Template talk:File source

Reminder of available tags

this should say something about the possible {{PD}} tags and such. - Omegatron 17:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Header choice

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

List of copyright tags

I added a wikilink to Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, so they could easily find the list of tags, as the copyright link is rather lengthy, and not really helpful for the users who wont read the whole thing. <>Who ?¿? 7 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

Why "copyright tag"?

Why does this say "it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag" when it's supposed to be about the lack of a source? Bovlb 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about the same thing... Thue | talk 20:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the template. Thue | talk 20:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template nominated for deletion

‹The template Image_source has been proposed for deletion here.› // Pathoschild 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The template survived this nomination. See here for the discussion. -Splash^talk 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top image

I reccomend the image at the top of this template be deleted as it seems like an imposing warning to people who don't know the copyright policies for Wikipedia images. Despite whatever the text says underneath it, the image sends clear message of "STOP" when we should really be saying, "Hey, just letting you know..." Any opinions? JHMM13 (T | C) 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say the same thing. I agree that the big red image should be removed as I think it really gives entirely the wrong message, and potentially will frighten off new Wikipedians, whose first action may have been to upload an image without thinking of copyright. The first sentence should however make it clear that the image may be deleted. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re This media may be deleted: it's ungrammatical

Media is always a plural in proper usage. Shouldn't we just change the template to read this image? HAM 20:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes refers to PDFs or ogg files. - cohesion^t 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image legality questions

The Untagged images project is going to start a new help page for people that get their images tagged as no source, or no license (see discussion [1]) At Wikipedia:Image legality questions. {{image copyright}}, {{image source}} and Orphanbot's message will all point there as a centralized clearing house for questions so that they don't sit on individuals talk pages for long, and to help with the automated notifications. - cohesion^t 06:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor wording issue

I notice that the headline says "Image tagging Image:x". Shouldn't it say "Image tagging for Image:x"? Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User created images, how to attribute?

The current template reads:

If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

An either nor? These two if not's need combining, or fixing. Should the first sentence be if you did ? There should be direction for folks who did create the image themselves as to how to source. Is a {{GFDL-self}} enough combined with edit history, or is an explicit author attribution required in the image description? I'd like to see a similar pointer to the {{nsd}} template, see Template_talk:No_source#Help_for_the_recipient. ∴ here…♠ 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and on-topic edits

Rather than boldly editing such a high-profile template, I propose that the first two paragraphs be changed as follows:

Thanks for uploading '''[[:{{{1}}}]]'''. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the [[copyright]] status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. In most cases, a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{tl|GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the [[GFDL]]. If you believe the media meets the criteria at [[Wikipedia:Fair use]], use a tag such as {{tlp|fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use]]. See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]] for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

This will keep the template on topic (it is supposed to be about image source, and so that's what the first paragraph should be about, the rest is incidental), and it also complies with the copyright policies, particularly fair use policy #10. Also, I think the template should say "please"! If there are no objections I will implement the change. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Please remove the {{GFDL-self}} suggestion. We shouldn't suggest users to even consider this impractical and obsolete license. We should suggest {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} and Creative Commons instead. --MGA73 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it was not protected so I fixed it myself. --MGA73 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]