Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/templates

message: someone needs to update MediaWiki:Licenses
:Fixed stamp, I think that's the only one that is wrong now? - cohesion 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

message: As I understand we are here to make Wikipedia's use of non-free content machine readable.  Any content license that in a way that restricts any one of the four freedoms   is classified as the same: non-free.  Should we, however, provide additional tags for images which are licensed under a "less" non-free license?  That is, should we delete , ,  and instead replace them with whichever  template is appropriate?  I see benefit for downstream users in classifying images more precisely according to their licenses.  It is, however, no benefit for us and, arguably, we should not need to concern ourselves with it.  Thoughts?  --Iamunknown 19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn I thought I replied here before, but I guess I didn't save it.  My only view on this matter is that we need to avoid creating the appearance that we consider such releases an improvement, and of course, that the additional templates are named with the non-free prefix so we can find the darn things. :) --Gmaxwell 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: exists to stop people taging the darn things with an NC tag as well as a fair use tag. It is also useful in that it allows us to keep tack of the NC stuff people want to use in case someone forgets about the NC clause.Geni 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On tagging - solely for our benefit or also for downstream users? 

message: So what is the plan for the redirects? Just keep them around for a while and then delete when people seems to no longer use them? Personaly I think converting them to "soft redirects" with a message along the lines of "to ensure machine readability of non-free image tags please use  instead" in some suitable "warningy" box. Categorize as superceted tags/historic or whatever and protect. If we just delete them there is a high risk of recreation, and the explanation would help educating people who do not understand why we could not just leave the redirects as they where. --Sherool (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we have a bot running for a while quickly converting them to the correct template it doesn't much matter.  I like the idea of leaving them be and only deleting them when they are finally dead.  --Gmaxwell 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: exeperence with getting people to stop useing other templates suggests that a firm "stop useing this" will be required.Geni 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already seen 2 people revert cydebot with edit summaries indicating they were confused. I can't find them now, but they were new users... So yes, we will need something. - cohesion 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for a rather extream example  should never have been used by people but it had been from time to time until I turned it into a message saying "don't use this".Geni 15:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the redirects 

message: I think we should probably have a centralized discussion about the merits of tags that categorize versus tags per rationale. It's the subject of a lot of discussion on the front page, and it affects a lot of templates, so. What do people think? The two extremes are  or  maybe with categories. Or the "Iamunknown" option of having specialized templates that pull content from a single centralized standard template, but allow inclusion of specific categories. (I personally lean towards that). - cohesion 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization vs per rationale tags 

message: I asked some time ago on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and got no answer, and I went ahead with a decision of my own, but I'd like to see if anyone here has any thought - what tag should be used for a picture of an organisation's mascot? Example: :Image:Animania mascots.png. I finally chose (what used to be) , but I was wavering between that, something like , and something more generic. Thoughts? Confusing Manifestation 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, sorry for asking this while the page is still more working on adding the "non free" tag and not on the general concept of the templates. Confusing Manifestation 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, WP:CSD#I7 spesificaly mention "Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a  tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time.(...)". So tagging such photos with the "logo" template is probably not advicable... I actualy think  is the best fit for things like mascots (I think a macot costume could fit into the "(...)other three-dimensional work of art(...)" criteria, though the tag could maybe be made more generic to cover all photos of 3 dimentional copyrighted works (so everyting from statues, action figures, and people dressed up as Darth Vader and what not), rater than focusing purely on statues as it does now... --Sherool (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that not all mascots are like sporting mascots, where the (or at least a) main depiction is in the form of a person in a costume. For a lot of organisations, the mascot appears only as a drawn character, usually cartoon-like. For examples, see the Animania mascots linked above, the Linux mascot Tux, or even our own (kind of semi-unofficial) mascots like Wikipede and Miwiki at Wikipedia:Mascot and Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. So  isn't going to cut it. I'm pretty sure fair use would cover them, since there's no free alternative (even if someone else drew them, it would be a derivative piece of fanart and hence a copyvio in itself). Confusing Manifestation 00:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Tux and Wikipe-tan are both free licensed so we should not be mixing them in with non-free licensed regardles of how we tag them. As for non-free 2D mascots I think the "Character artwork" tag covers that nicely. We should just tweak it's text slightly to either mention mascots too, or generalise it to just say "illustration of a copyrighted fictional character" or some such. --Sherool (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, I should have clarified that I specifically didn't mention Tux and Wikipe-tan in my original statement for that very fact. So, guess I'll go for a modified Character artwork tag. Confusing Manifestation 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot template? 

