Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marchjuly (talk | contribs) at 05:28, 6 November 2024 (→Spoken word non-free audio files: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-free content page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fair use (inactive) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use Images and Media (inactive) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

Non-free no reduce

While looking at some newly uploaded images, I came across File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg and saw that it was tagged with {{Non-free no reduce}}. It seems a bit odd that an image used in a biography article like Oscar S. Adams needs to be so large given that default width for most infobox images is much smaller. So, I replaced the "non-free no reduce" template with a "non-free reduce" template. I then decided to take a look at some of the other images uploaded by the same uploader to see whether this was just a one off type of thing. It seems that two other files uploaded by the same uploader (File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg and File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg) have been tagged with "Non-free no reduce" as well. FWIW, I'm quite happy to go back and self-revert my edit to the first file if the consensus here is that particular file doesn't need to be reduced. However, if that's the case, I think some more guidance on when it's OK to use this template should be added to WP:IMAGERES and perhaps even Template:Non-free no reduce/doc, perhaps even an example or two of when it's not OK to use this template. It appears someone attempted to try and start a discussion about adding a |reason= parameter to the template at Template talk:Non-free no reduce back in 2018, but never got a response. Perhaps this should be something worth discussing now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I added these because these images are portraits of long-dead people with zero commercial value, for which it isn't too easy to find any portrait at all, and the auto reducer is absurdly aggressive in making everything gratuitously tiny and then hard deleting the originals. I don't think there's much chance the original photographers or publishing organizations even remember these portraits exist, let alone care that someone distributes them in the context of biographies, and there's no reasonable challenge to the claim that they are fair use, even at full size. Perhaps there should be some better middle-ground option(s) between "preserve the original upload" vs. "turn this into an unrecognizable thumbnail". –jacobolus (t) 07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific very bad experience I had with an image I added was with File:Blackboard bold in typewritten notes from Narasimhan (1966).png which was turned into such a ridiculously tiny thumbnail that the indicated feature (the shapes of the symbols ⁠${\displaystyle \mathbb {C} }$⁠ and ⁠${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} }$⁠) wasn't remotely visible anymore, even after I had tried to make it as small as possible before the bot came through. (Frankly the size I left it still doesn't properly demonstrate the letter shapes as intended.) But I have also seen plenty of other pages where standard biographical portraits of long-dead people of zero commercial value with unenforced sometimes nearly expired copyright, sometimes fairly hard to find better copies of, were made into thumbnails where the person could barely be recognized. As a reader, I always find these images extremely frustrating. I basically don't believe in adding images at all which aren't either free or far, far on the no-brainer side of the fair use line, but for the latter, I feel like making the images tiny mostly defeats the point of having them at all. –jacobolus (t) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Images in which lots of intricate detail is going to be lost due to reduction probably don't need to reduced to the same degree as a "portrait photo" or "logo". Moreover, images which themselves are the subjects of articles in which certain apects of the image are critcally discussed in the article might also benefit from not being reduced or reduced as much. How much detail is really lost, though, when it comes to portrait photos being used in main infoboxes or at the tops of biography articles? For example, you also uploaded File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg which also seems to have zero commercial value, but is much smaller than the other three mentioned above; yet, it seems to be serving it's encylopedic purpose of identifying Nathan Altshiller Court. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, the image at Nathan Altshiller Court is an incredibly bad image which does a horrible job at fulfilling the purpose of illustrating the subject, only very marginally better than nothing at all, and frustrating and disappointing for many if not most readers. Unfortunately I don't have anything else, but if I had a nice high-resolution photo I certainly would love to add it there, in or out of copyright, where it would undoubtedly be fair use under US law. Edit: I will certainly agree with you that File:Nathan Altshiller Court.jpeg also has no commercial value whatsoever, and is clearly fair use. How much detail will be lost if the other three imges are reduced to that size? Most of the detail would be lost, for no benefit whatsoever. File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg is an image only a few years away from entering the public domain, whose subject is dead, whose photographer is dead, published in a journal which ended over 60 years ago, and which probably hasn't even been looked at by any human in the past three decades (before I hunted it up), with the possible