Wikipedia talk:Non-free content: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia? 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

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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.

	Fair use (inactive)
This article 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 articles

	Images and Media (inactive)
This article 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 articles

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria redirects here.

I came across File:Vivian Rubiyanti Iskandar.jpg while checking on non-free files being used in BLPs. Normally, this kind of image used in the main infobox would seem to be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:F7 as "replaceable non-free use". I'm wondering, however, whether this might be considered to be one of exceptions granted to NFCC#1 per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for images in which a person's physical appearance might be considered a primary factor behind their Wikipedia notability. Anyone have any opinions on this? I guess it's possible for a free equivalent image of Vivian Rubianti as she appears today to be created or found, but I'm still wondering about this. How NFCC#1 applies to still living trans men and trans women might be something worth discussing since it seems like something that likely to be asked about in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, WP:NFCI doesn't list magazine covers as one of acceptable uses. Instead, WP:NFC#UUI disallows using them in a biographical article without commentary. I tried finding the most recent discussion about primary magazine covers as lead images in articles about magazines themselves but without much luck. The most recent I can find are June 2010 and December 2010, both of which are very old. Same for Village pump, whose November 2011 discussion is the "most recent" I can find.

Recently, I replaced one Rolling Stone cover with one of anniversary issues (discussion, old revision). My preferable choice would be a no-cover option, i.e. no magazine covers without critical commentary about the cover itself. My second and third choices are, for further historical context, very first issues and anniversary issues... or the other way around. However, I've not yet seen others favor using a first issue. Also, I've seen divided opinions about the no-cover option. To make everyone happy, I couldn't bring myself into doing the no-cover option in other magazine-related articles. Rather I just replaced some other magazine covers with anniversary ones but only because I feared that, if a magazine cover is omitted, someone else may upload another random magazine cover just to identify a magazine.

I don't know how long I can keep this up, especially for editors (if not majority) who prefer more recent or current-ish covers. Every cover gets either replaced (or omitted just to be replaced either shortly or later) by another cover, making a cover not compliant with NFCC. Is this something I must be worried about? --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz and Marchjuly: I have thought about starting an RFC to ask whether a non-free image of an individual used for primary identification purposes in an article about that person can be used immediately upon said person's death. (per Marchjuly's suggestion.) The FFD discussion about an image of the late Halyna Hutchins is recently closed as "kept". ..."immediately" is sufficiently clear just for the RfC... isn't it? The span between her death date and the FFD closure is four months, so that wouldn't exemplify immediacy, would it? As for the second question suggested by Marchjuly, I'm still awaiting results of the FFD discussion on the other image. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• George Ho, what are you planning to propose? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking this question based on your suggestion: "Is using a biographical image of a person immediately after the said person's death acceptable or unacceptable?" I hope "immediately" is obvious, but I figured it's sometimes subjective. I'll still use "immediately" anyways. Furthermore, I'd rather ask a simple question (or discussion) and divide votes into subsections, i.e. "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" alongside "Neutral or mixed", "Unsure" and "(General/Threaded) discussion"; no sub-proposals or anything like the NSPORTS RfC mess. What do you propose? George Ho (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm... Probably "shortly" should make more sense than "immediately", right? --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  George Ho, "shortly" will no doubt get wrongly interpreted as "months" by some people. I'd say "after a web search didn't turn up any existing free alternative" or something along those lines. Btw, about your pingfix, Bawl has auto-mention you know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "web search"? Why limit to "web search"? Even a photo scanned from inaccessible print material can also be non-free, right? Probably you got a point about "shortly": even four months after one's lifetime (e.g. Halyna Hutchins) exemplify the use of "shortly", right? When "immediately" is said, I'm thinking either 24 hours or one week. If neither "immediately" nor "shortly" is the right word, how about "within one week" or "within four weeks" instead? Oh, and thanks for "". George Ho (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Crossing out "within", thinking that "one week after" is more logical than "within one week after". George Ho (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking "exactly one week" or "exactly one month". Neither "more" nor "less". George Ho (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]