Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

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

Check this out

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for upload § William Shatner NS-18 personal mission patch. Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Don't know

Template:Don't know has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file license template -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:License change

Template:License change has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. This is a file licensing information template -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

EFN on recently deceased persons

@Masem: The explanatory note you tried to add here regarding the use of non-free images of recently deceased persons was not being displayed because you forgot to add the template {{notelist}} to tell the software where to display the note. The note marker was visible, but clicking on it led to nowhere. One way to resolves this would be to add a completely separate "Notes" section to the article or to add the notelist template to very end of the WP:NFC#UUI section. The former would cover the entire article if any more notes are subsequently added, but the latter would only cover only up to the end of the UUI section. While I understand what you're trying to do and why, I'm not sure an efn is the best way to do so given the way that other "notes" are added throughout the article. I think it would be better to (1) add any such note to item 10 of WP:NFCI just like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and (2) format it the same way as the other notes in the article. The note will then show up like the rest in WP:NFC#References as WP:NFC#cite_note-5. Of course, this means the current "cite_note-5" and everything that comes after it will need to be checked for any broken links, but I don't think those particular notes are often referenced as much as notes 3 and 4 in image related discussions.

I'm also not too sure about the wording of the note. I understand it's impossible to cover all possible cases in such a note, but it seems to be mainly applicable to newly created articles about recently deceased persons in which a non-free image is used from the get-go. Someone who might not otherwise have a Wikipedia article dies and their death gets lots of news coverage; so, someone goes ahead and creates an article about the deceased and adds an non-free image because they think it's automatically OK to do so. Of course, they might've been working on a draft version of the article for quite some time and were actually looking for free images, but I would venture that in many cases creating the article is a spur of the moment decision. In such a case, your choice of wording seems perfectly applicable (at least the first sentence does). However, there might be cases where an article about someone has existed for years and there has been an ongoing search for a free image for quite some time. Then, the person dies and now a non-free image technically becomes OK to use. I see these as two different cases to which your note might not apply equally as well. I don't know if there's a way to write a note to cover both these cases in one brief fell swoop, but I think an effort should be made to try if a note is going to be the way to try and clarify this part of the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless we do an RFC, using a footnote to describe practice that is otherwise undocumented is probably the best place to start. We have too many editors question about this concept of "no non-frees immediately after death" despite generally being upheld at FFDs, so we have at least something to point to. As to wording, people reading the language explicitly or to the letter aren't following the idea that guidelines are meant to suggestion and describe practice but aren't to be taken literally. --Masem (t) 20:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A footnote might best option as you say, but the one you added had syntax issues so it wasn’t working as intended. Instead of using the {{efn}} template, try formatting the note with ref tags. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Clip transcoding and minimal use

We often have done our best to make audio and video files smaller and inferior to their original versions per WP:NFCC#3b. The transcoding can help readers upload a file in a different format, especially in case that a format is incompatible with a device. However, it also results in larger sizes than their original counterparts. For example, File:Law And Order theme.ogg and File:YMO - Firecracker.ogg are in small sizes in ogg format, yet the transcoding makes their mp3 counterparts larger in size than they should be. Furthermore, the bit rates of mp3 transcoded files are also higher than those of original ones. I would try to downgrade the quality of an original file, but that would also affect the audio quality. (I previously discussed maintaining audio quality within fair use limits at WP:MCQ.) --George Ho (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The file size itself is something we don't consider in NFC, it's the net length of the audio or video clip relative to the whole work. So if an encoding of a 10sec clip in mp3 comes out 20 times larger than the same 10 second clip in ogg, that's fine; we're looking at that 10 seconds (max for audio clip) and that a lower quality encoding was used for both the ogg and mp3. (This would also apply to images : a 300x300 photograph encoded in jpg will likely come out several times larger in png, but from NFC, it's the same amount of information and thus fine.). --Masem (t) 19:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

If you extend your argument to uncompressed audio formats, your notional 10-second clip is now an exact representation of the non-free content. I don't think that was ever intended here. I think it's clear that our minimal use policy is more than just the shorter duration. A range of reduced audio qualities is available to us; we certainly should not use stereo CD quality of 1411 kbps, but exactly how much less is what George Ho is asking.

