Template talk:Somewebsite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Put images in Category:Images with unknown copyright status? 2 What is the point of this tag? 3 This tag 4 wording

[edit] Put images in Category:Images with unknown copyright status?

Should this template put the image in Category:Images with unknown copyright status, the same as Template:No license? Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of this tag?

Why do we we even have this tag? We say on Special:Upload that "Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Wikipedia" and yet one of the menu options is "Found the image somewhere" which results in this tag which essentially dooms the uploaded image to near-automatic deletion. Why even let people upload images with this tag? DHowell 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because people are going to do it anyway. If we don't have this "trap" tag, then they may well choose a PD tag or a free license tag, and unless an RC patroller catches them out, it means the copyvio doesn't get caught. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of placing it in Category:Images with unknown copyright status, we should make this a redirect to the speedy I3, improper license, I4 lack of licensing or I7, invalid fair-use template, almost all images that comeout of there are copyvios. No need to waste seven days to delete it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This tag

As addressed above, this tag is useful in theory, but it doesn't work to well. There is no way to verify how long an image has been tagged with the current way that this template is setup. Redirecting to template:no license make sense to me. Adding template:no license to what we have here would also work. Any comments? I've never been one to make wide scale template or user interface adjustments so some more input would be nice. See also template:Don't know. -PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It does do this already. When this selection is made in the dropdown the template that is added is actually {{No license from license selector}} with the parameter "Somewebsite". This does add a date, and the no license tag, with this tag also. To see what it looks like put the text below in preview.

{{subst:No license from license selector|Somewebsite}}

Does this seem ok? - cohesion 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are completely right. I just didn't look at it close enough. I happened to browse Category: Uploader unsure of copyright status and noticed that there were a few images tagged with only {{somewebsite}}. Image:Adept majesty.gif and Image:Coarelli.jpg had been tagged for more than 7 months and a year respectively without any action taken, so I thought there may have been an issue. Now I guess that category needs to be sorted either through a bot or placing all new instances of {{somewebsite}} into a different category and cleaning out what is left in a week or two, that way we can determine which images aren't categorized by date without manually checking each image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right there are a surprising number of images that only have that tag... I'll see what carnildo thinks about orphanbot maybe looking at them. - cohesion 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wording

I would just like to express my distaste with the wording

An experienced editor should help the uploader determine the status of this work, and help the uploader understand the process for picking the correct license in the future.

Is it no longer the responsibility of the uploader to make sure that they abide by the policies of the site? I'm somehow responsible if somebody doesn't bother to read the guidelines? Bah - redirect this to a speedy tag per Jaranda above. - BanyanTree 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)