many of these images do have information on their source. what they don't have is information on their license or copyright status. anthony (see warning)
Others do have information on their license or copyright status, but do it in another way than a tag. I find it quite insulting to be told I should add the source and licensing information when I have already done so. - Andre Engels 00:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this to Template:No source. Any objections? -- Ellmist 01:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, I can't move this template because it is protected. -- Ellmist 04:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that en is fairly rampant with unverified images, many of which are probably not supposed to be here. Maybe the template should make it more clear to people that these images do not belong here with a more threatening looking message? This is based on the one currently being used on de:
This image does not have information on its source. It may be usable under fair use but this has yet to be verified. It might be public domain or under a licence compatible with the GNU FDL. To the uploader: Please provide source information as soon as possible. Images without this information may be deleted in the future. If you want to publish the image as fair use, read Wikipedia:Fair use. |
Thoughts? Sarge Baldy 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
As this template is protected, rather than just editing the link to point to WP:IUP#cite_sources, I am asking about it here. If no objections are made within a day, I'll make the change. If any objections are later raised, I'd be happy to revert the change until consensus is reached. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The new deletion criterion says seven days after it is marked as having no source, not seven days after uploading. The wording should be changed to reflect this. -- SPUI ( talk) 19:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As the CSD for Images states that there's a 7-day waiting period, might it be an idea that this template also contains the date it was tagged, by means of a parameter? This could be then called easily with something like:
{{no source|~~~~~}}
Where the five tildes (~) will insert the (then-current) date/time in UTC format. I can imagine this will save checking the image page history, and thus speed up our processes for getting rid of problematic images.
Thoughts and feedback welcome, although if some admin wants to make the change, go ahead. Rob Church Talk | Desk 21:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Many, many albumcovers/dvdcovers have no source linked from them that show where they were found (or if scanned by the user). Does this mean they are candidates for this tag? gren グレン 09:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It says the image WILL be deleted but not always. It should say it SHOULD instead. Anyone want to change it? -- Thorpe talk 22:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have created this template as an alternative version of 'no source'. It places images into categories by day, for example Category:Images with unknown source: December 5. It does not put those images in the larger category. This will ease cleanup of CAT:NS, because editors won't have to wade through all the images that can't be deleted yet. To add nsd to an image, use {{ nsd|<monthname> <day number>}} (example: {{ nsd|December 5}}). Ingoolemo talk 17:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added optional parameters to this template to make it more useful. There are 4 optional parameters: time, day, month and year. If day and month, or day, month and year, are added then it adds the image to a category of the form [[Category:Images of unknown source as of {{day}} {{month}} {{year}}]]. THis makes it easier to identify the images which are over 7 days old and thus should be deleted. I have ensured backwards compatability so that if no parameters are used and that date is added in the traditional way it just adds it to the generic category: [[Category:Images with unknown source]]. -- Oldak Quill 07:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Template busted -- displays }} in output when used as directed. Brianhe 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Unverified]]</noinclude>
Thanks.
– Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are some cases when this tag should not be used. An album cover image, correctly tagged {{ Albumcover}}, already has a "built-in" source: its source is the album cover. If one were to provide a link to, for instance, an Amazon.com page that sells the album, that doesn't add any legitimate source information -- Amazon is simply a re-user of the original source, not a source in itself. Other fair use specific tags (like {{ Bookcover}} and {{ Tv-screenshot}}) are similar.
