Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Non-free content

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Konstable (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 17 July 2007 (→Non-free Government: learning council template deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

For the purposes of consistency and automated identification, all non-free images on English Wikipedia must be directly tagged with a template that begins with the prefix "Non-free". This will enable automated tools to detect such images by matching on the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free" or by consulting the templatelinks table in the database. Machine readability is required by the Wikimedia foundation licensing policy.

This page is an automatically updated list of templates which are used on media to indicate a non-free status.

Currently this page is being used to host information about the current project to rename these templates for the purpose of machine readability. Once this task is completed the page will be repurposed to document all of the non-free templates on the project.


Done

A list of templates that have been completely moved to the new naming style, including fixing all of the template text on the images themselves.

Screenshots

Identifying marks

Copyrighted Products / Covers

Posters

Generic promotional materials

Art / Historic images

No longer used but kept around

TFD Pending

Bot ready

Discussion

General

I think these should be orthogonal to licensing. In other words, none of these templates should be considered a statement regarding licensing. Content with one of these templates needs to have another (non-free) template that sets forth the actual licensing conditions on the content. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well thats explictly the purpose of allowed in. I only added the reasoning stuff today.. perhaps I should take that out? The purpose of allowedin is access control... and nothing else really. But I do want people signing the entries to keep track of who authorized the use. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least all of the above should be merged into one, no point in 5 different templates now that we have optional parameters and parserfunctions in our template arsenal. --Sherool (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've added support for multiple parameters in {{fair use in}} and redirected the others and theyr various redirects to it. Now we just have to figure out what to rename it to. --Sherool (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like replacing these with allowedin, but will that be retroactive? This isn't something a bot can do unless we're ok with some not having inline reasons. This is an improvement because I think it makes it clear that it isn't a license tag, but it could be quite a project. - cohesion 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't rely agree with the statement that these are not license tags. They are sure intended to be license tags and have been used as such for quite a while, and I don't rely see the problem as long as they have source and fair use rationales in order. Turning these into pure "access control" templates (meaning that any image tagged only with these would basicaly be considered untagged and subject to deletion) would IMHO be quite a big deal. Not saying it's nessesarily a bad idea, but if we just go and do it without some significant debate/warning beforehand you just know it's gonna turn into another one of those firestorms of controversy. Let's at least finish the fairly uncontroversial renamings and mergers first. --Sherool (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Sherool. Incidentally, does {{allowedin}} work? --Iamunknown 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should replace them with non-free allowed in and add a generic FU template.. that doesn't imply that we'll start auto-deleting based on allowed in use without a lot more time and work. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No because that would be too close to traditional NC. The whole point of the tag name is that you can only use it if there is also a legit fair use claim.Geni 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a {{non-commercial}} tag that specifies that it is considered a non-free license on Wikipedia, and that if a proper image license tag isn't given the image should be deleted. There are images licensed under both (either) the GFDL and cc-by-nc, so that a reuser can choose which license to use. Other images are cc-by-nc, but can be used here as an allowed non-free image. And others should be deleted. It seems to me that a single tag, {{non-commercial}}, should be usable in all three cases: with a {{GFDL}} tag, with an {{allowedin}} tag, or with a {{db}} tag. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the most generic non-free one we have {{fair use}} and some other big ones redirect here. Not the best solution, but this tag is used a lot. Category:Fair use tag needs updating. - cohesion 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we move it to {{Non-free}}? --- RockMFR 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon

Do we really need so many pokemon templates? In addition to all the generic ones which might apply (character, video game, card, comic, etc..) there are at least 9 others. Are they redundant? --Gmaxwell 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video game screenshots

Video game screenshots were all upmerged into the game screenshot template and given a category. Old discussion can be found here.

