Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

See also: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions

NFCC#9 and templates

I've asked about this a couple of times before at Help talk:Template/Archive 4#Non-free image use and Help talk:Template/Archive 5#Non-free content use, but the threads were archived without ever receiving any response; so, I'm going to bring it up for discussion here. It seems that there should be some guidance somewhere on the main template pages about non-free content use like there is for drafts, talk pages and user pages because the template namespace is also where NFCC#9 violations are often found. It might also be helpful to add such information to H:TQG since the only mention of images on that pages makes it seem as if it's OK to add any image to a template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have always understood that NFCC#9 means that you can't use non-free files in templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my understanding is that non-free content can't be used in the template namespace. Non-free images are allowed in infoboxes (which are technically a type of template) and it might also be possible to use in another type of stand-alone template in which the template's syntax and the image's syntax are directly added to an article. The problem is using non-free content on template pages because that's when the images are likely going to be transcluded onto every page in which the template's syntax is added. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up here is that there doesn't seem to be any guidance at all regarding file/image use WP:TEMPLATE, which means there's no template equivalent to WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts, WP:UP#Non-free files, WP:TPG#Non-free images and WP:UBX#Caution about image use. Templates are perhaps the only way in which a non-free file can end up being used on lots of pages pretty much the minute a non-free image is added to the main template page; so, it seems it might be a good idea to put some information about this somewhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Compared to the other areas, templates are a more advanced feature of editing that I think only mostly experienced editors are involved with, and so they better know the image use policy, and thus doesn't need to be made explicit. --Masem (t) 13:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with such a statement per se, but errors with non-free content related template errors can sometimes be quite hard to sort out. A file directly added to a template page can be removed fairly easy; in some cases though, a template might have a separate data page which contains all the syntax of the files it uses and these can be hard to figure out. A template like {{Jct}}, for example, seems to be used on a huge number of articles and has multiple data sets (including images) that uses Lua modules to populate its parameters for the various articles its used in. Pretty much the only people who know enough to edit such data sets are experienced users, but that doesn't guarantee that they know about NFCC#9. I've come across cases where a non-free image suddenly appears in dozens of articles, but it's really hard to figure out why; it usually turns out to be a case where someone has added a non-free file (e.g. a road sign, a subway line logo) to one of these templates and the cleanup tends to need some very familiar with templates to avoid creating other problems. So, assuming that experienced editors should know better might not be enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

People who edit templates like {{jct}} are likely experienced editors who know the rules, so if there are non-free files there, then the files were probably added to the template by mistake because someone missed that the file was non-free. No warnings will prevent that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I started this discussion to see whether there was any need to add some general guidance about non-free content use to Wikipedia pages related to templates in a similar manner that is already done for talk pages, user pages, drafts, userboxes, etc. I realie that adding such information isn't going to prevent anyone from ever adding a non-free file to a template in the future, but the intent is only to provide some basic information and possible something to link to when it comes to templates regardless of how experienced the editors making such errors might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 7 § File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair use images used in excess in comic articles

I attempted to broach this issue on the WP:COMIC talk page, but no one seemed to respond. I feel as though a lot of comic book characters (and possibly comic topics) use fair use in excess, often using images where the rationale is identical to the lead image. This is usually done to depict each variant of a character. I attempted to remove some images with a poor fair use rationale on the Cheetah (comics) article, but this was disputed. As such, I am hoping to get some resolution and other opinions on this topic. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely not a default position that each iteration of a character design of a notable comic character merits a new NFC image. Only one image is generally allowed for identification, being the lead image, and any other further images need to be justified through a strong rationale of why that image is necessary beyond simply identification. Spider-Man does a good job with only 3 images of the character itself - one lead, one showing the first appearance, and one showing an image that was of critical discussion, all which appear to merit a good minimal set of images. --Masem (t) 20:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Free at Commons , but non-free locally..

I got a note of concern this morning:-

User_talk:ShakespeareFan00#Stop

Abut the apparent over-use of FFD, for what the contributor described as trivial cases, of potentially mistagged non-free file locally.

The reason I was using FFD, was because in the past, I'd been advised not to unilaterally F8, or change local tags, because files that I'd identified as potential F8's of material tagged as non-free locally, had subsequently been identified as problematic on Commons, typically due to threshold of originality concerns, or URAA interactions.

I would be willing to concede that perhaps use of FFD, to pre-confirm an F8 might be seen as some as overly cautious for something most people would consider an obviously text-logo or word-mark however.

So, can there please be clear guidance on when apparently misidentified non-free content licenses can be overridden for F8 when the commons equivalent has been duly marked with a free license?

