Template talk:Di-replaceable fair use disputed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Template:Replaceable fair use disputed. To dispute the deletion of a particular image, please go to the talk page for that image. Chick Bowen 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute rejected

How do people feel about a template that says something like {{dispute rejected}} to add to the talk page, which would subst in the date along with some text and a variable reason. This would allow for some resolution in these disputes. The talk page could then be deleted after some amount of time. This would address the concerns of people that think these images are being deleted out of hand, but it might be over burdensome as well. Thoughts? - cohesion 07:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that this tag would be used when the image is deleted, or when the admin decides not to delete the image? If the former, I think the deletion description box would work just as well. If the latter, that might be a good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be ok, just have the recommendation that people give more detailed reasons maybe? Right now most people just say very generic deletion reasons. When I personally decide to keep one I usually do a lot of editing on the image description page etc to make it more correct, so I don't know if a "keep" template is required. This idea was in regards to some people feeling that their disputes had no obvious resolution other than the fact that the image was deleted. I'm not sure if it's a learning curve thing where people are not looking at the deletion log. This template would be a lot of extra work, I just wanted to get some other opinions about it :) - cohesion 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess, I can see where Cohesion is coming from. A detailed argument and agreement on the validity of the argument from experienced admins on a certain image did not prevent it from getting deleted. And, all I can do now is scratch my head to find the reason why the baby was thrown away with the bathwater. I believed that this tag could fight trolls who rely on the "disputed" tag, a huge backlog and overworked editors. But, as things stand that may not be a case. I have made use of this tag twice, and both times the image was abruptly deleted without any further argument. Shouldn't the process be somewhat like an AfD, rationality included? I guess the use of this tag needs a serious guideline. Aditya Kabir 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem, perhaps, is that there is no specific guidance given in this template's doc on what constitutes a legitmate dispute. I realize that that may encourage trolls to simply copy the examples and tweak them, but the underlying case, not the boilerplate, should still be the basis for deletion or non-deletion, and if we're really trying to make solid cases (instead of just trying to delete everything that isn't free), the examples would help those of us trying to do justice to the policy to make our best case, whether or not it succeeds.

As a test of this point, I am disputing Image:Trixie and Dean Koontz.jpg, based on the idea that (A) "Trixie" Koontz is an established pseudonym of author Dean Koontz and is covered in a separate section of that article, making a photo of the real "Trixie" a meaningful illustration (criterion #8); and (B) I see no reasonable expectation that we will ever find a free image of Trixie before Koontz's copyrights expire late this century (criterion #1, the motivation for the "replaceable" tag), short of commissioning someone to paint a free image. (And I would add that if Wikipedia now holds that requiring editors to craft their own original illustrations is "reasonable", then it should say so explicitly because that's a far higher barrier to contribution than the usual sourced prose of an article.)

I have added the dispute tag with this explanation to the image description page. It will be instructive to see if it gets deleted without any attempt to address my dispute. I would maintain that if my rationale is invalid and no one bothers to correct my misapprehension before deleting the image, it would strongly suggest that this dispute tag is being ignored. (As my edit history should show, I am no copyvio troll. Specific Wikipedia and Wikiquote examples of my anti-copyvio and pro-licensing work are available on request.) Even though there is a very real concern about trying to cut down on the overwhelming unnecessary use of non-free images, this tag implies there is a dispute process, and ignoring it for expediency's sake would be less honest than not having it at all. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To no one's surprise, I'm sure, the image I cited above has been deleted. Slightly surprising was the rationale:

Speedy deleted per (CSD i7), was an image with an invalid fair use rationale and the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago.

Notice that the "invalid fair use rationale" and the "notice to uploader" were both cited, but my counterargument for not deleting the image was not. This bolsters my suggestion that this tag is being ignored. I am currently discussion this issue with the deleting admin at User talk:^demon#Image deleted without acknowledgement of dispute, for those who would like to see what develops. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: ^demon kindly replied that he had read my dispute rationale, but he made no apology for failing to acknowledge (let alone respond to) my dispute in the record. His explanation that "I don't have time in the day to type out a detailed deletion summary each time" and that he tackles "dozens (sometimes hundreds) of images I tend to review in a day" supports my suspicion that the pro forma summaries and hasty deletion actions are being done for expediency's sake, given the large number of non-free images currently being used in Wikipedia. While I can certainly understand his position, I must question whether there are any attempts to hold off summary deletions when disputes are logged. Can anyone cite any cases where someone logged a dispute and it actually stopped the deletion, even temporarily? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes for template message

To improve the wording of the template message, change the following part of the message from "It is disputed whether or not this image violates our non-free content criteria."

to

It is disputed whether this image violates our non-free content criteria.

or

A user disputes whether this image violates non-free content criteria for Wikipedia articles.

In the latter example, "a user" can equally cover a disputed claim by either an active editor of articles or a person who only reads articles without editing. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 18:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)