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

Another wider discussion about using multiple cover arts needed?

Is another wide discussion about using multiple cover arts in song and album articles needed? Buffs suggested this at an FFD discussions, and Pppery seconded. Sure, using extra cover arts (File:Moliendo café Chi sarà.png and File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg) isn't consistent with longstanding consensus against using more than one cover arts, but I think deleting these covers has been proven a detriment especially to readers, even with "no consensus" results. I'm unsure how else to resolve what's supposed to be an issue here other than more proposed rules or criteria or.... Again, is this necessary? George Ho (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Does anybody know if these are able to be used on Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]

I'm intending to use them on the Ahmad Shah Durrani page if possible. Noorullah (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. Those images are copyrighted, and not available under a free license. Even if you did try to use them, they are watermarked. We would never want a picture like that unless it was utterly irreplaceable and of significant historical value. This mausoleum is still standing, and has been for 200+ years. It's not going anywhere. The artwork itself is not eligible for copyright anymore, so someone visiting Kandahar can readily photograph it as happened with File:Toms of Ahamed Shah Abdali.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21: Please try not to ask the same or a really similar question simultaneously on two noticeboards. You asked about these images at WP:MCQ#Assistance. Asking the same question simultaneously on multiple Wikipedia noticeboards doesn't necessarily speed things up but it can cause discussions to be split and create confusion. For reference, your post at MCQ received some replies, but basically they're the same as what Hammersoft above. It's going to be really hard (perhaps impossible) to justify any type of non-free photo as this because someone (not necessarily you, but anyone really) could take an equivalent photo of the same artwork and release it under a type of free license that's Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You told me to ask on either noticeboards, so I'm asking on both. [4] Noorullah (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I posted was, Anyway, if you'd like to feed more specific feedback as to whether it would be OK to upload these as non-free use, you can ask at en:WT:NFCC or en:WP:MCQ.; asking on either noitceboard generally means pick one or the other, not both. If that was unclear, then my apologies. For future reference, asking the same thing on multiple noticeboards simultaneously can often be perceived as WP:FORUMSHOPPING by some; so, it's better to pick one place to ask and then redirect all other relevant discussion there instead of trying to start multiple discussions about the same thing at different places. You can use the template {{Please see}} when you want to let others know that there's a discussion that they might be interested in going on somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if the file has both the {{Non-free reduce}} and the {{Non-free no reduce}} templates?

Having both the {{Non-free reduce}} and the {{Non-free no reduce}} templates is not a good idea. This can only be done if a user unintentionally requested for a size reduction on a file that has the {{Non-free no reduce}} template. Then this would cause the file's size to shrink unintentionally. One such example of this event is in the file "Dream SMP Cast.png". On October 3, 2022, a user by the name "Владлен Манилов (Vladlen Manilov)" unintentionally asked for a size reduction, even though there was a {{Non-free no reduce}} template prior to the unintentional reduction. On the following day, the file was shrank, with the previous version being deleted a week later. This will be a documented example of a file with the unintentional usage of the {{Non-free reduce}} template on a file with the {{Non-free no reduce}} template. BIG DADDY Dunkleosteus (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, it would've probably been better the user who tagged the file with {{non-free reduce}} to have started a discussion about the file's size on either the file's talk page or at WP:FFD to see what the consensus was. I have no idea why they did what they did, but personally I think tagging the file reduction despite the {{non-free no reduce}} was a mistake because then you're expecting a bot to make an assessment that it's simply not capable of making. At the same time, though, someone adding a "non-free no reduce" template to a file's page doesn't automatically mean that the file in question shouldn't ever be reduced; it just means that at least one person feels (felt) that the file is needed at a higher resolution or larger size for encyclopedic purposes, and that doing so satisfies WP:NFCCP. In many cases, though, the file the reader sees in the article tends to be smaller than what they might see on the file's page; so, simply having a larger-sized file just for the sake of having one on the file's page doesn't seem to add much encyclopedic value (at least not in my opinion) to Wikipedia, and thus would be a violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Like the {{Keep local}} template, the "non-free no reduce" is, in my opinion, probably used in cases where it really shouldn't be, but assessing whether this is the case can be subjective and others of course might might disagree. So, like pretty much everything else on Wikipedia, such disagreements are best resolved through WP:DR, which in this case is either file talk page discussion or FFD so that a consensus can be established regarding NFCC#3b. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know which bot did the resizing but we should ask that bot operator to prioritize the "no reduce" template even if there is a resize template on there. Perhaps categorize those files into a maintenance category for manual review. Masem (t) 01:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The file was reduced twice according to it's file history, and both times it was by DatBot run by DatGuy. The file was actually discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 8#File:Dream SMP cast.png but that discussion wasn't related to WP:IMAGERES. The first time DatBot reduce the file actually seems to have come before the "Non-free no reduce" template was added by its uploader. This was because of a "Non-free reduce" template was added by JJMC89 bot after the file's licensing had been changed from {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{non-free image}} by someone trying to clean things up. All of that seems pretty much par for the course when it comes to bots and human editors patrolling non-free files. It's after the older version was restored by the file's uploader and the "Non-free no reduce" template was added for the first time, where things starting going off the rails because multiple editors appear to be involved adding and removing templates requesting reduction with everyone doing seeming to WP:REVTALK instead of actually discussing things.
One thing about reduced non-free files is that even though they can be tagged for reduction or reduced either by a bot or human editor, the older unused revisions subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5 can only be deleted by an admin. Since F5 deletions tend to be non-contentious in pretty much the majority of the cases, it's probably easy to assume deletion isn't a problem and the "Non-free no reduce" template could easily be overlooked by an admin trying to do cleanup in an namespace without a lot of admins doing cleanup; this could particularly be the case if the admin isn't familiar with the file namespace and was just trying to help reduce any backlog. I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone per se, just pointing out how easily something like this could happen regardless of what the bots in question were being tasked to do.
Anyway, since F5 deletions are, once again, considered non-contentious, older revisions of the a file that might've been mistakenly deleted should have no problem be restored per WP:REFUND or by asking the deleting admin on their user talk page, as long as the situation is explained properly. If there's disagreement over this, then the older version probably should be restored so that it at least can be discussed at FFD. One thing that might help alleviate this type of thing might be to somehow tweak the syntax of "Non-free reduce" so that an error message is indicated when it's added to a file's page already tagged with "Non-free no reduce". I don't know it that's possible, but that might work in some cases. This file has been edited alot since being uploaded in March 2022, and there's not much that can be done by bots when human editors basically start edit warring over their preferred version of the file with nobody on either side apparently willing to sort things out through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:ဗန်ကှိုန် § File source and copyright licensing problem with File:SarDoon.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional input would be appreciated here. Perhaps the file is OK to keep as non-free or maybe even relicense to PD per c:COM:Myanmar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-NC

It would be helpful if this page specifically mentioned the CC BY-NC license to make it clear how it applies. I'd add it myself, but I'm not sure where it might fit best. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NC - non-commercial, which means it is not free for reuse by anyone. So its considered a non-free license. This is stated in the lede at the very top "use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." Masem (t) 05:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm saying that the license itself should be mentioned, because right now "even commercially" is the only reference to this sort of thing. The page doesn't explicitly say anything to the effect of "non-commercial licenses such as CC BY-NC are required to comply with non-free use requirements", which seems like a pretty key detail to be unspecific about. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a section of non-exhaustive list of acceptable and unacceptable licenses, then. — Masem (t) 05:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:NFC
No tags for this post.