Template talk:Replaceable fair use

Perhaps this should be added (from Template:No source):

Also consider adding to the image captions.

Time period and wording
I have problems with either the time period or wording of this template. One week seems like a rather short time period, given that in the vast majority of cases the only person who will be informed to do anything about it before it is deleted will be the person who uploaded it (and only if they check their watchlist). Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use suggests that this is just the "time to decide whether the image can be replaced or not", but instead it says "If this image is not determined to be non-replaceable within one week from 6 November 2006 (13 November), the image may be deleted by any administrator.", which (to mean) means "time to make a replacement, or the image will disappear whether or not you're ready". Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles appears to make the same assumption. So what happens if people agree that it is replaceable, but can't necessarily replace it within one week? Where is that to be noted in a way that administrators will see it? Or is the view that it is better to have no image at all in the interim (I disagree with that view). GreenReaper 22:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is that it is better to have no image at all in the interim. Jimbo Wales has said it is preferable to have no image, than to have an unfree image, if a free image could be created. This is because the absence of an image tends to motivate people to find or create a free alternative. As you surmised, the one week is only to decide whether the image is replaceable or not; it is not the suggested time period in which to find or create a replacement. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that might work for Wikipedia, on some of the pages. Maybe we really do have armies of GFDL image sourcers who would rather replace images in existing articles than leave those images there and create images for those articles without them now. My worry is that this will lead to a general erosion of fair-use images, where the original contributors have long since passed on. People watching the page itself won't find out until it's too late, and then . . . "eh, if you're going to be like that, let's just remove the tag". Then if people add another image later, it's as likely to be another fair use one - maybe better, maybe worse. GreenReaper 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The person posting the template is supposed to notify the uploading user, though it appears that this is rarely folloed. The template also doesn't automatically call for its own removal if it's not determined that a replacement free image is available--I've tried to clarify this. Mr Snrub 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been religiously informing uploaders, FWIW. And I've probably used this template more than anyone else on Wikipedia at this point. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also informed the uploader every single time. I'm sure I've used the template hundreds of times. – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, a "general erosion of fair-use images" would be a Very Good Thing. This is supposed to be a free content encyclopedia after all; if fair-use images must be used at all, they should only be used when an article is incomprehensible without them. —Angr 02:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not true. An erosion of fair-use images would be a bad thing and detrimental to the project.  In order to be the best encyclopeida we can be - we need to embrase legally permissible fair use. Johntex\talk 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do not remove this tag"
I removed the "prior to that time" bit from the "do not remove this tag" sentence, simply because if the admins are behind we don't want people removing the tag the day after the deletion date. Right? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor suggestion
This is a pretty minor thing, but perhaps it would be a good idea to make a change in the wording of this. Specifically, change "may fail our first fair use criterion" to "may fail Wikipedia's first fair use criterion". While the meaning is clear to most, a less experienced editor could mistakenly think its just a group of users that set a criteria. This would be a very minor change that wouldn't affect the way the template/processes function but would be more clear.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I changed it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested language change to fix template's reductionism
I think the wording "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created" should be changed as to "illustrates a subject for which a free image that provides substantially the same information might reasonably be found or created." The problem with the current template is it assumes that any picture of a subject will provide the same relevant information as any other picture of that subject. I whole-heartedly agree that we would have no fair use justification for using a current picture of the Chrysler Building, for example, as anyone in NYC could take one that would have the same relevant information. That a copyrighted photo may be of higher professional standards than an obtainable "free" image is also irrelevant, of course.

But whether a picture of a living person, for example, is replaceable requires a more fine-tuned understanding of the subject matter, and a consideration of all the information the image is providing. The example I keep using on this issue is former pin-up queen Bettie Page. Ms. Page is currently over 80 and still living, so by the blind rationale currently expressed in this template's language, a fair use image of her from her career in the 1950s is interchangeable and thus replaceable with a current photograph of her as an octogenarian.

