Template talk:Drfop

Not comprehensible

This template is being used as a rationale for deleting things, but nowhere in this template does it say that the media which it tags is in violation of any policy. I tried to fix this but was reverted. I discussed this also at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bucharest_Novotel_10.jpg. Someone should add text into this template which clearly states that anything tagged with this template is asserted to be in violation of some policy. Right now, it just gives information but does not itself say what that information has to do with the image which it tags. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow Jameslwoodward, you are a rather forceful person. Care to comment here? Are you protecting this because of me, or because it always should have been protected? Bluerasberry 16:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I protected it because of you. I invited you to comment on changes you would like made -- not to unilaterally make the changes yourself. This template has been in use for eighteen months -- there is nothing about it that requires instantaneous change. That being the case, it is standard Commons practice to discuss changes to templates before making them. That is particularly true of templates that are nominally public, but in practice have only one or two users. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have two issues with your change. The first is that the template is often used in DR closures, to explain our sometimes cryptic noms such as "No FOP in X" to users who seem confused. In that context it is not correct to say "This image is asserted to be in violation of copyright", because, in fact, it has been decided.

The second is that it is too abrupt.

"This image is asserted to be in violation of copyright due to it being a derivative work of a copyrighted work."

DRs are discussions, not assertions. They would much better be titled "Status discussion". Many of us will hang a {{Delete}} on a file when we are uncertain of its status and, in fact, are asserting nothing.

I think we might have a second parameter, so that it could end with either:

"This image may, therefore, infringe on the copyright of the work that is pictured.

or

"This image infringes on the copyright of the work that is pictured."

How does that strike you? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Yes either of those. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)