Template talk:Non-free reduced

message: Is it possibe to obtain a broad consensus on the size limit before enforcing some arbitrary, personnal and fluctuent ones? The day there will be a jursiprudence on what exact image size is fair use, wikipedia could resize all the images by a bot. --Marc Lacoste 17:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While no hard-and-fast rule exists on this yet, I see that the fair use definition of "low resolution" offers this guidance: "if the image cannot be displayed at full size on the image description page, it is probably too big".  Non-free images exceeding this size should very probably be tagged and reduced; however... I see many images smaller than this are also being tagged, which seems unnecessary.  (Example: :Image:3-D Docking Mission.png, a 560x384 pixel game screenshot.)  So at least for now, I'd suggest that tagging be limited to those images exceeding the thumbnail rule — it's a clearer, more objective limit that the vague "not small enough" rule that seems to be in use now.  Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there's further discussion, going forward, I will assume that images reduced to 300px will meet the guidelines, as any smaller than that it would be difficult to tell what the image actually is.  If you have another number in mind, please provide your justification.  AkankshaG (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the scanned original is particularly large, the size of the reduced copy may not need to be as small. An absolute size criterion of 300px may not be appropriate. The current criterion reads: "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). " If the reduced-resolution copy could not reasonably be used for making a counterfeit copy of the original, and is readily recognized as a lower quality image, perhaps this is sufficient to meet the criterion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  consensus on size limit 

message: Would there be any way to automatically create a list or category for images being used under fair use that have a size above some threshold?  That way, it could be much easier to identify images that may need to be scaled down (though not automatically since I'm sure there are exceptions).  —ShadowHalo 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without either specific Mediawiki support, or a full database dump and a whole lot of time.  Querying for image size is easy, but there's nothing in the database to easily determine whether an image is free or not.  About the closest we currently come is Special:Imagelist, sorted by (file, not spatial) size. —Cryptic 03:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic tagging 

message: Is there an equivalent template for non-free files that are not images? I need to use one in cases where a user has uploaded the full version of a copyrighted song then reduced it to a sample in compliance with music fair-use guidelines. For the moment I will just use this template until something better turns up. Road Wizard (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free files? 

message: The symbol originally used in this box implies that the image is still in violation of our rules, which is no longer the case after the image has been reduced.  To alleviate this confusion, I have removed the 'warning' symbol, and replaced it with a more appropriate symbol to the Admin to 'sweep' the server space and remove the prior images.  AkankshaG (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed warning symbol 

message: Many people add this template directly instead of by substing , and therefore several images tagged months ago look like they were tagged today. Is there something that can be added to bring up a warning to say the date hasn't been included? AnemoneProjectors 02:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has just been brought to my attention and I'm thinking this most recent edit to the template may have something to do with the dates continually being reset. Perhaps it should be reverted? — ξxplicit 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll undo it and we can assess the template's behavior for changes. The user that made the change is on a long term vacation. Dawnseeker2000  04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the template, with timestamp, to :File:Kellypogo4366.jpg and :File:Pogokelly030864.jpg, and it says "Error: Invalid time". Why, and how can we fix it? Pais (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've fixed it. I've never used this much template syntax before... -- John of Reading (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've fixed it too. At least those two images are now showing their timestamp correctly. Pais (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: I think that this template should probably include a link to an appropriate talk page where editors who wish to discuss its addition to a particular file page can do so. Or at least some guidance as to which which talk page would be appropriate. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to a Talk page for discussing the addition of this template to specific files