exceptions of (1) whoever scanned the image, and (2) Mark Monmonier, the only person to ever cite the paper where this image appeared. It's possible there's a better copy somewhere in the archives at NOAA, and it's even entirely possible this image was in the public domain at its origin (I don't have more details). Down-sizing it serves no purpose beyond ticking some kind of out-of-context bureaucratic checkbox. –jacobolus (t) –jacobolus (t) 08:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Now the bot has come through and turned these images to emoji-sized blobs, at readers' expense. I don't really see the benefit, and may revert at some point. –jacobolus (t) 00:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As a rule, it is better to let the bot reduce the image rather than attempting it yourself. Do it yourself and you usually wind up with the bot reducing it again. I often have free images and tagging them with {{Non-free no reduce}} would be a good option because they literally have zero commercial value and there is no valid reason to reduce them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your second paragraph is trying to say. Are you agreeing with me that this type of image should have {{non-free no reduce}} added so that the bot doesn't come scrunch images to emoji size? –jacobolus (t) 09:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If the image has no commercial value, there is no reason to reduce it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that our WP:NFCC policy does not say it's ok to use a larger non-free image than we normally allow if we take a guess that the copyright holder isn't going to care. Copyright law is copyright law. There is no allowance in it for chances of someone suing. Neither should there be such leniency in our own policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The policy page doesn't actually say anything concrete or specific about what "minimal" resolution/quality means, other than that logos should be insufficient for counterfeiting, and for historical photographs copies "will be of very inferior quality". The image in question here is a poor quality scan of a photograph which was printed as a mediocre black-and-white picture accompanying a journal article. The highest available resolution copy of the digital image as it currently exists doesn't come anywhere close to being suitable for commercial printing of an ordinary glossy photograph, as you might obtain from a portrait studio. There's no way to turn this image into something that won't be "of very inferior quality", irrespective of resolution; the amount of detail in the image is significantly lower than you would get from a bad 2-inch passport photo obtained from your local pharmacy. –jacobolus (t) 06:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of images from that period will not meet your standard of commercial printing from a modern portrait studio. Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright? Prior debate on the size of images has resulted in the practice that non-free images generally aren't much larger than the place (usually an infobox) where they are used. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ya know how it goes. Not Bureau, IAR. If an editor in good standing vouches for the need to keep a slightly larger image, bet they have a good reason. We're so far from actual line of what US Fair Use actually permits, we have total editorial freedom to accommodate gray cases. Feoffer (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the line we use is not fair use, it is about reducing the quantity and net content of non-free images to promote more free media for WP so that it can be reused and redistributed. Its nice to have pictures of long-dead persons, but if they were not in the public eye at any point and their appearance contributed no factors towards their notability or importance, these images tend to be simply decorative, not to where they have to be removed but we're not going to necessarily allow NFC to be thrown out the window to allow larger than needed sizes. Masem (t) 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that portaits on biographies, or images more generally, are "simply decorative". By a similar standard a significant majority of the text of Misplaced Pages is "simply decorative", especially on our longer articles, detail embellishment of a story that does not "contribute factors towards notability" (whatever that is supposed to mean). A significant proportion of human mental capacity is devoted to processing of human faces, and attaching clear pictures of people to their names and accomplishments creates an emotional connection, anchors memory, and provides significant context used to assess the person. –jacobolus (t) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing g that such images should be removed, but they are general of very low value in terms of NFCC#8 for comprehension of a person who did not have a public presence as to merit an exemption of NFCC#3 on minimal size. Masem (t) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Are all such images from that period therefore unencumbered by copyright?" – This image is still (possibly, nominally) copyrighted. What we are talking about is whether including it in Misplaced Pages is fair use under US copyright law, which it clearly is: This is a 91 year old image which was intended to be distributed as a portrait of a public figure rather than sold as art, and certainly has zero commercial value today; it is being used for an educational purpose, for which it is clearly relevant; our use is limited to just this photograph, which we are including on just one page; the image is quite mediocre, and there's really no chance someone is going to start selling prints of it taken off Misplaced Pages.