message: Is it realy needed? This prefix is complicating the memorization of templates' names. This will enable automated tools to detect such images by ... "\{\{[Nn]on-free" What's the problem in detecting such images? For example, in Ru-Wiki there is category :ru:Category:Изображения:Добросовестное использование:Все (all fair-use images), where FU-license tags duplicate the FU-imges, and bots are working with this category, not with templates. Alex Spade 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, see above in my rant to PFC. Also, putting it in the tags helps educate people... Once they all have it it should take very little work to remember (all non-free tags begin with non-free, which also helps you find them in special:allpages). For those who don't want to memory ANYTHING, the upload form dropdown has options for the templates. Since we can now make more upload forms on enwiki we could expand the selector to support all approved tags if we wanted to.--Gmaxwell 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actualy Special:Prefixindex/Template:Non-free makes ie even easier, unlike Special:Allpages it will only list the ones that start with Non-free :D --Sherool (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome tip.  I'll have to remember it.  And in response to the original parent: yes, this is necessary.  I don't think it complicates anything because having "Non-free" at the beginning of every template name only requires the memorization of a single new rule.  --Cyde Weys 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-free prefix 

message: I just ran through this strange variation of promophoto: . Is it really needed? --Abu badali (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:HelloProject-Photo]] 

message: There are many categories (~250) that are using . Some of the transclusions will have to be updated, for obvious reasons. --- RockMFR 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen cydebot run around changing links to the templates on talk pages and such so I asume it will get around to updating these too in due time... --Sherool (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Image template notice 

message: User:ESkog is thinking about removing the standard rationale from the non-free templates, and is requesting input here. His thinking is that since we require a real rationale we shouldn't include a partial rationale in the template itself. Thoughts? - cohesion 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have said that in 1/10th the words. ;)   The "boilerplate" reasonings are often abused really badly, but as Yonatan says they do have some use. We should find the middle path. --Gmaxwell 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I seem to have a habit of overelaborating. :P Yonatan talk 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input request 

message: Categorization for the subcategories of :Category:Webcomic media have been broken by the move to , which does not cover webcomics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  you broke our categorization 

message: Are instances of the  automatically ? Was wondering specifically about this one. It seems like it should be , although not PD worldwide. Gimmetrow 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if someone have incorectly tagged a PD artwork with the fair use "art" tag then the bot will not fix this. It just renames the tag, hopeully the new name will help avoid people applying it incorectly in the future. --Sherool (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Art template 

message: ... as to why the various specific tags are being upmerged to a single non-informative tag, rather than simply moved to "Non-free [old title]."  Is there a rationale for this? -- Visviva 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fewer templates makes it easier to maintain and keep track of them, also these are copyright tags, not "images related to <foo>" tags. For free licenses and public domain images it makes sense to create "source based" tags (to make people know we can find more free images at said source or just for attribution purposes) but even there we don't have "by subject" tags, "GFDL sport images", "CC-BY-SA images of cars" etc would make little sense, just like there is no point in seperating between non-free screenshots from a Wii game and a Commodore 64 game, it's all just non-free screenshots. Any extra categorisation should be done manualy independanty of the copyright status (though mixing free and non-free images in the same cat should generaly be avoided). --Sherool (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But just as the source or nature of the work may affect the grounds for believing something to be GFDL/PD/etc., so may the source and nature of a work impact the grounds for believing its use to be fair.  My comment was is particularly in reference to  ... for 99% of these it would be possible to write a standard fair-use rationale right into the template (although I realize it's not considered kosher to do so):  something like "official low-resolution logo of X, retrieved from official website of X, used to illustrate the article on X.  As a unique and possibly trademarked work, cannot be replaced.  Does not compete with X's use, as X's use of this symbol is not commercial." ... or something of that nature.  I'm not an FU expert, but this seems like useful information. -- Visviva 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am rather puzzled... 

message: Could you please make a new template, say "non-free seal" for government seals? The uploader has been edit warring with your bot, and I agree they have a point, government seals are not really the same as organization logos. -Nard 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Seal of Freetown, Massachusetts.gif]]