Template talk:Di-disputed non-free use rationale-notice

Potentially confusing wording

Currently, this template reads "This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy." This omits the critical point—that the image must in fact be compliant. If it fails NFCC, saying it does won't fix it! This template would lead editors (especially newer editors, who probably encounter this most frequently) that adding any rationale whatsoever is sufficient, and would probably confuse and upset them when the image is deleted anyway. Given that, I would like to reword this slightly, to say "If the image passes all nonfree content criteria, this can be fixed by adding or clarifying the reason that the file qualifies under this policy. In some cases, the rationales available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline may adequately explain this. If the file does not pass all nonfree content guidelines, or this explanation is not provided, the file will be deleted on or after $DATE." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected

Please add <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>, so we can add some documentation and categories! Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording

Since this template can be used in cases where the non-free use rationale being disputed is not one added by the uploader of the file, it might be best to tweak the wording of the first sentence a bit to make this more clear. The current wording "Thank you for uploading "File:XXXX" doesn't really consider that a file may have multiple rationales added by different users at different times that are not connected in anyway to the first rationale that's typically provided by the uploader of the file. In some cases, a file may no longer even be being used as originally intended, but is still "in use" so to speak because others have added to other articles; therefore, it makes pretty much no sense to notify the uploader in such a case but rather to notify the person who added the disputed rationale. On a number of occasion when I've used this notification template, I've gotten "I didn't upload the file" or "I uploaded the file but not for that article" type of response. Perhaps such a thing can somehow be avoid by tweaking the template's wording a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)