Another case where this tag should not be used is on photographs which were obviously and unambiguously taken before 1923 (if the image is tagged {{ PD-US}}). An example would be Image:Horsley.jpg, a photograph of Victor Horsley, who died in 1916. The copyright status can be determined without a source, and adding a link to a re-user's website would not add any copyright information. More importantly, we should not be deleting validly Public Domain images, simply because the source isn't known. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please remove {{commons|Template:no source}} from Template:No source. User:Bastique had placed it before the page was fully protected. adnghiem501 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Would an admin be so kind as to move the string used for user notification back to a separate line (as originally done in this edit)? I'd sure appreciate it as it makes it much easier to copy-n-paste. (When it's on a separate line, I can just triple-click on the line to highlight it (at least in Firefox) instead of manually selecting the text to be copied. THANKS! ⇒ BRossow T/ C 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add interlang to ja:Template:No source. Thank you. -- Tietew 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} as alternatives to {{{day}}} and {{{month}}}. Because of the scheme I used to implement this, both parametres should still function completely. If I have made any errors, please let me know and I will attempt to rectify them. Ingoolemo talk 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot, a bot which removes no-source and no-license images from articles, depends on certain minor features of this template in order to operate correctly. In particular:
Thanks. -- Carnildo 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
On this talk page, as well as in the template itself, it says one shold contact the uploader by placing a template on his or her talk page. Personally, I much prefer to write something myself than templating talk pages. I suggest the text in the template be changed to Also, make sure to notify the uploader, for instance with {{subst:image source|Image:No source}} ~~~~ // Habj 03:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
On April 2nd, Natalinasmpf changed the template to advise users that they could use {{ gfdl-presumed}}. The category mostly exists for images with text like "I took this picture" uploaded during spans of time when our upload page failed to point out that if you are the copyright holder you agree to release it under the GFDL at a minimum. We can not generally just 'presume GFDL' because copyright is an automatically reserved right, the copyright holder can only release content under the GFDL through intentional action. Because it was understood that self-owned material submitted to Wikipedia was GFDL, but not always explicitly stated on the upload page, we do have one of those rare situations where "GFDL presumed" makes sense, but only for a fairly small number of image. Thus, it should be fairly infrequent that we see new images introduced to this category. Currently the category is one of the worst on Wikipedia from a copyright perspective, it is laden with images which were clearly taken from commercial sources. Instructing people on the no source template to GFDL presume images is about the worst thing we could have done. The number of GFDL-presumed images added the week after the change was 3.5x the number during the prior week. Thus far a random sampling of these images shows that the vast majority are entirely incorrect. Please do not make such changes without discussion. -- Gmaxwell 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have run into a number of images that were tagged wtih PD-USGov-Military-Air Force being flagged with the no source template and removed by OrphanBot. As such I am forced to wonder if PD-USGov images should also be exclued from the requirement for sources. Does anyone have anything that they wish to say about this? -- Darkstar949 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
As a datapoint, I've personally found dozens of stock images uploaded as PD-USGov-* ... government websites often use stock photos. It would be good if uploaders actually checked, but even if they usually did... we'd still need the information to help us verify. -- Gmaxwell 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we exempt logos from the source requirement? By its very nature, a logo generally identifies its own source. I believe that images tagged with {{ logo}} and {{ no source}} should not be deleted, rather, one of the two tags should be removed, depending on the actual image (i.e. a photograph incorrectly tagged as {{ logo}} should have that tag removed, but a clear logo which identifies the company that created it should have the {{ no source}} removed). DHowell 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add interwiki link for Serbian Language Wikipedia. Link is:
Thank you. -- Branislav Jovanovic 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again. -- Branislav Jovanovic 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
many of these images do have information on their source. what they don't have is information on their license or copyright status. anthony (see warning)
Others do have information on their license or copyright status, but do it in another way than a tag. I find it quite insulting to be told I should add the source and licensing information when I have already done so. - Andre Engels 00:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this to Template:No source. Any objections? -- Ellmist 01:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, I can't move this template because it is protected. -- Ellmist 04:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that en is fairly rampant with unverified images, many of which are probably not supposed to be here. Maybe the template should make it more clear to people that these images do not belong here with a more threatening looking message? This is based on the one currently being used on de:
This image does not have information on its source. It may be usable under fair use but this has yet to be verified. It might be public domain or under a licence compatible with the GNU FDL. To the uploader: Please provide source information as soon as possible. Images without this information may be deleted in the future. If you want to publish the image as fair use, read Wikipedia:Fair use. |
Thoughts? Sarge Baldy 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
As this template is protected, rather than just editing the link to point to WP:IUP#cite_sources, I am asking about it here. If no objections are made within a day, I'll make the change. If any objections are later raised, I'd be happy to revert the change until consensus is reached. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The new deletion criterion says seven days after it is marked as having no source, not seven days after uploading. The wording should be changed to reflect this. -- SPUI ( talk) 19:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As the CSD for Images states that there's a 7-day waiting period, might it be an idea that this template also contains the date it was tagged, by means of a parameter? This could be then called easily with something like:
{{no source|~~~~~}}
Where the five tildes (~) will insert the (then-current) date/time in UTC format. I can imagine this will save checking the image page history, and thus speed up our processes for getting rid of problematic images.
Thoughts and feedback welcome, although if some admin wants to make the change, go ahead. Rob Church Talk | Desk 21:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Many, many albumcovers/dvdcovers have no source linked from them that show where they were found (or if scanned by the user). Does this mean they are candidates for this tag? gren グレン 09:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It says the image WILL be deleted but not always. It should say it SHOULD instead. Anyone want to change it? -- Thorpe talk 22:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I have created this template as an alternative version of 'no source'. It places images into categories by day, for example Category:Images with unknown source: December 5. It does not put those images in the larger category. This will ease cleanup of CAT:NS, because editors won't have to wade through all the images that can't be deleted yet. To add nsd to an image, use {{ nsd|<monthname> <day number>}} (example: {{ nsd|December 5}}). Ingoolemo talk 17:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added optional parameters to this template to make it more useful. There are 4 optional parameters: time, day, month and year. If day and month, or day, month and year, are added then it adds the image to a category of the form [[Category:Images of unknown source as of {{day}} {{month}} {{year}}]]. THis makes it easier to identify the images which are over 7 days old and thus should be deleted. I have ensured backwards compatability so that if no parameters are used and that date is added in the traditional way it just adds it to the generic category: [[Category:Images with unknown source]]. -- Oldak Quill 07:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Template busted -- displays }} in output when used as directed. Brianhe 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
<noinclude>[[vi:Tiêu bản:Unverified]]</noinclude>
Thanks.