I think my suggested language change would address this concern in all topical contexts. I would also suggest that a comment be first posted on the article's talk page prior to the use of this tag, so that the informational value of the image can be discussed among those most knowledgeable on the subject before scheduling it for deletion. We could also require that the gentler Template:Fair use replace be used on certain categories of images. Postdlf 23:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the "that provides substantially the same information" bit is a good idea. I'm not sure it's a good idea to suggest that a comment be posted first. After all, what the tag says is primarily for the reader, not the poster. (You might make that suggestion in the noinclude section though.) And as for your last sentence, I'm not sure I agree at all. In what categories of image would it never be appropriate to use rfu? – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me "that provides substantially the same information" is just going to cause everything to be disputed. A photo of actor X at 35 can't be replaced because now he's 50 so a new free photo wouldn't contain "substantially" the same information, a photo of a car can't be replaced because this one shows it in the sunset, a photo of a baseball player can't be replaced because the fair-use one shows him at the World Series (never mind that it's accompanying the general article and little is said about his World Series appearance), etc. That addendum is just going to cause needless arguments and gives the impression that policy has been changed. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the current template is good because it severely limits or prevents a discussion of whether an image is truly replaceable? If you don't think you can engage in such a discussion, then labelling images as "replaceable" is a task you should not be undertaking.  The current template tends to encourage the equivocation of all images on a given subject rather than encourage an evaluation of what information an image is providing that is relevant to the article's content&mdash;i.e., determine whether it is actually replaceable.  This is a problem, because a finer editorial judgment is required and discussion can only be helpful.  The car-in-the-sunset example is an easy straw man to brush aside because there's no plausible argument for the relevance of that "information" to article content (not to mention that everyone has access to sunsets for picture taking).
 * When a photo was taken should always be considered in determining whether it is replceable, though the answer of whether it matters will differ from subject to subject, and you can always use the Template:Fair use replace request template in the hopes that someone who authored a picture from that time would want to release it under the GFDL. A 1986 picture of the Chrysler Building would convey the same relevant info as one taken now because the building's appearance has not noticeably changed in that time, and anyone can take one now so it's unquestionably replaceable.  But this may not be true of even other buildings; a 1986 picture of Grand Central Station may not be replaceable with one taken now, if the 1986 picture sufficiently illustrates its filthy, unrestored condition or shows the vast numbers of homeless who lived there during that time.  And of course a 20 year age difference in an individual's age across different images may be significant to an article.  People can change considerably physicially and stylistically over time, and for an actor's article, his appearance is going to be highly relevant.  A middle-aged picture of someone who was a star only as a child, teen, or young adult, for example, is not going to be anywhere near as relevant or informative as one taken during their career.  Consider also Boy George in the 1980s and Boy George now.  And I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my Bettie Page example directly.  Postdlf 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to your point, despite my argument. It's just that your wording seems a little overbroad. I think we should have a picture of Bettie Page from her pinup days even if we have a free photo of her as an old lady (an aside: isn't Teaserama public domain?), but I don't think we should have a fair-use photo of, say, Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now days since we can obtain a current one. Shirley Temple needs a young photo, Woody Allen does not. How about if we say something like we can use it unless "a free image that would adequately illustrate the subject of the article or section can be found or created"? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(this was written before you revised your remarks--my edit conflicted with yours)
 * We would be justified in having a fair use photo of Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now if that film role is sufficiently discussed in his article; a screenshot accompanying that content about the film in Martin Sheen would then be no different for fair use purposes than a screenshot accompanying a section in Apocalypse Now about Sheen and his character. The same thing with Woody Allen and screenshots from his films.  But let's imagine that we didn't have screenshots, so the information about the films those images would provide doesn't change the question; let's say all we have are a 1979 publicity shot of Sheen and a 1977 publicity shot of Allen.  Would either of those be replaceable by a current photograph of those actors?  I wouldn't automatically say no as I would with a Shirley Temple child shot, and I might conclude that they are replaceable based on what they actually add to the article, but I would still want to discuss it with other contributors on the relevant article talk pages (not just the uploader's) rather than assume.
 * Here's what Template:Fairusein says: "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." The information is what is important, not simply having a picture to which we can point and say "that's Japan."  Postdlf 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's the information that's important, and the word "substantially" is important as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added my suggested langage to the template based on the above discussion; I think it's even weaker than the language in Template:Fairusein which refers to "the same information," not "substantially the same information." Postdlf 17:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit protect

 * to the article's talk page may also be helpfull if there are no other images in the article already.

Typo - was going to do it myself, but unfortunatley, I'm not a sysop. Hbdragon88 09:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Sherool (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please fix spesific. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, gah, maybe I should start using a spell-checker one of these says :P --Sherool (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tag's language is improper
The tag says: "If this image is determined to be replaceable within one week ...". Determined by who? By Jimbo? By Chowbok? Who has an authority to determine? Determined from what? From the talk page discussion? Than the tag should say so. The tag in its ambiguous form is useless and is subject to abuse. --Irpen 00:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should state "If it is not disputed within one week that this image is replaceable..." If it is disputed, then we duke it out with verbal fisticuffs until someone sez "uncle."  Because if it is disputed, then it means there is a disagreement as to whether another image that provides the same information may be found or created, which hinges on an editorial judgment as to what that information is.  That isn't the kind of discussion we should resolve with our egg timers, nor is there any need to race.  Postdlf 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is entitled to conclude whether it is disputed in good faith or not and in the latter case judge the merits of both sides of the dispute? Both the tag and the policy lack clarity on that. Until this is figured out the tag's usage is harmful as it has a potential of creating conflicts. --Irpen 00:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As with everything else on Wikipedia, the community decides. Discussion should begin on the image's talk page and can be taken to WP:FUR or WP:PUI for more discussion if necessary. —Angr 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I meant above that if it's disputed at all, the scheduled deletion shouldn't take place, but instead a discussion should proceed, and whether the disputation is in good faith or not would come out in the discussion, just as we discuss all disputes regardin article content.
 * I think one of the biggest problems with this template, as with all of the "pro-free image" policies, is that it's conflating whether we have a sound legal argument to claim fair use with whether the image is hindering the Wikipedia policy favoring the production of "free" images. As fair use arguments are what shield us from legal liability (both as individual uploaders and the project itself) in the United States where the Wikimedia servers are located, the integrity of the fair use standard needs to be maintained so that we don't get confused as to what the actual legal requirements are, and so we don't undermine our own good faith assertion of fair use by frivolously disputing it.  Encourage free image content needs to instead split off to coherently deal with its own separate (though sometimes consistent) goals.  An image could then be tagged as compliant with fair use, but not with WP:EFIC, making it clear that it's a project concern but not a legal one.  This would also help us judge those policies on their own merits, instead of as the parasitic twin of WP:FU, where those policies may mistakenly take on the color of law in the eyes of many contributrs rather than the project's own willfulness.  Postdlf 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the tag does not constitute a challenge of the image's status as legal fair use, but rather of its compliance with Wikipedia's more stringent criteria for when we choose to use unfree content. --RobthTalk 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK then, in this case the template needs to clearly say that if a good faith dispute about the fair use applicability ensues within 7 days after the template's placement, the deletion will not take place. What is meant by "the community decides"? For instance how this discussion have lead to the deletion of the image? I don't care about that particular image but it showed a good example of the abuse. I do care that the template allows an arbitrary decision to take place as it does not make it clear what happends if people disagree in good faith about how the policies apply to the particular image. Also, by the same token, if the fair rationale is given to the image at the talk and the tagger or any other deletionist did not bother to respond, the template may be removed. --Irpen 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What happens under the current system is that the seven days between the tagging and the deletion, if the tag is disputed, are for discussion of the replaceability; then the admin who comes around clearing out the category reads the arguments, judges whether the case for replaceability has been made and either removes the tag or deletes the image accordingly. The only problem I see with this system is that, unless someone posts notification on the article talk page or in the image caption (which doesn't always happen), editors of the article(s) the image is in may not know that the deletion process is underway. To address this issue, I've suggested several times that we have OrphanBot comment out images tagged with this tag, as it does for no source and no license images; this will ensure that the editors of every article an image is going to be removed from have a chance to dispute the replaceability or participate in a discussion. --RobthTalk 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My complaint with the system is that the image talk page is often nuked at the same time or quickly after the image. If there was a dispute, I think we should leave a record of that dispute for at least a few days. Also, the admin could explain how he came to the final decision on there. Right now, if people don't happen to look at the talk page after they post their dispute but before it is deleted, it looks like their argument was simply ignored. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that is a problem with the current system. It would be helpful also to in some way tell people what we are looking for with regard to the dispute. Often it seems the dispute has little more substance than, "I like this photo". Some guidance that the dispute needs to directly address WP:FUC would be helpful. I worry about adding more procedure to this already rather cumbersome process, but it does feel like these disputes need some resolution besides deleting a talk page full of discussion tangential to the issue repeatedly. - cohesion 07:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These talk pages should not be deleted (and I have not been deleting them). WP:CSD specifically states that talk pages containing deletion-related discussion should be preserved. This is not, in other words, part of the established process.  --RobthTalk 07:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. I will stop deleting these in the future. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all who and when defined the process described above? Second, the tag makes it unclear that this process will be followed and it further makes it unclear that the image may fail to meet fair use simply under the opinion of the one specific user who placed the tag. As such, the language should state instead something like: "The editor who placed this tag believes in good faith that this image may fail..." --Irpen 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quadell created this tag a few weeks ago as an alternative to the previous system laid out by WP:CSD, under which the uploader would be notified and the image would be deleted after either two or seven days depending on its age; many images failing this criterion used to come through WP:CP as well. I think that this process is preferable to those options, as it provides a standard method for disputing the claim of replaceability and a good discussion forum (the image's talk page).  As for your point about the language of the tag, what would you think about creating a kind of rfu FAQ page with a link from the template?  --RobthTalk 04:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support any additional measure that would help clarify this confusion. Please write a draft for such FAQ and post a link here. --Irpen 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
The system as it is now clearly does not work. Nothing prevents a tagger to simply revert the admin clearing the tag, leaving no explanations on talk (like this e.g.). There is nothing to prevent an overzealous admin to delete all the tagged messages via an illegal adminbot. That is even more important is that the discussion over the replace-ability of the image is usually only between the tagger and the uploader. There is nobody to mediate or propose the third opinion.

