available online that are suitable for use in high quality commercial print), it seems more reasonable to me to limit the size to something like 640x480 or 800x600. 300px, for many things, causes degradation to the point that text is unreadable and important details are entirely lost. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a template, not a guideline or policy.  This appears to be trying to summarize a guideline—which is not bad in itself—but the linked guideline WP:RAT has nothing on resolution numbers and neither does WP:NFCC.  This needs a proper reference to the guideline or policy.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  13:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the  request as the documentation is only semi-protected.  It can be changed by any established editor after discussion.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can now that I've moved it from cite tags on the template page to span-id tags on the documentation page.  Looks like someone didn't want anyone playing around with the documentation... well that's what documentation subpages are for.  Happy‑melon 16:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Low resolution

message: I'd suggest clarifying the template, because some people seem not to get it, like in :Image:Microsoft_.NET_Logo.png. Ian (87.205.187.180 (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing in that case the user didn't read or understand the documentation. Also, I noticed that the blue links on the left-side of the template are set up to link to notes built into the template source, but the notes have since moved to Template:Non-free use rationale/doc (a bit lower in the same page). Should these link be fixed to Template:Non-free use rationale/doc#Usage, or simply be removed? +mt 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaceable ''with free version'' 

message: This template currently places some articles in :Category:Images without source.  That category has been renamed to :Category:Images with unknown source, so the link in the template should be changed accordingly.  --Russ (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy‑melon 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category link 

message: Please remove the merge tag.  It should not have been added in the first place since no discussion of it existed and none ever happened.  It was just requested by some tag crazy nut who is too lazy to do any real work.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude. WP:NPA.  CWii(Talk|Contribs)  15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change request 

message: Any chance someone could make the table in this template be collapsible — some images have more than one FUR template and this can make for very long image pages. All it needs is class="collapsible collapsed" in the first line of the table. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For multiple uses of an image,  and ) are recommended.  --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please use the above templates for multiple rationales. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible 

message: Take a look here for how a double exclamation point in the title of a film breaks the formatting of the FUR when its displayed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 06:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double exclamation point in title of article 

message: Please add the following parameters to this template to eliminate a need to use both  and  on the same image page: , , , . Thanks. For an example output and the resulting additional parameters, see :Image:ZitsComicStrip20070913.PNG. -- Suntag ☼ 18:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with using two templates for two kinds of information? —Ms2ger (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Info is once per image; non-free use rationale is once per use.  So the applications are different.  It would potentially create unnecessary work.  Also, because usage is spotty (there are many tens of thousands of images that use this template directly and transcluded by other templates without these fields) they would be of no use to automate anything.Wikidemon (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation from Template:Information 

message: The low resolution "rule" for screenshot images is idiotic. How could a single frame of a film or video game possibly have any influence on the copyright holder's ability to sell the original work? The only potential problem would be if the game or film looked really bad in the screenshot, but it is far more likely that a potential customer would be influenced by the content of the article (such as a "Reception" section citing overwhelming negative reviews, which is perfectly acceptable!) Extremely low-resolution screenshots only succeed in making it harder to get any useful information from the screenshot. I've seen far too many film screenshots on Wikipedia which are so resolution that the actors or events depicted in the shot are unrecognizable. 
The screenshot policy seriously needs to be addressed to have "low resolution" standards removed. High-definition (1920*1080) screenshots may be excessive, but 720*480 standard DVD resolution is poor by today's standards, and 300*200 or whatever should be considered unacceptably low-quality and useless for an article. Some guy (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Low Resolution

message: A high resolution screenshot of a video game (this is completely ridiculous) does not result in any kind of possible piracy. A high resolution frame of a movie (unless it's especially iconic, which might make a good poster) similarly doesn't create potential for piracy. Also keep in mind that it's not our business to make publishers money and we shouldn't speak in terms of "negatively impacting sales" -who cares?- but rather of potential impact specifically in terms of copyright infringement losses to publishers. Savvy fair-use evaluators should make intelligent decisions based on resolution in some cases, but it shouldn't be part of a checklist as if it must be met for the rationale to be valid. You can't expect an average editor to read through all the fair use documentation. That's the point of the checklist.  .froth. (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this issue has been brought up several times: it needs to be addressed. .froth. (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low resolution images inappropriate in some cases 

message: I'm confused about the "Portion used" field. Does this refer to the image or the work that is being illustrated? Ie. am I to write if a portion of the image is used (say part of the cover of a DVD) or that a portion of the whole work (say the DVD cover as a portion of the film it is illustrating)?--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Portion used" field for fair use images 

message: The title on this is backwards, surely it should be "Non-free media use rationale" 87.194.147.203 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected edit request 