Alternatively, can we have an agreed policy between Commons and English Wikipedia, that anything that's tagged as non-free on English Wikipedia, gets a DR raised at Commons to resolve the licensing conflict (irrespective of the license tag at Commons.)?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Per our exchange on your talk page, I've simply asked you to make the necessary edits to fix erroneously tagged free files you've been finding. Many of these are clear cut cases with simple resolution, virtually none of which will benefit from discussion at FfD. You've been editing for over a decade, and have been working with images/copyright for almost as long. So yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to expect that you have a solid grasp of our policies and the applicable copyright laws. Be WP:BOLD, fix the errors you see, and if you really are stumped (even after taking the time to properly research), then ok, send the file to FfD. -FASTILY 09:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, Fastily, I partially agree with ShakespeareFan00 here. Copyright is really, really complicated and Commons is full of files that get uploaded by newcomers who don't understand the half of it. Take Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 September 11#File:1st seap games.png, while I have some knowledge of copyright I initially got it wrong anyway. ShakespeareFan00, can you ping me on these? File:Is she not passing fair song by Elgar cover 1908.jpg and File:In the Dawn song by Elgar cover 1902.jpg were deleted as F8 and this seems to be a problem. I highly doubt the cover was designed by Edward Elgar and it is definitely beyond the UK TOO. In addition, the Commons file uploaded by Brunokito appears to be DatBot's non-free reduce. It's PD-USOnly anyway — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that (as I'm understanding it):

1. SF00 finds a en.wiki upload that is essentially the same as a commons upload
2. SF00 is tagging it for FFD to get it deleted though begs the question if it is really "free" (which is a fair question)
3. Fastily is pointing out that there is a CSD for duplicate files (F8) that should be evoked instead, regardless of questions of copyright of the commons version.

If this is the issue at hand, then I think what SF00 should be doing if they have questions on the freeness of the image is not to raise that matter here at en.wiki but to question it at commons. That is, check to see if the commons image has had discussion on whether it passes TOO or not. (as commons images are not checked until actually pointed out if they may be a problem or not) If it has (and determined to not pass TOO and thus valid at commons), then the dup en.wiki image should be F8 tagged. Otherwise, then a commons XFD for the image should be started there as they have a better sense of what is the TOO they will accept. And then based on that result, take action here at en.wiki - if the commons image is kept, then tag the en.wiki image as F8 duplicate; if the commons image is deleted, then make sure the image on en.wiki is properly tagged with the right license that reflects what Commons may have determined. --Masem (t) 14:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm asking for at all, especially not the blind application of F8 tags. The crux of the issue is simple: I observed ShakespeareFan00 going through Wikipedia:Database reports/Local files with a duplicate on Commons and carpet bombing FfD with lazy/low quality nominations that highlight issues which are easy to fix (e.g. a free file mistakenly labeled as non-free). I've asked ShakespeareFan00 to be WP:BOLD (i.e. "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.") and resolve the issues instead of hiding behind a "lack of competence", jumping straight to FfD, and hoping someone else will resolve it. I can't say I'm happy about this, because it's resulting in a non-trivial amount of extra cleanup work for the few admins keeping the FfD backlog under control. To be clear, I'm not seeking sanctions/restrictions against ShakespeareFan00, but I do want to see them engaging in increased due diligence and putting in genuine effort to resolve errors before jumping straight to FfD. I don't think this is an unreasonable ask, and it would definitely go a long way towards keeping our file backlogs/processes manageable. -FASTILY 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem:, You are arguing for priority of a discussion at Commons? I can agree with that, although sometimes the pace of DR's at Commons is a lot slower than FFD (sigh :( ). There used to be a template {{maybe free media}}, which avoided an FFD, but flagged a file as needing a more detailed examination, perhaps that template could be restored? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_8 for the rationale behind its previous restoration. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think that there's an image that is at Commons that shouldn't be at Commons because it is beyond TOO, that's where the issue should be raised, but I see from Fastily's reply that's the exception to the issue here. I see now that most of the cases are simply where the Commons file is not in question and thus we just need to quickly deal with the duplicate on en.wiki, which doesn't require FFD, just an F8 or other simple fix. FFD is a resource waser, F8 or fixing it yourself is not. --Masem (t) 12:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ShakespeareFan00. I think FFD should be limited to possibly contentious cases where their might actually be some benefit to further discussing things; so, in a sense, it's sort of the last option when everything else fails. Commons files can't really be resolved here; we can give opinions and make suggestions, but the issues will need to be resolved over on Commons. For Wikipedia files which seem to have dopplegangers over on Commons, maybe trying discussing them at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC (if non-free) or even c:COM:VPC first when you're not sure what to do would be a good idea just to get some input from others. You could even try asking a specific editor or admin who seems to be knowlegable about files or does lots of work with files for feedback as well. In some cases, WP:CSD#Files or WP:PROD may apply or the issues might be able to be otherwise WP:BOLDly resolved. Bringing things like this to FFD won't lead to the end of the world, but it can help increase the already existing backlog of discussions waiting to be resolved for the handful of admins trying to keep things under control; so, perhaps trying something else first to see if things can be reolved that way would be a better approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)