Template talk:File source/en

Suggested changes

This is one of our most widely used templates, so it ought to be one of our most informational, but unfortunately, it's not.

I see a few issues with the current text:

• It lacks structure and focus and is excessively based on negatives (if you have not, if the media also doesn't)
• It doesn't mention how to add the information or how to get help
• It claims that the page doesn't specify an author, which might not be the case (it could also be that the author or copyright information is not verifiable because there is no source information)
• It uses names of pages, policies and tools instead of well-integrated, descriptive links
• It uses the term "tag" to mean what most Wikipedia users know as a "template"
• It partly assumes all media are images (and that includes the name of the template)

For reference, here it is:

Thanks for uploading [[:{{{1}}}]]. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.

And here is a proposed rewrite intended to address those issues:

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, [[:{{{1}}}]], is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit the file description] and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{PD-self}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Please give your views on whether this is an improvement and should replace the current version. (It's a high-profile template and a substantial rewrite, hence the lack of boldness.) Feel free to suggest improvements, but try to keep creeping instructionism to a minimum. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Looks pretty good to me. (By the way, I note that the Finnish translation is quite different from the current English version, and in fact resembles your version more in some respects. There should probably be some effort to get the translations synced up.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I like your draft and would support it as it is. I would prefer two changes however: 1) Start with "thank you" as before. 2) suggest {{self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} because it is not so clear if "all" means "the current and all previous versions" or "the current, previous and future versions". Nillerdk (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for your suggestions! I thought about the thank you at the beginning and initially decided against it for a couple of reasons. The first is that it's not a good topic sentence. The purpose is not to thank the reader for their upload, but to call their attention to a problem. Secondly, making uploads with incomplete information is not behavior that should be positively reinforced. It creates work for others, and these days, users have every opportunity to avoid the problem. Granted, we shouldn't bite the newcomers, but I don't believe being direct is too bitey. I think the thank you at the end for those who bothered to read the whole message (and presumably act on it) is sufficient, and there's no need to be repetitive. Regarding {{Cc-by-sa-all}}, it is actually a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}, and the terms of the CC-by-sa license (2.0 and later) has contained explicit permission to redistribute under future versions of the license. Since it's a non-issue from a licensing perspective, I prefer the simpler and shorter form. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about {{Cc-by-sa-all}} at Commons talk:Copyright tags. In the mean time, we could always recommend {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}} instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A better solution! I was aware of the discussion but I could not find it again... I wasn't aware of {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}}. Nillerdk (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not really too surprising, given that I just created it. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that discussion. As I argue there, it's a non-issue because anything referencing 1.0 and 2.0 is equivalent to something referencing later versions (by enumeration or by the phrase "later version"). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've been duly rebutted. With that in mind, I agree that {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}} might be a better recommendation. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've allowed for some time to pass, and since there have been no major objections, I've changed the template. Looking through some talk pages, it seems to display okay where the servers have crunched through the transclusions. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Text could be friendlier

Though it's clearly subjective, receiving this template made me feel like someone was beating me over the head with the YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG stick. There are some rewrites proposed in the main template discussion page that make it significantly more friendly. Though I don't have another to contribute, I endorse the call to rewrite the content. Small things like starting with something other than 'This media may be deleted' might be a good place to start.

I understand that it's counterproductive to reinforce bad uploading habits, but I believe there is a middle ground where correct uploads are reinforced. Just my opinion, but I feel a message oriented around "Thank you; here's what to fix and how to do it better next time" is more effective at both correcting problems and encouraging contributions than the "you did these three things wrong." approach.

p.s. there was some fantastic research around the language used in user-to-user communications done this past summer. Good reading!

--Maplebed (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when people receive this template, it's because they did do something wrong, and they need to take action to keep the file from being deleted. The main reason people don't read instructions is "tl;dr" ("too long; didn't read"), which is why starting with why they should care is necessary. According to the history of your user talk page, you never did receive a message based on this template. You did receive a message based on {{Please link images}}, which is a different template for a less serious situation. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to Commons:SOURCE

Shouldn't this template link to Commons:SOURCE? —SamB (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)