On the other hand most of the people agree that the most successful and noncontroversial wiki policy is Prod. Lets use it as a precedent. Everybody who disagree with the replace-ability of the image can just remove the tag. The tagger then have to file a usual IfD request. Alex Bakharev 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - This works for me. I actually had an admin mass delete a bunch of disputed images, without reading the talk pages or considering any of the arguments as to the images compliance with policy. I think the burden needs to be shifted back toward the editors who want information (that is, photos) removed from Wikipedia to prove the case. Things have swung wildly out of balance. Jenolen 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the issue is "fair use" images, which are only permitted under very restricted circumstances, the burden of proof must lie with the editor(s) wishing to keep the image to prove that it meets the fair use criteria. This is a very different case from the matter of deleting articles or free images, where the burden is on those who wish the deletion. —Angr 13:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I don't think this would be a good solution. Prod refers to articles that are GFDL, but might need to be deleted for other reasons. If the article is a possible copyright violation, they are tagged copyvio, which says "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue" and "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing." (The copyvio tag has been around a lot longer than the prod tag, btw.) This is very analogous to the rfu situation. It's not that the image can be improved to make it acceptable if it is not; it's that the tagger could be incorrect about it being a violation. In my experience, about 75% of people using the disputed tag do not actually dispute that a free image of the subject could be (eventually) created -- they either don't understand the fair-use policy, or they just don't like it. The other 25% are able to give sane reasons why the image might be non-replaceable, and those should always be carefully considered by the processing admin. I very rarely delete an image if the user gives a quasi-legitimate reason, and if it doesn't fly in the face of counter-example #8. Situations like where the user deleted hundreds of rfu images without reading the comments should not happen, and his deletions (of disputed images) were undone. (He apologized and said he won't do it again.) Given that, I think this solution would be worse than the problem. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep saying the massive image deletion thing was undone? It wasn't.  (Or at least, hasn't been yet.)  I've posted lists of images "accidentally" deleted without any respect for the process they were going through on my talk page and on the person who did the massive deletion's page, and so far, nada.  It's just not true that that deletion has been undone, so I wish people would stop saying that.  (As of today -- subject to change.)   Jenolen    speak it!  20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. I was under the mistaken impression that a bot or semi-bot had undone all his deletions of "disputed" images. I guess this hasn't been done. Well, it should be. Instead, the user has manually undeleted all disputed images where someone brought it to his attention. Not good enough, perhaps, but it may be the best he can do at this point. Anyway, he was blocked for it, and it should not happen again. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit) Wow, it looks like not even that is true: he hasn't manually undeleted all disputed images where someone brought it to his attention. I'll look through the images listed on your page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I didn't realize you were an admin when I cleared that tag. Your clearing came on the heels of Irpen removing it several times. It's not a problem with the "system", just that I didn't know who you were. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What might help in this situation is for the "processing admin" to use an edit summary that clearly states something like "After a week, I (the processing admin) have decided that the image is non-replaceable." Or maybe leave a message on the talk page that says this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As per the discussion above and this, here's my proposal. How about the admin who looks at the images a week later subst in a statement that you either agree the image is not replaceable, or disagree (and delete), but retain the talk page in either case. This way, there is a record a decision has been made (which could still be contested of course) but we won't be left in this limbo of having debates with no clear resolution. As Robth points out above we probably should retain the talk page in any case, and I will start doing that, but we may need to make that more clear as well. - cohesion 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good ideas (at least for disputed cases). – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This will also hopefully stop the same images from being nominated again and again, which I imagine may be a problem in the future. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created Rk, Rtd and Rb for the closing admins. The first template is   used if the decision is Keep. produces the message: 
 * The image was proposed for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. The result of the debate was to Keep the image as no adequate free-licensed image image exists or can be created. 

