Template talk:Old replaceable non-free use

This template was considered for deletion on 9 October 2011. The result of the discussion was "No consensus".

Link to discussion

Would it be helpful to include a link to the discussion? Borisblue 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be on the talk page, usually image talk pages don't have a lot going on. Does that change seem like what you had in mind? - cohesion 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I was assuming there was a centralized page where discussion took place. The image where I saw this tag didn't have a talk page. Borisblue 04:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they are supposed to be on the talk page, the {{replaceable fair use disputed}} tag says to do it there. Many people, for whatever reason just add that tag with no actual dispute... - cohesion 04:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I remove the tags in those cases then? If there's no discussion, then the tag gives a mistaken impression that consensus has determined that the particular images are valid fair use.Borisblue 05:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a random sample of a few, it looks like in some cases the closing admin didn't agree with the original tagger, and closed it as keep even though there was no debate. This is an ok thing to do, so maybe the template should change wording to make it more clear this is possible? - cohesion 19:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it is important not to misrepresent a discussion as taking place when it was an admin decision. Borisblue 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change in text

Greetings. User:Dermot pointed out to me that the text of this template might be inaccurate in some situations. A non-free image of an actor in a role, for instance, may be non-replaceable when used to illustrate the fictional character being portrayed, but could still be replaceable when used to illustrate the actor. I'm considering changing the text from:

The image was proposed for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. The result was to Keep the image as no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created. A discussion of this decision may exist on the image talk page.

. . . to:

The image was proposed for deletion as a replaceable fair use image. The result was to Keep the image, as no adequate free-licensed image exists or can be created to fulfill the limited role performed by this image at the time deletion was considered. However, this image may be replaceable by free images in other contexts, and in such cases the free image must take precedence. A discussion of this decision may exist on the image talk page.

Comments? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made this change. I also protected the page, to prevent a vandal (or even a mistaken newbie) from changing a commonly-transcluded template. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please change both "media" and "image" to "file" in accordance with the new terminology. Pais (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this would be beneficial. I'm not sure I've ever seen a non-free video on Wikipedia so this would only be used on images. I'll leave the request for other administrators to review but I would decline this request. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about videos, but there are definitely non-free sound files. Pais (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about sound files. I've made the edit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen pictures with no traceable discussion as to why those pictures are kept

case in point : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BPickett.png Ebaychatter0 (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording

I've reworded [1] this template, for two reasons: first, I've repeatedly seen it being added to a file by the uploader himself, so it ought to be made clear that only a reviewing admin is entitled to add it. Second, the previous wording ("the result was to keep") gave it the appearance as if this was the result of a formal, consensus-based decision-making process, with a weight and authority comparable to that of a "keep" outcome in an XfD. It isn't – it's just the individual decision of an admin declining to perform a speedy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]