There are many hypothetical scenarios where "images from that period" could still run into copyright claims (whether or not they were pursued in court). For example, if Misplaced Pages scanned a whole book of some portrait photographer's work and reproduced it in its entirety on a page, that would no longer be a limited use. If Misplaced Pages included a high-quality scan of a fine-art photograph, that could (conceivably) impinge on the photograph's commercial resale value. For example, File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg is a pretty clearly detailed scan of a famous art photograph, and Misplaced Pages is publishing a portion that could be used to print postcards or something, in a way that could conceivably affect the profits of Ansel Adams's estate.

Aside: The file page at File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg claims that this 1941 photograph published 1943 is out of copyright because it didn't file any copyright renewal. The same is undoubtedly true of the image currently under discussion. –jacobolus (t) 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For a image that likely might fall into copyright due to its publication date, we need proof position that the factors that limit its copyright term and can be made into a free image be expressed and demonstrated. That's done in a satisfactory way for the Adam's photograph, so it can be uploaded at full scale on commons because it is no longer covered by copyright. We have no idea if this image here as similar ability to be marked free, so we have to go with the default of assuming non free. Also to stress, we do not care about fair use aspects because NFCC is purposely stronger than those to encourage free media and minimize nonfree use. While the commercial value factor is just one part of fair use, NFCC is more than that, and even a freely distributed copyrighted piece that limits reuse is a problem for us. — Masem (t) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I took a look through the Stanfard copyright renewal catalog https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals and can't find any relevant entries after searching for a variety of relevant keywords. When I get a chance, I'll go ahead and change the file page here to describe the image as in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Edit: on second glance, maybe that's not right. This renewal database seems to only contain copyright renewals for books. Would File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg have ever plausibly be listed in there / was searching that database really sufficient to declare a lack of copyright there? –jacobolus (t) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that Stanford database to know if it is strictly limited to books or includes other registrations, but if it is strictly limited to books, then that image on. Commons should be nominated for deletion at commons bince that database can't be used to validate picture copyrights. — Masem (t) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the non free bot is often ridiculously stingy (treating the 0.1 megapixel rule of thumb as absolute instead of a guide) and specifically upload content in a low resolution that preserves the relevant info based on context (video game screenshots, for example, can get scrunched to the point where even reasonably large on-screen details become impossible to grok, and thus it's not a useful image at all.) But I think there's a bit of a difference here between "I tag an image I shrunk down to a reasonable size that readers can still see a slightly larger and clearer image for" and "I'm uploading 1.7-megapixel non free images", jacobolus, which is what you're doing. If you want to argue for loosening WP:NFCC, you can start an RfC. But right now you're absolutely abusing the template to stop these from being reduced (especially for the Oscar Adams shot, the original scan is so bad all the high-resolution image is really getting you is an appreciation for dot patterns anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Frankly, looking at the larger image vs. the smaller image of File:Oscar S. Adams, 1933.jpg I fail to see what the larger brings to the table that isn't apparent from the smaller. It's a man, in a suit, wearing glasses. Even the 94x120 thumbnails on the image description page tell you the same thing. --User:Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "number of megapixels" is an incredibly poor guide for the actual resolution of an image, i.e. how much detail it contains, but is easily substituted by people who don't have a basic understanding of how human vision and images work (which is most people).

This image could certainly be reduced in pixel dimensions (hopefully by a less shitty process than whatever the bot is doing) without losing too much detail, because, again it's a mediocre scan of a mediocre black and white print. I uploaded the version I did because this image doesn't need further degradation, and carefully reducing the pixel count takes time and work that is better spent on something else. –jacobolus (t) 15:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hammersoft, Masem, and David Fuchs: Is it now safe to assume that the {{Non-free no reduce}} templates on File:Aage Gerhardt Drachmann.jpg and File:Яглом Исаак Моисеевич.jpg should be replaced with {{Non-free reduce}}? @Jacobolus, Hawkeye7, and Feoffer: Would you prefer that these images be further discussed at FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd fight for a no reduce tag in theory, when an article requires it, but these two specific images are used at much lower resolution in their respective articles. They should be reduced and the larger versions removed. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with reducing them, as they will be displayed at 220 to 300 pixels. My issue has always been with the requirement to reduce free images, for which the wording of {{Non-free no reduce}} is equally inappropriate. (And does anyone know what "non-free media on Misplaced Pages should not be usable as substitutes for the original work" means?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It means that you aren't supposed to put a high resolution image of someone's fine art painting (or whatever) that could be used to sell postcards or something and hurt the original artist's revenue stream. –jacobolus (t) 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: There's a requirement to reduce free images? Where have you seen that? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The images referred to are free gratis images (Creative Commons Non-Commercial). Our rationale for reduction does not apply because there are no commercial opportunities of the owner to impact. Nonetheless, there is an insistence on reducing the images! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean: Misplaced Pages can legally use those images at whatever resolution it likes. But Misplaced Pages policy is stricter than US copyright law, and WP:NFCC#3b applies to images licensed under CC BY-NC (which are considered non-free for this purpose). Which part of the wording of {{non-free no reduce}} do you think is inappropriate here? jlwoodwa (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they should be reduced. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