message: 
Please replace existing code with code in the sandbox. This fixes issues relating to multiple exclamation points in an article title, which causes the template to break. One such example can be seen at :File:Shugo Chara!! Doki— vol1.jpg. Test cases can be seen here. —Farix (t | c) 11:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Do you happen to know if there is a bug filed at MediaWiki for this? Otherwise I'll file one. — RockMFR 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any bug filed on this. —Farix (t | c) 01:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Ahh, found it - bugzilla:16905. — RockMFR 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you sync it with the sandbox one more time? I noticed an unnecessary font-weight: bold. —Farix (t | c) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template update 

message: 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:Logo fur. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See response at Template talk:Album cover fur. — RockMFR 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

text: As this is fairly complex I would suggest putting your code in the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  All there for you to copy in Template:Non-free use rationale/sandbox. And perhaps consider moving the protection template to the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Amalthea 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for detection 

message: This template should ideally have an "author" field in addition to the "source" field.  Currently, too many images provide as the source whatever website the image came from, which is not sufficient to determine attribution and therefore copyright status.  See WP:AN#Non-free images that do not identify the copyright-holder for discussion of this issue and possible means of addressing it. Chick Bowen 13:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've also raised this at WT:FURG#Author, and you have concerns about the underlying policy position which are probably best aired at WT:NFC itself, can I suggest discussion here not be continued, to avoid bifurcation. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Author" field 

message: Suppose we host a large-pixel, non-free image on Wikipedia on Fair Use rationale. How could that likely impact the copyright owner's ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work? Any specific, conceivable cases? It sounds to me like Wikipedia is not being confident about our legal legitimacy in using material under the Fair Use rationale, so we've added unnecessary half-hearted attempt at appeasing the copyright holders, even though "low resolution" is a vague measurement that is ignored in most instances, or worse quarreled about in other instances for little gain. Most of the disputes I am aware of have been over public domain images, hover the template attribute makes no sense in Mac OS X app icons, and corporate logos, for example. --Bxj (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the wisdom of having a "low resolution" policy. 

message: I know that usually :Category:All non-free media is added through other templates, such as , but it couldn't hurt to add the category via this template as well. Opinions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the global one. Why isn't it on here? Dokter Zombieman brains.../the infected 10:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be any objection, so I'm making the edit request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add {{tl|non-free media}} 

message: Please provide newbie-proof instructions for exactly where this template must be used. Roger (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some quick instructions in the usage section, above the empty template. Maybe this helps? +mt 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where exactly must this template be placed? 

message: How are we supposed to know what "low resolution" means in order to answer the question properly when there is no definition of "low" or "high" resolution to be found anywhere in WP, including WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, WP:IMAGES, WP:GACR, WP:RAT,  WP:MOSIM, or in the Non-fair use template itself? I consider 1000px to be "low resolution". How am I wrong? Shirtwaist ☎  12:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Low resolution?" ??

message: I propose the text "Non-free media use rationale" to changed into "Non-free media information and use rationale", since this template is used for both purposes (contrary to  and ).
Fleet Command (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from FleetCommand, 23 September 2011 

message: Under "Example", the text runs off the page. I feel this looks bad and could somehow be fixed so it has the proper look of a description of how to use a template.Vchimpanzee ·  talk · contributions · 20:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a CSS directive to instruct the browser to wrap lines in the <pre> box. Note that for most templates with the "blue box" style of documentation, the documentation is actually on a separate subpage so it can be edited by anyone without requiring admin permissions; look for an "Edit" link at the top of the blue box. Anomie⚔ 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Vchimpanzee, 29 September 2011 

message: Twice this template uses hyphens when it should use dashes. Could |- WARNING: please be changed to |– WARNING: and |- NEEDS ARTICLE NAME be changed to |– NEEDS ARTICLE NAME. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedantry 

message: Templates such as  specify that the rationale must include "the source of the work and copyright information", but this template does not have a field for copyright info.  I propose to add one. 
Should this expansion also deal with the unanswered point about "author" raised above? – Fayenatic London 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field for copyright holder 

message: Why does this template not have a field for information related to WP:NFCC#2 (commercial opportunities)? That's a crucial part of many rationales. I propose adding a field "commercial role". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: the alternative  does have that field. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field for NFCC#2? 