The second and the third are intended for archiving the discussion on the talk page if the decision is to delete.


 * Some discussion
 * Some discussion

produces: 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result of the debate was to Delete the image. Some discussion
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

(The preceding good stuff was made by Alex Bakharev)

Thanks, Alex! That looks great. I'll use it! – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot removal of replaceable images
OrphanBot's currently set up to remove images tagged with Replaceable fair use from articles, while ignoring those that are also tagged with Replaceable fair use disputed. Should I go ahead and start the bot working on this, and if so, is there some sort of notification I should have the bot provide to uploaders? What sort of delay between tagging and removing should it use? --Carnildo 07:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be great. We should provide a message to uploaders, are the current user talk messages templates, or hardcoded? As to the timing, I would think notification on the user talk page as soon as possible, and removal from the articles as near 7 days as possible, allowing for any technical considerations etc. - cohesion 08:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say removal from the articles should be earlier than that, as one thing that many uploaders have expressed concerns about is the fact that editors of the articles that used these deleted images have not had a chance to comment before deletions; if the bot comes through and removes the images shortly after the tagging, that will serve as a notice system for the editors of the article. --RobthTalk 11:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, OrphanBot's removing RFU-tagged images from articles? Then why am I bothering to add refu-c to the captions? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Once orphanbot is working at this, I guess you can stop. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not removing them yet. I'm asking to see if it's a good idea, and if so, how long before deletion it should remove the images. --Carnildo 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The person who tags the image is supposed to notify the uploader, so I'm not sure that it would be helpful for orphanbot to do this as well. I think removing the images 5 or 6 days after tagging would be the best timeframe. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's debatable, if you do it early you get people that have the article watchlisted to notice, but you may end up with a lot of them simply reverted. Either way, I don't think it will matter that much. Any removal at all will be very helpful, even if a small percentage are reverted, so early might be the best answer. I think there is some code in orphanbot so that not too many messages get put on a talk page too fast (I'm not sure exactly how it works) but that might check to see if there was already a comment placed by the tagger. - cohesion 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing. Not enough people are discussing the images in question anyway, what Chowbok has been doing with the refu-c is something which should increase this.  Removing them completely would limit the sometimes valuable input into image discussions. - hahnch e n 16:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, even though it's more work for me. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, removing the image at first, even if it's contested later, will serve as a notification, then people can discuss on the talk page. I don't think anyone minds that much if you relink it if you feel strongly it should stay, as long as you list why. Any discussion should be on the image talk page though, not on the various article talk pages. I don't see how removing them early limits discussion, as Robth points out, removing them late would limit discussion. - cohesion 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think it's clearer what's going on if the template is in the caption instead of just the image disappearing one day. But I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other. Just somebody be sure to let me know if OrphanBot starts taking these images out so I'm not wasting my time with tagging them. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember too, it's not just would we like orphanbot to delink, or hardworking Chowbok to use the nice caption tag, most people don't use the caption tags. Sure, it might be nice if everyone paid that much attention, but better to plan for the worst, than the best :) - cohesion 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for a bot (I have no idea how hard/easy it would be for orphanbot to be modified in this way) to be programmed to add the caption templates, and then for orphanbot to do the removals after 6 days? That way we could have the best of both worlds; guaranteed notification of the article's editors and less work for taggers and admins on the one hand and a standing notice on the article (as opposed to just a removal and edit summary) on the other. --RobthTalk 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting the bot to add tags would be an even better suggestion. But I really think that the users tagging the image should also tag Rfu-c on the appropriate pages.  So many images are deleted without any other editor apart from the tagger and the admin even knowing about it. - hahnch e n 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I always try to do this, but the big problem for me is all these damn infoboxes. Many of them don't have image caption parameters, and I'm not sure what to do in that case. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you do Chow, and that's good. But I've just left a message for User:Abu badali, who doesn't seem to do so. - hahnch e n 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding getting captions into infobox templates: You can usualy "hack" these templates by adding  after the image name (! expands into |). Sometimes you also have to add a closing ]] wich will usualy leave some code like 180px| ]] left over, it can be ugly but at least the caption show up. Galleries are more problematic. I can't get the template message to show up in gallery captions at all, even if it's the only thing there, think the problem is they can't cope with multiple lines of text, maybe tweaking the template a little will fix that, gotta check. --Sherool (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is a mediawiki problem. You can't subst templates inside a or tag.  This involves something called a "parser hook" (don't ask, it scares me, I only know about it at all because I filed a bug on bugzilla regarding the problem with ref tags). --RobthTalk 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be the case here. The problem was simply that there was some exess whitespace (new lines) in the {{subst:refu-c}} template that caused the rfu-c template to get added to a new line, the gallery syntax aparently exect all image syntax to be on a single line, so this broke it. Removed the whitespace and adding {{subst:refu-c}} to a gallery seems to work just fine now. --Sherool (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what Carnildo has said in the past that is the problem for orphanbot too, the infoboxes, and some captions are too complex to write code that will catch them all. I don't want to speak for him, but this has come up before. I believe it's why occasionally orphanbot still doesn't delink some of the complex ones. - cohesion 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the problem OrphanBot has. Some infoboxes use the [[:Image:My Image Here.jpg]] syntax, and the bot can treat them like a standalone image.  Other infoboxes use a syntax of "image = My Image Here.jpg", and I have to program the bot for each one of those boxes as I find them -- I'd also need to tell the bot how to modify the caption for each one.  Still others determine image name from the title of the page, and there's nothing the bot can do with them.  Some standalone images have captions too complex for the bot to deal with, or have badly-formed captions that MediaWiki can deal with, but the bot can't. --Carnildo 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (reset)Is this bot working yet? At the least, it could remove the images from the articles to get them ready for deletion on the 7th day. That alone would be a huge help as I just did about 20 and it was tiring, let alone hundreds day after day. I say leave the caption notice and user notice up to the RFU image tagger's responsibility. Change the template to say "Mandatory notice" to user and "mandatory image caption" notice on article(s) pages instead of "please" and "consider". --MECU ≈ talk 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not yet. About a week ago, there was a change in how editing worked that broke the bot, and I'm waiting to make sure my fix won't cause any problems. --Carnildo 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Request explanation on talk or in a parameter
It looks like many users do not understand our replaceability criteria (e.g. that images of living people used for identification only are assumed replaceable), while some taggers may not completely understand the situation around the image and relevant articles (e.g. assume the subject is alive while in reality he or she is dead). To prevent misunderstanding we need the tagger to explain in a non-cryptic manner why the tagger thinks the image is replaceable, e.g.: I think the explanation can go either as the first parameter of the template or if the parameter not present on the talk page. The first is more convenient with the bot-assisted flagging, the second with the manual tagging.
 * This person is alive and not a recluse, it should be easier to arrange a photo-session with a wikipedian; or
 * This graph can be redone from scratch
 * There are hundreds of such cars in use yet, somebody should be able to photograph them, etc.