Other screenshots

Covers

Does the fair use justification for covers ever really differ? --Gmaxwell 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could have {{non-free product cover|cereal}}. This would be really great because we wouldn't have to remember which templates are hyphenated, which have no spaces, and which have spaces! - cohesion 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, we should probably standardize all these, game screenshots, covers etc in the same way, whatever is decided above. - cohesion 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should standarise in way that stops people thinking that just because we have a category called X that all Xes are fine. As we don't generally have articles for DVDs, TIME magazine issues and the like their obliteration may be useful.. Secretlondon 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly supporting the integration, unification and simplification, especially in license policy, especially for newbies. Alex Spade 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think more of these should be consolidated. I don't see how an album cover, book cover, DVD cover, or videogame cover are at all different in regards to fair use. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why just covers? What about a photo of a page of a book used to illustrate the page layout and general appearance?

Logos

Does our justification for logos differ so much that we need 23 templates? --Gmaxwell 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. For the templates that are for the school logos, maybe rename them to {{non-free-education-logo}}. This includes K-12, Preschooling, universities, colleges, school baords, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think mostly they are useful to diffuse categories (same with the other sections). --Iamunknown 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO we should roll all these into {{logo}} (or I guess {{Non-free logo}}) and just throw in some parserfunctions if wording needs to be changed for scertain parameters. So use would be for example {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|olympics}} etc. Would be trivial for a bot or gang of AWB users to convert the existing templates into such a scheme. As a bonus we could easily get statistics on all logo types via whatlinkshere regardles of how they are categorized. --Sherool (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction, that'd be {{Non-free logo|radio}}, etc. --Cyde Weys 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, an end goal is that someone can always tell if an image is unfree by checking the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free". Cutting down on the proliferation will make life easier, but once they are all prefixed with non-free at least we'll be able to find the darn things. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with reduceing the number of templates is that the catigories become imposible to manage which is why the fair use wikiproject split everything up in the first place.Geni 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, they split them up so they could have a fair use justification which made sense for the content... If we just want to keep the categories small we could use parserfunctions to use a single template but split up the categories randomly. In any case, the practice of using templates like this isn't working for splitting things up.. We have templates like logo with over 60k things in it then ones like MPAA-logo with 8 things in them, in effect the split up hides some of the content. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep all the category divisions (if they make sense, this might be a good time to review some of the less used ones), and even special wording if warranted. As mentioned above users would just enter {{Non-free logo|sports}} instead of {{Sports-logo}}, the template would be a great deal more complex behind the scenes with all the parserfunctions, but we will hopefully not have to edit it too much once it's up and running. --Sherool (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
should also be noted that there are a number of copyright free logos in {{Logo}} simply because sorting out the trademark issues was too much work.Geni 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a problem I've been trying to correct now. I've been finding government logos, trivial logotypes, and freely licenced logos all carrying the non-free logo tag. People should really be careful to use the appropriate copyright tag. The {{Trademark}} tag can also be added. nadav 11:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posters

Politician photos

Why would our fair use claim depend on the country the subject lives in? --Gmaxwell 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine its mostly to diffuse the categories; so, to answer your question, the country is irrelevant. --Iamunknown 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people really want to keep them all I'd survive.. but I'd much rather see people doing {{Dutch-politician}}+{{Non-free public person image}} or + {{Non-free politician image}} .. or just apply the category directly plus a non-free template. As things stand what do we put on a free image of a Dutch politican? problably Dutch-politician-photo ... which is completely broken. ;) --Gmaxwell 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to separate source tags from license tags. And now since we are re-designing the system, I say we do that. (I.e. I like your idea.) I'd prefer not even have a "Non-free public person image" tag, but if it is necesssary, then I concede. --Iamunknown 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most of these images fail the first criteria, in that they only show what the person looks like and a free photo could be taken to replace them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think that we should not move these to the new Non-free prefix yet; instead, go through the images and try to find free replacements, tag the images for speedy deletion, etc.; and then put the image copyright tags up for deletion. These tags IMO suggest that we accept without hesitation non-free media of living people, which we don't. If a non-free picture of a living person must be used, it should use {{fair use in}} (or whatever that tag is changed to) and have a very strong fair use rationale; a blanket tag would be inappropriate. --Iamunknown 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, they're inconsistent, some have wording about only using it for dead people, some are missing that. I'd recommend replacing the live ones with Image:Replace this image1.svg and the dead ones with a specific tag and rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic stuff