message: In the section "...would be unlikely to impact the copyright owners ability to resell or otherwise profit from the work," there needs to be an apostrophe in the above underlined and bolded word. If a single owner, it goes before the s, if multiple, aftewards. If we are trying to be ambiguous, it needs to be rephrased as "would be unlikely to impact the ability of the copyright owner(s) to resell or otherwise profit fromUser_talk: 00:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  apostrophe missing 

message: Is this the right place to request an original_uploader= field in all image info templates? If standardized, this could be filled in by the various uploading tools, and respected by the various bots, scripts, and editors who nominate images for deletion, or report that an image has become orphaned. For example: Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo of Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions.png), and image for which the original uploader info is not present in the current image html page "File history" section. Of course the Mediawiki revision history (View History at top of page) shows the original uploader (User:IbankingMM), but this is not used by Hazard-Bot AFAIK when reporting problems.
As we all know, resizings and re-uploadings by others over time tend to result in the original uploader's file being deleted, sometimes per WP:NFCC, sometimes due to space conservation.
I don't mind being notified about images which I've touched. But even though I (say) resized the image, I don't necessarily want to take over stewardship of it; that's the original uploader's contribution for which to advocate. But that person is, AFAIK, never notified of pending deletions, if a re-upload/purge cycle has taken place. Hence, the original_uploader= new field for all image description templates. Where should this be discussed? --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Original uploader field

message: Please make this change, so that the description and source information detailed in this template can be used by MediaViewer and other tools that require machine readable information, when a  template is not present.
—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 9 November 2014 

message: The City of Clinton has a new logo and motto. You Belong Here has replaced History Pride Progress. I need to change the logo on the page. Sincerely, City of Clinton Communications Dept.
Communications Dept.Clinton communication (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   this is the wrong page to make an edit request on.  The correct place would be on the talk page of .  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015 

message: Many of the NFUR subtemplates are tagged as substitute-only but don't have any explanation why. Does anyone know? – czar 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution 

message: If the name of the image ends in punctuation, right now we end up with doubled ending punctuation: "This is the front cover art for the book Are You Dave Gorman?."
Could someone either add a parameter that removes the ending period (something like, "ending period=no") or somehow restructure the sentence so that the title does not appear at the end? 
Sorry all I can do is point things out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing any more and I might not make it back here. Thanks in advance if you can work on this! — Geekdiva (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled punctuation problem 

message: 185.85.215.250 (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template . Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017 

message: I started to modify the template in the sandbox for WP:TemplateStyles (ref Template:Non-free use rationale/sandbox) and then realized that the colors used in this template are not obvious or really even necessary, to me at least.
Does anyone have an issue with removing them and then using the standard wikitable class?
I figure it's probably a good opportunity now to use the base class since we will be modifying each of these templates for templatestyles anyway.
--Izno (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors and TemplateStyles 

message: I think it would be useful to add an optional parameter for specifying when the copyright would expire, similar to  and . This would make it easier to find media for transferring to Commons once they enter public domain. Thoughts? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright expiry date? 

message: Please add link to WP:NONFREE in the phrase "Non free media information" Rodney Araujo  Tell me - My contributions  19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , and we'll see if it flies since it's linked in the other guideline as well. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2020 

message: The code for the source row goes something like this (a bit simplified):
Source
Per commons:Commons:Machine-readable data, fileinfotpl_src is correct but licensetpl_attr should be used on the value of the source parameter, not the header. As it is, it confuses the metadata parsing logic in MediaWiki. (Ping @TheDJ who added it, in case I'm missing something.)
An edit to fix it would be (to lines 17-18):
Source

-->
Source

 Tgr (WMF) (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 13:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  class="licensetpl_attr" 

message: At :File:Rongorongo G-r Small Santiago (raw).jpg, the tag says "This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use", but does not explain why or what to do about it. All it says is to add parameters which are already added. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, the image isn’t even copyrighted in the first place so there shouldn’t even be a fair use rationale.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug? 

message: Request: On line 1, please make the following change.
*Before: style="width: 100%"
*After: style="width:100%; padding: 5px;"
This is because the padding is 1.25em 1.75em on Timeless skin, making it too thick. A similar change had been done on  already. ネイ (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --John Cline (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 18 September 2021 

message: Why the hell isn't there an Author-Field ?? --Itu (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I support this, especially since it was discussed above at #Field for NFCC#2?. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Template:Non-free use rationale 2 uses author but this one doesn't, however, some files using this template are attempting to use author but obviously it doesn't appear. So author should be added. However, why are there two separate templates? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I also support an author field. It would be quite useful for anyone wanting to get a release of rights. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Strong support. Almost 10 years later, hell yes there should be an author field. It may not always be applicable, and may not need to be mandatory, but If Wikipedia cares at all about respecting creators and copyright and crediting the people whose works we're appropriating (even under fair-use criteria), author field should at a bare minimum be an option.  --Animalparty! (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Support, and the doc should be fixed as well. Currently we are supposed to "[a]lways include the copyright holder" in Description field, but the example below does not do that. ネイ (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author