NFCC#4 and previous publication

Do personal photos uploaded as non-free content which never seem to have been published (at least not prior to being uploaded to Misplaced Pages) like File:Winder high school shooting.jpg meet WP:NFCC#4? Is being uploaded to Misplaced Pages considered sufficient or satisfying WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion, even though it seems to imply that it's not. There might be WP:FREER issues with the photo as well, but for I more curious about the NFCC#4 compliance. Please note the file was tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7 by another user while I was typing the above, but I think it's still a good idea to discuss the potential NFCC#4 issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Being uploaded to WP, while that's the first publication, is not the type of previous publication that we expect for non-free images. This is really a case where we expect that the image, being what appears to be a personal photo, should be uploaded as a free image if it hasn't been published before. Masem (t) 04:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting case. On the file information page, the uploader identifies the photographer as my son-in-law's father and says that the image is used with his permission. If the son-in-law's father wants to give permission, then a proper CC BY-SA 4.0 license (or equivalent) is the way to show that verifiable permission has been given, no matter the familial relationship between the uploader and the photographer. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded thousands of my personal photos to Commons, which haven't been published before. I've always selected a free license. Bubba73 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have an email from him to me giving me permission, but I'll contact him tomorrow about sending an email to VST. Bubba73 04:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR and you uploaded this file locally to Misplaced Pages as non-free content. WP:NFCC#4 is one of the 10 criteria that are required to be met for each use of non-free content per WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I knew not to upload it to Commons, that is why I uploaded it to Misplaced Pages and tried to use "fair use". This was a short-lived event that made the news. Someone on a talk page requested a photo, which I saw in the category of photo requests in Georgia. My son-in-law's father sent us that photo while he was waiting to pick up his child. I asked him if it was OK to put on Misplaced Pages, and he said yes. I thought it would help Misplaced Pages so I put it up. I'm a grandmaster editor so I was really trying to help - now it is all of this. Bubba73 01:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this photo is related to an incident that just happened, there could eventually be a free equivalent posted somewhere online, which makes FREER an issue. Not meeting FREER alone is more than a sufficient reason for failing the NFCC. Even so, the NFCC#4 issue is still interesting to me. For example, even though the photographer can release this particular image under a free license if they want, they might not want to do so because they're hoping to take advantage of any potential commercial opportunities the image might provide. They might see Misplaced Pages as one way of increasing the value of their photo. I don't mean that in a bad way and not trying to imply that's what happened here; it's just that I think more people these days are aware of potential commmercial value that their personal photos of breaking news stories may have. Photos can easily go from one's camera to being posted online with a simple click. Does the "Meeting the previous publication" section need to be tweaked a bit to make it clear(er) that there needs to be some in-between third-party publication stage between a photo being taken and uploaded to Misplaced Pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those hypotheticals are plausible. And yet the uploader states on the file information page that The photographer has no intention of comercializing the photo. The only evidence we have of that at this point is the uploader's assertion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The photographer (my son-in-law's father, who had a child at the school) has sent an email to the VRT saying that he wanted to use the free license. Bubba73 01:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bubba73: Do you know which free license? If so, the file can be tagged with that license and {{permission pending}}, which should resolve the issue for now. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I asked him to say to license it under CC BY-SA 4.0 and he said he did. But something might not have worked - the last time I checked there was no update to the file. Bubba73 06:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:VRT will only update the file once they've processed the permission, and that could take some time. In the meantime, anyone who knows that permission has been sent can put {{permission pending}} on the file, and it'll be tentatively treated as having that license. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

non-free rationale and ability to use copyright photos appropriately

I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. And with the templates like how do I use them and when? Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Gymrat16, the question is a bit vague. Could you please elaborate on what the image is and which article it will be used in? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

File:United Airlines Logo2010present.png or File:United-Airlines-Logo.png

I was only going to use one of these in the History of United Airlines article near the brand history section Gymrat16 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the current logo is File:United Airlines Logo.svg and is already being used on the United Airlines and United Airlines Holdings pages. If you want to use it on the History of United Airlines page, you must first add the Non-free media information and use rationale to File:United Airlines Logo.svg.