Also it is almost a month since the template is full protected. Maybe it is a good time to lower the level of protection to semi? I guess many people feel uncomfortable editing fully protected articles even if they have an admin bit Alex Bakharev 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume the protection is, like the protection of other frequently-transcluded templates, designed to prevent vandals from repeatedly editing the template to put stress on the servers as they try to keep up with updating the image pages.
 * As to the issue of explanation, I think the best thing we can do in this regard is work things out on [WP:REFU to the point that we're happy with linking to it from this template as an explanation. --RobthTalk 18:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Penis vandals can be stopped by semiprotection. The only reason for this tl to be protected is that by keeping it this way, it can still reflect the fringe interpretaion of the policy and the extremist ways of its enforcement rather than the concensus of editors on how the disputes about the images should be handled. The arrogant "Do not remove" order not accompanied with the requirement that the tagger should explain himself reflects that the tl is biased towards the deletionist's view. --Irpen 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to implement this change. Let's see if this is how we want to proceed before we change a protected template. I've reverted for now (since the new format isn't compatible with rfu, among other reasons), but let's discuss.

I have no major problem with adding a reason, but I don't think this is a good way to go about it. First off, it's best to put reasoning on the talk page, where warranted, so that discussion and responses are kept together. (I'm no fan of the optional reason tag on replaceable fair use disputed either.) Secondly, sometimes the reason might fit into a predefined category (living person, drawing, etc.), but sometimes the reason isn't anything more than "A person could take a photo of that and release it under a free license". I honestly don't think it would add anything to anyone's info to have this. What would someone learn from this? If someone tags a headshot of a football player rfu, it has to be because a person could take a photo of the person. What else can be said?

Also, note that NPOV, copyvio, and most other templates of this sort do not have reason parameters. And the arguments are the same -- if there is information specific to the article as to why it was tagged, then it's best to put it on the talk page. And if not, well, copyvio is pretty explanatory. So is rfu. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quadell, in my version of the template if one does not provide the optional parameter, the template explicitly refer to the talk page. I agree that having the whole discussion in one place is much easier and cleaner. It also easier on the closer of the discussion if the image is deleted as he might need to transfer the reason to the talk page. I just thought that maybe having to add one template instead of a template on the image page and an explanation on the other page is easier on the mass taggers of the images. If you do not think this is the case I an quite happy to remove the parameter.


 * I am not sure I got your point with the templates. copyvio has the parameter url; NPOV has an optional parameter section of the talk, Prod has required parameter. As I said, if you think this optional parameter is redundant, I am happy to get rid of it. Alex Bakharev 07:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed no reason for a parameter. The tl should refer the reader to the talk page. The challenge mounted by the tagger at the talk page cannot be a generic one, like "living person", etc. Not every article (or even part of article) about someone who is alive can be adequately illustrated by a free image that is available or that could be reasonably obtained. FUC#1 specifically states talks about the replacement image that would adequately give the same information.

As such, the explanation should apply to a specific use in a specific article, the same way as the original rationale should. If there is no rationale or the rationale is "I like this photo", suffice would be to say at talk that "no rationale is given".

NPOV template refers the reader to a talk page and an unexplained NPOV tag can be removed. Same applies to this tag. If one challenges the image uploaded in gf and supplied with a gf rationale, one has to challenge the specific rationale in the specific article's context rather than paste some non-universally applicable statements like "the subject is alive". Subject's being reclusive or living in the country with strong privacy laws can only be one of many reasons why the usage of a copyrighted image is justified. Another reason often is that free image, that could reasonably exist, would likely not be adequate in the specific context of the article. Whatever the tagger sees disputed, has to be explained as a courtesy so that the uploaded has a chance to address the conserns. --Irpen 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is really important is that all these tags could me removed on sight if there is no sufficient explanation for this. The same is with the nsd, nld if a user is sure that the source /license is here or if he adds it, he just removes the tags. He does not want a closing admin to judge the matter.


