Commons:Deletion requests/Template:No Facebook
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This template appears to be a recreation of earlier similar templates which have already been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook. AFBorchert (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This might not be untrue – but opinions differ strongly, and I am among those who consider such a restriction tag as useful (see also the Category:Restriction tags for others of that kind). --ProloSozz (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The current consensus (as to be seen in these two DRs) regarding this kind of templates is to not permit them. We must be careful to avoid too much clutter in addition to the standard Creative Commons license templates. Right now there exist different legal opinions whether an upload to Facebook is in conflict with the license or not (see my former statement for the background). A bold statement “It is not permitted to upload this file at Facebook” could be in conflict with the original license template. All this let reusers wonder whether the original license is genuine and dependable. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I really would suggest a template that at least reminds the user that there _might_ (not _is_ or _must_be_) a conflict when uploading to FB or other Social Media. There are pics that are generally not suitable for Social Media – but there are also pics that have special reasons why they really are not allowed to post in SM; for the latter a reminder would be useful – and that would be such a template that clarifies that the pic is not suitable for SM. The form of that template could be something like "be aware to respect copyright when using it in social media" – leaving open whether it is clearly allowed or not allowed. But I see the problem that this would be considered as "it's OK for SM" (what is not meant) ... And that might also be one of the reasons to avoid such templates ... btw: this template was first not a template, but part of another pic; I separated it and made a template out of it. --ProloSozz (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know and right now it is just used for that only one pic: File:Tatra 87 (Foto Hilarmont).JPG. And the wording has not been changed in comparison to the earlier “no facebook” templates. We have a clearly established consensus not to accept such templates and before such a new version of it gets recreated, a new consensus should be found first, possibly with an adapted wording. I think that COM:VP/C is a good place for such a discussion, if this is deemed useful. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I started a discussion about it where you proposed (COM:VP/C) – and ask therefore to not yet delete it until a consensus of that discussion there is found ... --ProloSozz (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- (For the record, that discussion was archived with no else comments) I'd love to not agree with In general, matierial from WP is not to be used in social media because of the population of TikTok, Instagram, Telegram, etc. where their "reproductions" of WP materials are much more easier than traditional social media services (FB, Twitter, Weibo, etc.) so the level of benefits on using WP materials may still different between peoples. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I started a discussion about it where you proposed (COM:VP/C) – and ask therefore to not yet delete it until a consensus of that discussion there is found ... --ProloSozz (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know and right now it is just used for that only one pic: File:Tatra 87 (Foto Hilarmont).JPG. And the wording has not been changed in comparison to the earlier “no facebook” templates. We have a clearly established consensus not to accept such templates and before such a new version of it gets recreated, a new consensus should be found first, possibly with an adapted wording. I think that COM:VP/C is a good place for such a discussion, if this is deemed useful. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case I really would suggest a template that at least reminds the user that there _might_ (not _is_ or _must_be_) a conflict when uploading to FB or other Social Media. There are pics that are generally not suitable for Social Media – but there are also pics that have special reasons why they really are not allowed to post in SM; for the latter a reminder would be useful – and that would be such a template that clarifies that the pic is not suitable for SM. The form of that template could be something like "be aware to respect copyright when using it in social media" – leaving open whether it is clearly allowed or not allowed. But I see the problem that this would be considered as "it's OK for SM" (what is not meant) ... And that might also be one of the reasons to avoid such templates ... btw: this template was first not a template, but part of another pic; I separated it and made a template out of it. --ProloSozz (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The current consensus (as to be seen in these two DRs) regarding this kind of templates is to not permit them. We must be careful to avoid too much clutter in addition to the standard Creative Commons license templates. Right now there exist different legal opinions whether an upload to Facebook is in conflict with the license or not (see my former statement for the background). A bold statement “It is not permitted to upload this file at Facebook” could be in conflict with the original license template. All this let reusers wonder whether the original license is genuine and dependable. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is covered by COM:REUSE. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete this. Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Abusive recreation of deleted template. The deletion was reaffirmed and the request for undeletion was rejected. Make another undeletion request if you have new arguments, but this recreation out of process is not correct. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- What if there was no reason to delete it in the first place? Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates was deleted against a near consensus to keep them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, there are already full of reasons to delete em, don't say "no reason to do sth. like this" anymore, just a-n-y-m-o-r-e.
- Second, most of its "against" comments are to me canvassed (or at least proto-canvassed), that raised a lot of outlandish "hey don't delete my tags because I really love em", "hey facebook always violate my own lifestyles so I need tags to ask em to stop doing so", ... etc. But what happened till now? Facebookers are still, at least they are feel free to, copy-pasting those tagged files without asking first at Commons, some are even having knowledges on refraining from reactions from Commons users: just search their FB accounts and add em to blocklist, so that Commons users are unable to ask copy-ers to stop copy such works as the copy-ers' pages are blocked from viewing. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's almost certainly inaccurate, per meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media. CC works can be uploaded to social media. If e.g. Facebook thinks it violates their terms of use, they can kick the users off for doing so, but that's up to Facebook, and is not a legal issue (and not likely to happen either). It's perfectly legal to upload provided you follow the licenses (i.e. give credit and name the license and provide links). If the prohibition is taken to be part of the actual license, it makes it non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- What if there was no reason to delete it in the first place? Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates was deleted against a near consensus to keep them. Yann (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - This is not the proper venue for this discussion. The correct venue is Commons:Undeletion requests. Nosferattus (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete A proto-G4 case, I will also nominate the other sister tags for deletion as well. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)