  • Perhaps we should take one of these and rename it to "comic artwork" and upmerge all of them to it? Looking at them they are all making the same fair use argument .. I don't know if the panel vs scene web vs not-web is a material distinction for us from a licensing perspective. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not from a licensing perspective there are other reasons why we would want the stuff sorted.Geni 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a part of this effort. Separating licensing issues from attribution issues from content issues. Mak (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that some of these are pretty much exact duplicates and apply the same cats... I don't mind if people keep around an excessive number of the templates (since soon we'll at least know that they are all non-free).. but I don't want to do so unless someone really wants us to and can articulate a need. --Gmaxwell 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about upmerging all to {{Non-free comic}} for now, and then possibly upmerge to a more general non-free tag later? --Cyde Weys 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think having a distinct template for comics isn't too bad, but having seven probably is... Your suggestion is file with me. --Gmaxwell 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an issue with the conversion of the tags related to comics. The special page Special:Uncategorizedimages has been flooded with comic related images that have the correct tag, but are missing a category.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icons

Character art

I fail to see how Character-artwork and CopyrightedCharacter are significantly different to justify separate templates. --Iamunknown 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the disney one can probably be merged with the general artwork one. The last one seems to be intended for figurines and action figures more than drawings. Might warrante a seperate tag, or maybe lump in with non-free 3D objects ... --Sherool (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free Government

Money and postage stamps

Unsorted

Format is *CurrentTemplate - ProposedNewName.

random break 1

random break 2

random break 3

random break 4

Other non-free templates

  • {{CopyrightedFreeUse-User}}
    • How the hell do either of these qualify as non-free? Only if the specific conditions overstep the bounds of what restrictions they allow is it non-free. The second is essentially a PD release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See TfD for more information, the text of license was changed without notice of authors. For example, if somebody change GFDL-text to CC-BY-text in GFDL-templates, he will be named as Vandal. Alex Spade 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First you must realize that they did not spend most of their life with this language.. people changed them willynilly several times. So we must consider the old language and because 'use' is not conventionally understood to allow derivative works or transferable redistribution rights (i.e. I can give it to you and you can give it to bob). I guess with the language of these templates, we could probably argue that we have the second of the two.. but the derivative works issue is harder. Really, I think if we look we'll find that a lot of these claims are totally bogus, at least thats what we find on commons. We should probably make a long term move to phase out these templates if we can.--Gmaxwell 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • it seems to have been phrased to allow modification since april 2005, so I don't think we can claim that's really being added ex post facto. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{GFDL-invariants}} Invariant sections are nonfree and the gfdl is a terrible license that you should never use for anything as it fails to protect the freedoms it is intended to and instead is a vehicle for the FSF's own agenda and soapboxing. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{GFDL-self-invariants}} as above. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I think invariants are good, or that we should accept them.. but they aren't much harm from the freedom perspective: The GFDL puts a lot of weird stipulations on invariants to keep them from being used to really reduce the freedom of the document. For example, they can only be documents which describe the relationship of the author to the work, they can't be about the subject of the work themselves. The only purpose of the sections, really, was so that the FSF could require that folks who distribute the GNU manuals also distribute the GNU manifesto. Which isn't really that bad.. it's better than putting the manifesto in the license itself. --Gmaxwell 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of these are used to attach invariant sections to any images, so we'd probably be best off just deleting them to simplify things.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-patent}} - free at many cases, but not at all

What are we thinking about this? In some case patent is PD, in other is copyrighted. How can new ordinary user understand, does image (which he want to load or to use) free or not? The same problem was with {{PD-USGov-NARA}}, which is now on TfD. Alex Spade 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot additions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content/templates&oldid=145125949"