To do this:

• Go to File:United Airlines Logo.svg > Edit > Insert > Template > Select Logo fur (template name).
• Insert it above the "Licensing" heading.
• Fill in the required fields. Some of the needed information can be copied from the previously used rationale on the same file page, while the rest should be according to how you intend to use the logo.

Once this is done, you will be able to use the logo in the article mentioned in your rationale and the bot will not remove it. I believe the same rationale applies if you upload their older logo as well. My personal advice would be to avoid including the logos in the history article unless there is critical commentary about them.

Note that different images have different usages and the fair use rationale must align with the specific guidelines for each case. Anyone more familiar with this process, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

ok i will look into it when i get a chance too. Thanks for the input and I look forward to continuing my work with you all to make wikipedia the best place it can be Gymrat16 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gymrat16: This seems to be quite similar to question you asked at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/September#United airlines globe logo 2010-present day. The answer given above also seems to be similar to the one given for your earlier question. You might want to discuss this at Talk:History of United Airlines to see whether there's a need to add the current logo because there are several images of the new logo shown in photos of planes that might be sufficient. Non-free use isn't automatic and given the current logo is currently already being used twice, the photos in History of United Airlines#Brand history might be sufficient for Misplaced Pages's purpose to using the file yet again per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

it isn't necessarily being used twice but ok and if that is what is required then i suppose it is worth a try Gymrat16 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair use for a demolished building that is not the main subject?

Would I be able to upload a non-free image in a list of works by an architect? The item in question is not the main subject. I am not completely sure if it would meet NFCC#8. The article in question is John Farrell (architect). Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd need to have sourced commentary as to why it is a representative or key example of the architect's work, and if its meant to be representative, you should be sure that there are no free images of the other buildings they designed that are not still standing and where a free image could be taken (keeping in mind freedom of paranoma for the country of interest). Masem (t) 23:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll clarify, I wish to include it into the list of his works: John_Farrell_(architect)#List_of_buildings, would that be appropriate or fail NFCC#8? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If its just going to go into that list/table, without any added commentary, then no, we don't allow the use of non-free that way (see: WP:NFLISTS). Masem (t) 23:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say it is forbidden, just quite strict and limited. I won't upload it regardless. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say forbidden. In practice, it is forbidden. The only examples we have on the project that have been allowed in lists/tables are currency notes. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"WPT:NFCC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WPT:NFCC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4 § WPT:NFCC until a consensus is reached. Liz 15:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

NFLISTS and license plate articles

I'm pretty sure might have been discussed before, but I figured it would be good to hear what others think about the non-free use of individual entries in articles like Vehicle registration plates of Nebraska. For reference, I broached the point with the uploader at User talk:QuickWittedHare#Vehicle registration plates of Nebraska but then sort of forgot about it. I was only reminded about today when the article popped up on my watchlist again. Most of the non-free images being used were uploaded as replacements for files deleted from Commons. That's not an argument in favor of their non-free use, but it just shows that they were uploaded in good faith. Is there anyway this kind of usage could be treated along the lines of national currency list articles. I'm not a big fan of those per se, but over time they seem to have become (a bit grudgingly perhaps) accepted for what they are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Spoken word non-free audio files

Most of my experience when it comes to non-free content has been with respect to images. I understand that policy also allows non-free audio files, but I mostly see them used in music related articles. I'm not sure how policy treats non-free spoken word audio files like File:The voice of Ryan Wesley Routh, the alleged attempted assassin of Donald Trump, 2022.ogg.

It seems as if a non-free audio file of an interview would fail WP:FREER because a transcript of the interview could either be cited or quotes of what was said during the interview could be added and cited. Moreover, if there are no WP:COPYLINK issues, a link to the audio/video of the interview could be added to "External links" section.

It also seems unnecessary per WP:NFCC#8 to simply hear someone's voice just for that reason alone unless their voice was perhaps the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources due to some unique characteristic.

There is also the issue of length and WP:NFCC#3. WP:NFC#Audio clips states clips might be used, but it's not clear how long a "clip" is supposed to be. Is it 5%, 10%, 20% or some other percent of the total length of full audio file. Is there WP:IMAGERES guidance provided for audio files. The Routh audio file mentioned above is 1:45 long and comes from a 10 minute long YouTube video; so, that's about 20% of the total video (I guess). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)