Relisted

Why the hell isn't there an Author-Field ?? --Itu (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I support this, especially since it was discussed above at #Field for NFCC#2?. --Lexein (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an author parameter. Senator2029 “Talk” 00:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale 2 uses author but this one doesn't, however, some files using this template are attempting to use author but obviously it doesn't appear. So author should be added. However, why are there two separate templates? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I also support an author field. It would be quite useful for anyone wanting to get a release of rights. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong support. Almost 10 years later, hell yes there should be an author field. It may not always be applicable, and may not need to be mandatory, but If Wikipedia cares at all about respecting creators and copyright and crediting the people whose works we're appropriating (even under fair-use criteria), author field should at a bare minimum be an option. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Support, and the doc should be fixed as well. Currently we are supposed to "[a]lways include the copyright holder" in Description field, but the example below does not do that. ネイ (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to list more than a single article in |Article=? ButlerBlog (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: see {{rationale}}. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see: File:William E. Skaggs.jpg#Summary. I've filled in the parameters of the template, as far as I can tell, and yet I cannot get them to display. Please help! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: the parameters are case-sensitive, so you will need to capitalise them, e.g. |Description=, not |description=. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I knew it would be something trivial like this! Thanks so much! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Non-free use rationale/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

hi can someone change 'typed in uppercase' to 'capitalized' under the Usage header here Template:Non-free use rationale/doc? it would be more accurate 2604:3D08:4F83:4500:48C4:420D:58AA:AD25 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. I had made that edit, and then it occurred to me that I had made the mistake the IP points out. I was going to make that correction myself when I got here, but obviously it's already been fixed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Neveselbert, a wrapper is not a merger. Why revert? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's effectively the same thing. I didn't revert. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. It wasn't even proposed in the TfD nor mentioned there once. Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The rationale for the nomination was to have one template, and the close itself says "retain a redirect", not "make a wrapper". Primefac (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Until the documentation is merged, it's only right to include a wrapper in the interim. When you redirected the template, you didn't update the documentation of either template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting the outcome of a TFD requires a new discussion. Please restore the redirect. If the documentation needs to be changed, it is not protected, and you can change it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What do I do about {{Non-free use rationale 2/doc}}? That's my main concern. It hasn't been merged. I suppose I could transclude both documentations in the main template, then restore the redirect? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What do I do...? You merge them. You've been doing this a long time, it is not a difficult thing to figure out. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If I had time to do so, I would, but currently I don't, unfortunately. I've added a hatnote in the documentation here to the other documentation, which should help things in the meantime. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Primefac should have merged the documentation before merging. I'm aware it's not protected, but it's not my responsibility. I'm not the one who implemented the merge. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My primary concern is the proper technical merger of the two templates, because it is complex and requires good knowledge of backend coding (as evidenced here by the need to do multiple rounds of sandboxing). I do not need to know how, why, or where the template is used in order to accomplish this. Updating the documentation is something that anyone can do, but should be done by people who are used to and familiar with the templates being merged, because they know how things are supposed to work, look, and be implemented. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and I should say that you did an excellent job of merging the templates, which I'm very grateful for. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned it, in terms of merging the code into one template. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you now move it as a sub-page? Again, that wasn't the result of the Tfd. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a temporary measure until the documentation is merged. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

None of what you did was needed. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You really think we can just leave a documentation page dormant? That's ridiculous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've merged and redirected {{Non-free use rationale 2}} into this template, with it and its documentation moved to subpages until a merge can be completed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You are in a big hurry and making a mess. It would have been much better to simply post a note on this talk page, with a ping to the person who did the merge, listing your concerns. Someone else is going to have to clean up your mess now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess myself now. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is almost never good practice to make 24 edits in quick succession to a live template used in 500,000 pages. Neveselbert, I have asked you to many times before to use the sandbox and the testcases page when making changes to a widely used template, but you insist on moving fast and not consulting with other editors. This is disruptive behavior and I am close to filing a formal complaint. Please stop editing this template and get some consensus for your changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I regret the amount of times I've edited the live template, though I will note that I have indeed tried to make the effort to edit the sandbox, sixty times, actually. I'm sorry also if I've moved too fast, though given that this template is used in so many pages I wanted to make sure that there was as least disruption to the appearance of this template as possible. Far from wanting to be disruptive, my aim was to ensure the opposite. If there's any other concerns you have you can leave me a message, and I'll be sure to respond; there's no need to have to engage other channels. I'm not planning on editing the template again, and I expect to see your revision remain the stable version for as long as consensus develops. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)