 * I think, while whether a user provided sufficient explanation of irreplaceablity of an image is often indeed a difficult question. So maybe waiting for an admin to decide istead of handling it like prod have some merits, but it is critically important to provide an explanation why an image is deemed replaceable. Remember that most users are much less knowledgeble in the latest trends of interpretation of our copyright policies than Quadell or even me.


 * Suppose a user uploaded a photograph of celebrity two years ago. He carefully chose the promotional picture among a few available on Internet. Everybody thought it perfectly matched the text of the article. Regularly he is watching the article to ensure nobody vandalized it and his picture is still here. Now somebody pasted Replaceable_fair_use with the edit summary FUC#1 CEX#8. Do you really think he would recognize that his joy is about to be deleted because the celebrity is alive? I would guess, that some vandal misspelled words FUCK and SEX, or maybe he would decide that somebody found a free image. He simply could not decide where to start from disputing the replacability. The other thing is that there are quite a number of trolls on wiki. Soon they will learn how to annoy their victims by putting Replaceable_fair_use on their images. It is very difficult to evaluate the good faith of tagging unless the rationale for a tag is provided. Alex Bakharev 07:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning slightly away from the parameter, but not strongly. If some new users expressed something that made it seem helpful maybe. I do think most people use this template via rfu though, so that would have to be reworked. I personally prefer templates that give reasons, rather than having to type them, and would probably personally never use the parameter, although I also don't do the initial tagging on rfu's very much. I do agree though that people may be having a problem even understanding what we're talking about when we say "replaceable fair use" but I think the parameter is going to be "FUC#1 CEX#8" just as often as the edit summary. Maybe we can just give a better explanation in the main text of the template? - cohesion 07:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading the discussion below I have amended my opinion. It never crossed my mind that people would take this parameter to mean that the burden now lies with the tagger. That is not the case, and since it apparently is a very common interpretation I don't think this parameter is a good idea. Not that the premise is bad, but it is already being interpreted in a unacceptable way. An empty parameter cannot mean that the tag is spurious, nor can an empty talk page. The tag needs to clearly state what the policy is, and if someone disputes, that can be done on the talk page. If the tagger is obviously wrong the admin will read about it. - cohesion 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden most certainly lies not with the tagger but with the uploader. The issue here is a different one. Once the uploader did provide a good-faith rationale at the image page, it becomes the taggers duty to explain how exactly he challenges it. The emptry parameter or an empty talk by itself do not mean that the tag is spurios per se. No rationale means that there is nothing to challenge and the tag stands for it. The empty talk in the presense of the rationale is a different story. The tag should point to talk and state that the tagger is required to explain himself. This is exactly how the POV tags are used. --Irpen 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have edited the tag to state that a specific reason must be provided by the tagger if the image already possesses a full fair use rationale, since a properly done fair use rationale would contain an assertion of non-replaceability. --RobthTalk 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think parameter is harmful similarly to the one in former tl:POV-because (that was deleted) in favor of good ol' tl:POV. A priory, either a tagger or the uploaded may be correct. Their arguments should have an equal weight and equal prominence. Both have to be at talk. The tl simply has to point the reader to a talk page where the tagger would explain his position. The tag lacking an explanation or supplied with the frivolous explanation can be removed and the frivolous explanation may be ignored. Similarly treated should be a frivolous fairuse rationale. --Irpen 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute
Was there any discussion of this significant change to the policy by Alex Bakharev, or was this just a unilateral action? I strongly object to this. The burden of explanation should be on the uploader of fair use content&mdash;the person who feels it necessary to add copyrighted content&mdash;not on the person trying to remove it. This runs contrary to every other fair use policy; people nominating unsourced or unjustified fair use content for removal aren't expected to give their reasoning, the uploader has to fix it or it is removed. Why are we changing that only for this procedure? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As this tag does not question whether we have a legal basis for fair use, only whether it complies with our policies to encourage the use and production of free content, there is no urgency and so no need for a streamlined deletion process. The issue of replaceability requires an editorial judgment about the informational content of the image relative to the articles in which it is used.  This is call for discussion.  If our current policy permits people to unilaterally invoke deletion without explanation, in support of what at the time can only be their individual editorial opinion, that policy is severely broken and needs more reasoned, deliberative procedures.  Postdlf 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The uploader must always provide a rationale explaining how each use of the image meets all criteria in WP:FUC. If the image description page contains no explanation on why the image is irreplaceable, the image can be tagged as replaceable with no necessity of further explanation what's being contested. But of course, if someone wants to challenge an existing rationale, just like one can challenge an invalid source, some explanation is necessary. The current wording is not correct in this matter and should be changed/reverted. --Abu Badali 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Chowbok's claim there was a discussion. Now, the burden of proof is certainly on the uploader. The issue here is that if the uploader fulfilled his duty and provided a good faith rationale that is both image specific and article specific, it is the tagger who has to explain what's wrong with the rationale. Otherwise, it is unclear what exactly is disputed in the rationale given. More, Chowbok brings in another strawman that this prevents to tag unsourced images. Unsourced is a whole different ballpark and there are tags for that. More, there is no change in policy. There is a change in the tag to better comply with an existing policy. I understand that having to deal on the images that have rationales on the image by image basis, having to read the rationale, the article's context and mount a challenge to the rationale requires an effort and would render impossible the Chowbok style assault of tagging thousands of images per day barely looking at them. However, this was never meant to be done and is only done by two or three extremist editors followed by mass bot-like deletion, (see Quadell's deletion log with the deletion rate of dozens per minute achievable only by bots). --Irpen 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't use a bot. I carefully examine each image in a browser tab, and then delete the ones that should be deleted all at once. I also don't believe Chobbok tags images "barely looking at them". Please avoid incendiary language like "assault", "extremist", etc., since it threatens to dissolve useful discussion into namecalling. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, Quadell, you reverted a good-faith edit by another admin without answering the reasoning behind them at all. That "careful" and "useful". More later. --Irpen 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm is also unhelpful. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's recall what happened. My posts above where related to the disagreement about the tag's context. Your posts above, contrary to mine, are mere off-topic moralizing.