I think a file size of 17.6 kb per 1 second of audio is of sufficiently reduced quality. A 30-second file would thus be 528 kb in size. Or if the program material is mono, then half that size. Compared to the 176.4 kilobyte size of 1 second of the uncompressed stereo source material, the reduced size of 17.6 is one-tenth the resolution of the original. If we adopted that system, then our non-free files would be one-tenth the duration (maximum 30 seconds) and one-tenth the audio resolution (maximum 528 kb). It would make sense to people trying to get their heads around the system. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Our NFC on audio is clear that we should always encode and encode to a substandard quality - enough to still hear what is intended but will be an afront to audiophiles. So yes, one could have a large audio file that is uncompressed, unencoded at the original audio quality but that fails policy immediately. I just think that we don't really incorporate the file size in bytes of the non-free media into NFC policy as long as the media is "reduced size" which for audio size would be encoded at a sub-standard quality. Because the algorithms are different we know that ogg and mp3 will come out to different sizes for the same sub-standard quality encoding, but both would be legitimate NFC uses. Now that said, it would probably be good to advise editors that a good encoded audio file will likely come out near X kb/sec of length (give or take), so that they know if they have encoded properly. --Masem (t) 16:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I recently added info about the transcoding in MOS:SAMPLE in hopes to help editors/uploaders decide how much "reduced quality" to produce. --George Ho (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this how it works?

I'm confused @Masem: has added a footnote with no evidence of support and no mention of any consensus. Is this the state of this guideline that you can just add whatever you think would be a good idea? Surely if we allow that then it become valueless? Can Masem please remove the footnote and explain the consensus that this change represents and the consensus behind it (I habe heard this mythical "policy" before). Obviouly if we don't load fair use images until at least we have the permission of their great great grandchildren then we will offend even less people. This policy reflects an understanding of international law. Our current loader asks when the person died and takes no action whatsover if you put in today's date. That is the currect policy IMO. Victuallers (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Due to concerns above, I reverted the footnote addition made by Marchjuly and Masem, which was discussed by both of them at #EFN on recently deceased persons. Oh, has anyone forgotten the failed RFC proposal I made several years ago? George Ho (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC); (amended per statement below), 21:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the footnote George Ho; I did discuss it, but I didn't add it. I actually hid the footnote because of syntax issues and also I have no problem with it being removed altogether to see if a consensus can be established. So, please correct your above post accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw your edits there; I just prematurely assumed. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem, Marchjuly, and Victuallers: Shall I start an RFC on adding the footnote that I removed? --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't think that's one of the questions that needs to be asked at this point. I think there are two things that need to be clarified if this issue is ever going to be resolved. The first one is whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary indentification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death. The second one is the meaning of "article about that person". I don't think there's any point in trying to resolve anything use until these things are clarified. The first one is basically a "yes" or "no" question. If the consensus is yes, then the "when" part of the equation has been pretty much answered and the rest of FREER can be applied as always. If the consensus is "no", then the conditions for such non-free use can then be sorted out. The second question is needed to determine whether "article about that person" only means stand-alone biography article about said person, or whether it includes articles which contain content about said person. I know that many may feel these things are already covered by the current guideline, but there seems to substantial disagreement on the interpretation of things that perhaps further clarification is needed like is done for WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. Any clarification can then be added as a "footnote" without needing to change any of the current wording. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As you've been advised in multiple places Victuallers, the guideline is very clear here, footnote or otherwise. It states "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". Many prominent individuals who have photos all over the internet and on sites like Flickr are exactly those who we should not be uploading non-free images of within moments of their death. Indeed, your own recent experience has demonstrated that even just a moderate amount of effort expended results in an improvement to Wikipedia and no fear of fair use infringement. As an admin, however, you need to reappraise yourself of the difference between guidelines and policies here, and also re-read the fair use criteria which are very clear. I'm not even sure why you think the "loader" (sic) is relevant here? That's a red herring designed to undermine the very clear fair use criteria and we should discount it with prejudice. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Just because the evidence doesnt suit your view, it doesnt make it a red herring. within moments of their death sounds very emotive and after taking away the hyperbole then that is exactly when peoples biographies are updated in the real world. To embroider around "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" is not the way we work. It means what it says. Claims I have read of "months of hard work", "six months" etc are just ambitious proposals and they do not create or even change the guidelines (as evidenced by the "loader" (sic) which asks if the photo is acceptable as "fair use" - it asks if the photo is of someone who is dead and then asks when did they die? and then ..... it loads it. It obviously is not aware that it is just a red herring. In fact it is the very embodiment of the policy we are discussing. Victuallers (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)