Template talk:Orphaned non-free revisions

Date formats

In future edits please use one of the following date formats as implemented by the #time: parser fuction.

{{#time:F j, Y}} → November 17, 2024
{{#time:j F Y}} → 17 November 2024
{{#time:Y-m-d}} → 2024-11-17

Thank you. – Allen4names 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions to administrators

This template's instructions to Administrators make no sense whatsoever. First it says "if the previous version(s) did not satisfy the non-free content criteria...". I presume 99% of the old versions did satisfy the criteria, but don't anymore. Are we supposed to be evaluating the current satisfaction of the criteria for previous versions or the past satisfaction of the criteria? The top part of the template implies current, the instructions to admins says past. Secondly the instructions say that if the previous versions did satisfy the criteria, we're supposed to revert the image to the previous version(s)(?!). This makes no sense. Why would we revert to a previous version just because it satisfies the NFCC? This would mean reverting virtually all non-free images with multiple versions. What would be the point of this? Can someone please clarify what action admins are actually supposed to take in regard to this template? Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 8 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that discussion answers either of my questions. I'm just going to conclude that the current instructions are nonsense and rewrite them myself. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogg

The wording and category use in this template says image, but it is also used for audio/video samples. Perhaps it should be changed? --Cybjit (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done But the the category name still says "image". — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This tag doesn't make a lot of sense

As written, this tag applies to nearly every image on the entire English Wikipedia. If that is the intent, would it not make more sense for this to programatically determined? If nothing else, since deletions are not permanent, just give it to a bot with Administrator privileges, and skip the middle man. Because surely something that applies to nearly every image is being placed not by humans but by a bot. — trlkly 17:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the paragraph that says "Administrators:", Would you add div class=sysop-show? 2602:304:68AD:3220:54C4:7389:89C3:C2A9 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To hide admin notes for non admins, don't forget to add < and > between them. Notice that I'm using a different IP address because my IP addresses above and what I'm using now is in a range. 2602:304:68AD:3220:88A2:9669:138E:11C8 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Why is it necessary to hide all of the administrator notice? If you look at the wikimarkup, the administrator instructions are hidden:

Otherwise, please revert the file back to the last acceptable version. Once you're done, remove this tag. Use "change visibility", checking only the "Delete file content" option, in order to preserve the upload history in the "File history" section. The standard rationale for an orphaned non-free file is F5.

However, the part of the administrator notice that is currently visible is fine. It's often useful if other editors are aware that an administrator may need to be involved in a tagged article to delete prior revisions under the conditions outlined in the template. JustBerry (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Note

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Copyvio-revdel § Note. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 11:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request, May 18, 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Grammar. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blargh, I think this is one of those cases where grammar also has to take into consideration context. "The current version will not be deleted, only previous revisions" is grammatically correct, while "The current version will not be deleted, only previous revision" is not, but when people see "revision(s)" they read it as "revisions", so... the brain takes an ambiguous situation and makes it grammatically acceptable? I'm not sure, not going to close this but I think some discussion is needed (and maybe a cross-post to WP:GOCE). Primefac (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, but consider that adding the article the will make both cases grammatically correct: "The current version will not be deleted, only the previous revision" and "The current version will not be deleted, only the previous revisions". The same thing is done earlier on in the |text= field. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's that big a grammatical error – this template started out with a definite article in 2009 and didn't drop "the" [until June, 2017]. And it's been acceptable since then until now. I see no harm if we include "the" to remove any subgrammatical error in the singular form. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are files under FfD have their older version exempt from deletion?

Hi. I'm here to ask some question regarding relations between FfD and revision removal - are files with FfD status have their older version(s) exempt from deletion? I've seen files with FfD and this tag and confused why discussions are still active, but older revisions started notifying as subjected from removal in (date after a week). Will this case be exempted from revision removal? Kys5g^talk! 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix inconsistency

It says previous versions, then previous revisions. This should be fixed. Kierandude (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for consistency. The cats still use "versions" but I don't feel like changing those since they're hidden. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]