– Minh Nguyễn ( talk, contribs) 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
There are some cases when this tag should not be used. An album cover image, correctly tagged {{ Albumcover}}, already has a "built-in" source: its source is the album cover. If one were to provide a link to, for instance, an Amazon.com page that sells the album, that doesn't add any legitimate source information -- Amazon is simply a re-user of the original source, not a source in itself. Other fair use specific tags (like {{ Bookcover}} and {{ Tv-screenshot}}) are similar.
Another case where this tag should not be used is on photographs which were obviously and unambiguously taken before 1923 (if the image is tagged {{ PD-US}}). An example would be Image:Horsley.jpg, a photograph of Victor Horsley, who died in 1916. The copyright status can be determined without a source, and adding a link to a re-user's website would not add any copyright information. More importantly, we should not be deleting validly Public Domain images, simply because the source isn't known. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please remove {{commons|Template:no source}} from Template:No source. User:Bastique had placed it before the page was fully protected. adnghiem501 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Would an admin be so kind as to move the string used for user notification back to a separate line (as originally done in this edit)? I'd sure appreciate it as it makes it much easier to copy-n-paste. (When it's on a separate line, I can just triple-click on the line to highlight it (at least in Firefox) instead of manually selecting the text to be copied. THANKS! ⇒ BRossow T/ C 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add interlang to ja:Template:No source. Thank you. -- Tietew 05:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} as alternatives to {{{day}}} and {{{month}}}. Because of the scheme I used to implement this, both parametres should still function completely. If I have made any errors, please let me know and I will attempt to rectify them. Ingoolemo talk 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot, a bot which removes no-source and no-license images from articles, depends on certain minor features of this template in order to operate correctly. In particular:
Thanks. -- Carnildo 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
On this talk page, as well as in the template itself, it says one shold contact the uploader by placing a template on his or her talk page. Personally, I much prefer to write something myself than templating talk pages. I suggest the text in the template be changed to Also, make sure to notify the uploader, for instance with {{subst:image source|Image:No source}} ~~~~ // Habj 03:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
On April 2nd, Natalinasmpf changed the template to advise users that they could use {{ gfdl-presumed}}. The category mostly exists for images with text like "I took this picture" uploaded during spans of time when our upload page failed to point out that if you are the copyright holder you agree to release it under the GFDL at a minimum. We can not generally just 'presume GFDL' because copyright is an automatically reserved right, the copyright holder can only release content under the GFDL through intentional action. Because it was understood that self-owned material submitted to Wikipedia was GFDL, but not always explicitly stated on the upload page, we do have one of those rare situations where "GFDL presumed" makes sense, but only for a fairly small number of image. Thus, it should be fairly infrequent that we see new images introduced to this category. Currently the category is one of the worst on Wikipedia from a copyright perspective, it is laden with images which were clearly taken from commercial sources. Instructing people on the no source template to GFDL presume images is about the worst thing we could have done. The number of GFDL-presumed images added the week after the change was 3.5x the number during the prior week. Thus far a random sampling of these images shows that the vast majority are entirely incorrect. Please do not make such changes without discussion. -- Gmaxwell 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I have run into a number of images that were tagged wtih PD-USGov-Military-Air Force being flagged with the no source template and removed by OrphanBot. As such I am forced to wonder if PD-USGov images should also be exclued from the requirement for sources. Does anyone have anything that they wish to say about this? -- Darkstar949 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
As a datapoint, I've personally found dozens of stock images uploaded as PD-USGov-* ... government websites often use stock photos. It would be good if uploaders actually checked, but even if they usually did... we'd still need the information to help us verify. -- Gmaxwell 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we exempt logos from the source requirement? By its very nature, a logo generally identifies its own source. I believe that images tagged with {{ logo}} and {{ no source}} should not be deleted, rather, one of the two tags should be removed, depending on the actual image (i.e. a photograph incorrectly tagged as {{ logo}} should have that tag removed, but a clear logo which identifies the company that created it should have the {{ no source}} removed). DHowell 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add interwiki link for Serbian Language Wikipedia. Link is:
Thank you. -- Branislav Jovanovic 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again. -- Branislav Jovanovic 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)