The least helpful is unilateralist actions and refusals to explain them. And please stick to issues at hand. If you have nothing to say on topic, say nothing. If you can't explain you revert, don't revert. Moralizing is no replacement for the discussions of the issues at hand. My remark were angered by civil and justified. --Irpen 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quadell explained his reversion in the section above this. --RobthTalk 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the time-stamps. Quadell's response in the previous section was dated after his lecturing in this one. --Irpen 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see my response in the section above Alex Bakharev 07:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long
As I knew he would, Irpen has taken the new wording to mean he can just go and remove the RFU tag from every image on a whim. See ; note that there was no assertion of irreplaceability in the original image. Can we please go back to the old wording? This just adds an extra layer of conflict. There's no reason why people can't add a disputed tag, but Irpen would rather just bypass the process completely. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * False. I only removed the tag when the rationale was given but the tagger did not bother to ascert what is disputed. In such cases, it is a tagger's duty to explain what's wrong with the rationale. If the tagger sees that the image can be replaced, he should explain so at the talk page, but taking into account the article's context. Image showing someone doing his/her work described in the article is not the same as the image showing how the person looks like.


 * You might not like having to do extra work by having to go through an effort to explain your grievances. You refused to do so in the past. The tag now will not allow blind tagging on the whim. The legitimate and explained tags will stay. --Irpen


 * Nope. The tag needs an explanation if the image has a rationale that includes an explanation of why (in someone's opinion) the image is irreplaceable. And no, "no free images available" is not such an explanation; that says nothing.  If someone slaps an unexplained rfu tag on an image with a rationale saying something like "this person does not make public appearances", then I would support removing it. That was not the case in the example Chowbok provided above; I'm going to go look through the rest of these and revert where appropriate. --RobthTalk 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy
Do any of you actually delete the links to the images you delete? Or do you not care about that? I was doing research for work, and came across Rick DiPietro. The image was Rfu'd but no one cared to delete the tags in the image. I've come across this at least five times before, when not actually looking for it. -- Zanimum 18:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the deleting admin should be doing that. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's funny - I have yet to see a real example of a "deleting admin" Do ANYTHING in regards to fair use images, other than delete. I think it must be because admins are so used to going through and cleaning out controversial material without a second thought.  (Copyright violation material is routinely deleted without a second thought.)  But fair use material REQUIRES a second thought... something, so far, I have not seen from most deleting admins.  (Witness the Betacommand mass deletion...)
 * Anyhow, putting the onus on the deleting admin to go and clean up the results of the deletion seems fair to me.
 * Jenolen   speak it!  02:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion confirm page (visible to admins whenever they delete something) says: "Links to this page or image will not be changed. Check 'what links here' before deleting. For images, check the file links and remove the links from all articles. It is your responsibility to do image deletions cleanly and not leave broken links and red boxes in articles." Admins should always do that, whatever they delete, but everyone forgets some times.  If someone forgets, leave a polite message reminding them.  Chick Bowen 18:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is something that admins are expected to do, thankfully this is what Orphanbot was designed to help with, but sometimes the syntax on the page is too complex for it (especially infoboxes). I think most people do this, and when it's not done it's probably just a mistake, sometimes an image is on a page twice, which is really tricky, or maybe you just forget. The replaceable fair use images are special of course and require more attention, but it's not like they are mixed up with the copyvios or anything. When you are in that queue you know what you're getting into :) - cohesion 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I always try to remove images when I delete them, but I have not been very active lately, lack of time and a deacent computer... Anyway, tools like NPWatcher (require Windows or at least .NET 1.1) can be handy (automaticaly removes images that are deleted using it), it's not perfect so some manual work may still be needed (especialy with infobox images), but it's getting there. I'd recomend "lazy" admins (like myself) to give it a try for deleting in-use images. It won't make "mass deletions" faster but it can delete the image and remove it from all main namespace pages (well most of the time) with just one click, so it does eliminate most of the work asosiated with removing links to an image from several big articles. --Sherool (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting fix
This template has a minor formatting error:
 * (renders as Tagger:' Please do not)

Can an admin please fix this? --Muchness 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, oops. Wasn't sure if they were going for bold or italics, but bolded seems to look a bit better, so I went with that for now. Cheers! Luna Santin 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update for CSD I7


The text of the template should now note that all fair use images uploaded after 13 July 2006 that do not pass all parts of WP:FUC can be deleted after 48 hours of uploader being notified, instead of one week, per WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edit:


 * I'm thinking no we do not have the capacity to handle split deletion.Geni 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one is able to get around to deleting / keeping track of a second set of dates then nothing will change. However, this is a notice that the current policy on WP:FUC does in fact say this. It might not happen because people don't have a lot of time, but it could very well happen. I don't see the harm in this, and not changing it is inaccurate to what our policy actually says. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It just isn't required and isn't really true.Geni 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It specifically says this on Fair use criteria:
 * "Images that do not comply with this policy within 48 hours after notification to the editor who uploaded the image will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies to the image (although anyone can provide an explanation) and should make every attempt to comply with Wikipedia's fair use policies. The Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions. If an image on which fair use is claimed is not in use for an article, it may be deleted immediately."
 * So.. yeah, it is true. -- 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't true because that isn't what the template is for. the template is for the 7 day warnings if you want a 48 hour warning you will need a new template.Geni 21:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this template is used on images uploaded after 13 July 2006 then what it's saying is wrong. If this template is only used on images uploaded before July 13th, then I could see your point. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's used on both but our dateing system can't cope with two deletion dates. If you want to make the change try Template:AutoReplaceable fair use buildings and Template:AutoReplaceable fair use people which should only be applied to images as part of the upload process and thus should be 48 rule exclusive.Geni 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the editprotected since there doesn't seem to be any consensus for the change. Feel free to replace it if an agreement is made. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dating?
I put some rfu tags on images back on the 25-26th Jan and looking at them now they're using today's date? What's up? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you put up the links so we can see the specific images? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's something I'm doing wrong?
 * Image:Vwilliams 4.jpg (see history)
 * Image:Wayne arthurs001.jpg (see history) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're not substing the tags. To insert replaceable fair use properly with the date calculation intact, you need to put in   .  The subst will replace the rfu tag with the proper one--automatically inserting the current date in.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Increase language that this tag should not be removed
I'd like to increase the language that this tag should not be removed, especially by someone disputing. Something perhaps like "This tag should not be removed except by an admin." may help prevent the tag getting removed, and then removed and missed in the category. --MECU ≈ talk 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this statement. Though admins are removing the tags on images that they themselves uploaded and which are disputed... --Bob 19:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for images already superseded by a free alternative
Is there a template if you have already found a free alternative? E.g., i uploaded Image:Cocorosie scala1.jpg to replace Image:Cocorosie-promo.jpg, and adding {rfu} to the last one seems a bit weird considering it's already replaced. Husky (talk page) 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * or-fu-re Jkelly 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. [[Image:Huskyeye.jpg]] Husky (talk page) 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Demonstration of replaceablity
It seems to me that the best way to demonstrate whether or not an image is replaceable is to replace it. To that end, wouldn't it make more sense to use a template like this when the image has already been replaced? Otherwise, why shouldn't the fair use (or otherwise licensed but un-free) image stand. Before you say, the fair use may not be sound, I want to point out that we have another template for that. --Selket Talk 08:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed wholeheartedly. — Omegatron 17:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The onus is not on the person trying to remove non-free content. Take for example a non-free image of an apple. It is not the requirement of the editor saying this is replaceable to go take a photo of an apple. The non-free image should be removed, so that the millions of visitors we get see that we need a free photo of an apple. Then if any one of them take one we now have a free photo of an apple, which is to everyone's benefit. The non-free image should not stand, because this is not a non-free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. This is the exact same argument as text in articles for example. We did not steal articles from Britannica when wikipedia was small, we simply didn't have articles on many subjects, this in turn, upon seeing the need, made people write them. The template you are discussing for when it has been replaced, incidentally does exist and is used, Template:Orphaned fairuse replaced. - cohesion 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The non-free image should be removed, so that the millions of visitors we get see that we need a free photo of an apple.


 * No. It shouldn't.  Removing informative content from articles directly conflicts with our project's goals.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * Visitors to an article with an image in it aren't going to realize that the image should be replaced, but visitors to an article without any image aren't going to, either. The best solution would be to keep legally-usable non-free images in the articles until they're replaced, and clearly indicate that we want them replaced in a manner that is visible from the article.
 * (reqphoto and the like should be visible from the article, too.) — Omegatron 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the free vs. encyclopedia argument and which is better? None. But it's been clearly proven that removal of fair use (non-free) content has encouraged free content to be found or created. I am reminded of the article Cheers. There was a tv-screenshot on there of "the sign" outside the bar. There was a free image of the sign on an article linked in the article, yet the fair use one existed for months. Had it not been there, someone would have likely gone to found the free one, or just copied the other one to that article. MECU ≈ talk 18:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

''This is the free vs. encyclopedia argument and which is better? None.''
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to be distributed into the hands of as many people as possible. Free content is a tool we use to meet this goal.  Free content is not a goal in itself, anymore than copyrighted content is a goal in itself.

 But it's been clearly proven that removal of fair use (non-free) content has encouraged free content to be found or created.
 * No one disputes that it's happened at least a few times. But it has not been "clearly proven".  I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the majority of deleted images are replaced.  Can you prove with real evidence that the net effect of blanket deletion is positive?  Can you prove that the net result of deletion is better than other methods that encourage replacement without destroying content? — Omegatron 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected
editprotected Requested edit (to be added to the top of the page):

This template should not be used directly. should be used instead.


 * Done. By the way, remember to sign your posts with four tildes. CMummert · talk 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a warning
Can the template be modified so that a big red warning or something appears when a person has used replaceable fair use directly instead of {{subst:rfu}}? I'm constantly finding images that were tagged with this months ago, but because replaceable fair use was used directly, it remained undated and the images just keep getting shunted off into later and later categories. There must be some way to add some label that appears only if the month</tt>, day</tt>, and year</tt> parameters haven't been filled in. —Angr 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Big read warning it is :) You could optionally add a category in there if you wanted. I just did it based on the day parameter (they should all be defined anyway) - cohesion 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, adding a Category:Replaceable fair use images without date is a good idea. I'll go do that. —Angr 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rfu2
What's the point of Template:Replaceable fair use 2 and how is it different from this one? Is anyone even using it? If not, I suggest we have it deleted.  howcheng  {chat} 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This template tags images for deletion in 7 days; Template:Replaceable fair use 2 tags them for deletion in 2 days and is used for images uploaded more recently than July 13, 2006. I use it all the time. —Angr 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. I may have to make a change to my image deletion script to accommodate this.  howcheng  {chat} 20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)