The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Izkala (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Non-free biog-pic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mistaken image licensing template. It says the image is believed to qualify as fair use because it's a bio-pic for a deceased individual. There's nothing like that in the Fair Use four factors.

It's true that Wikipedia allows the use of fair-use image as biopics only when the individual is dead. But that doesn't make biopics of deceased individual fair use. It's kind of begging the question. damiens.rf 23:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The template's documentation says that the template is used on more than 7000 pages. If the template is deleted, then lots of files will start violating WP:NFCC#10b. If you think that the template refers to an invalid situation, then care should be taken to ensure that deleting the template won't create massive disruption on Wikipedia. If the outcome is deletion, then the template should probably be changed into a warning template which asks for an update of the copyright tag or nomination for deletion of the file.

Also, when nominating templates for discussion, please add ((subst:tfd)) to the template page so that this is properly advertised. This is particularly important if the template is highly used. If a template is protected so that you can't edit it, then it's appropriate to make an edit request on the talk page. I have tagged this template for you.

According to WP:NFCC#Rationale, the non-free content criteria are meant to use more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law. If you are suggesting that Wikipedia uses more broadly defined criteria than those permitted under United States copyright law, then it seems that non-free content is being misused on English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Stefan2: This template broadens the fair use factors by stating that being a bio-pic for a deceased individual make it fair use. --damiens.rf 07:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep - This license tag tracks the policy provision of WP:NFCI §10, which allows "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." The proper venue to discuss changes to non-free image policy is Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's part of the guideline (WP:NFC). The policy (WP:NFCC) only seems to allow content which is permitted under United States copyright law, based on the wording of WP:NFCC#Rationale. If WP:NFC and WP:NFCC disagree in some situation, then it would seem that WP:NFCC overrules WP:NFC. The nominator seems to think that this copyright tag is incompatible with United States copyright law (and thus with WP:NFCC). If that is the case, then it would seem that it doesn't matter what WP:NFC says.

I note that this template is used more than 8,000 times, and there are probably thousands of similar files which use other copyright tags. Since this affects quite a lot of files, I'm not sure if a TfD should be allowed to decide the outcome without informing various talk pages and noticeboards (probably at least WT:NFC, WT:C, WT:FFD, WP:MCQ, WP:FNN and WP:VPP). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing previous comment, This template was split from ((Non-free fair use in)) IIRC, in order to make it more specfic. I don't have any objections to it being merged, provided that the nominator is prepared to retag every single image using it first, as well as providing a comprehensive review of ALL of them Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Non-free fair use)) is already widely misused to tag images of living people, and ((non-free historic image)) for images of dead ones. Merging this into either will widen the practice and, in particular, will complicate efforts to remove images for failing WP:UUI #1. —Cryptic 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template states as one of the criteria for its use that no free alternative is likely available, so it's accurately representing our current policies. TfD is not the appropriate place to try to change that policy. ~ Rob^Talk 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment it is true that wikipedia policy is unhinged from "fair use" law, but there has never been a DMCA takedown of a "fair use" file. if you are confused by template language go to template talk; if you do not like "non-free policy", go to the policy page and get a consensus. if the nominator wants to mass delete thousands of images, go for it, but do not "stealth delete" them by venue shopping in obscure locations to subvert policy. the nominator tends to undermine his credibility, and demonstrates he is not neutral, but has an ideology, far from consensus. 198.24.30.100 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been multiple DMCA takedown requests for 'fair use' files:
    • wmf:File:DMCA Talitha Getty.pdf - meant to be used in accordance with WP:NFCI §10, except that it was apparently from a commercial source (Special:Diff/413212257).
    • wmf:DMCA The Danish Girl - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/674379952).
    • wmf:DMCA Chillerama - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/423724948).
    • wmf:DMCA RIAA Kate Bush - File:Kate Bush Deeper Understanding Sample.ogg, apparently a non-free sound sample for Deeper Understanding, based on the upload log. Deleted as WP:F5, not as a DMCA takedown. Did the WMF decline the takedown request for some reason?
    • wmf:DMCA UFC - used in accordance with WP:NFCI §4 (Special:Diff/480794425).
    • wmf:DMCA of DMCA LIPTAK - a takedown request for a takedown request, which the Wikimedia Foundation decided to decline.

The three film articles which lost posters because of the takedown requests now contain posters again. I don't know whether those posters are the same or different posters. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no problem here. The template says the image is believed to qualify as fair use and it says it's a pic for a deceased individual. It is debatable to what extent being deceased may enhance our claim to fair use, however fair use rationale is certainly not diminished by our more-strict requirement to only use images of deceased individuals. An image being used in compliance with our non-free criteria should pass fair use easily. Alsee (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Alsee, but do you have any evidence that such use (use under WP:NFCI §10) is permitted under United States copyright law? I have never seen any such evidence (and I haven't seen evidence that such use isn't permitted either). I'm not sure that TfD is the right place to determine if WP:NFCI §10 is a correct interpretation of United States copyright law, though. This request affects quite a lot of files and should be handled carefully. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stefan2, there's very little that can be said with certainty regarding Fair Use until a court rules on it but our non-commercial educational purpose makes for a strong case. Our 15 year history also sets a very strong precedent that our activity is commonly accepted as legitimate and valuable. In any case TFD isn't a place to consider any fundamental revision of non-free policy. Alsee (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Wikipedia can't use files if the use depends on the use being non-commercial, see ((db-f3)). Therefore, Wikipedia can't make use of extended fair use provisions for non-commercial use. However, deletion of this template would affect thousands of files, so I don't think that TFD is the correct forum for this. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. TFD is not intended for use to change or revoke policy. You want Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per points above, changing policy should be not by deleting templates. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Important template to flag an image being used with a fair use rationale. Respects that a copyright probably exists and that it is being used under a Fair Use claim. Per Stefan2, this template is not the place for a discussion of copyright law. If there is an issue, the language of the template can be refined at a later time should consensus change. Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Relisted to May 20. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Split media - processed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Split media (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Split media - processed with Template:Split media.
((Split media - processed)) gives wrong and dangerous information, and all files which use the template have been split incorrectly and therefore need to be retagged with ((split media)) so that they can be split correctly. I suggest redirecting ((split media - processed)) to ((split media)) as a first fix.

If someone actually follows the instructions in the template, then important source information is lost, so the instructions in the template must never be followed by anyone. Instead, the correct way to split files is described at Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to megre given that I created ((split media)) in the first place. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How is current practice any more harmful than moving images to Commons? (And where, for that matter, do you expect to find administrators willing to history split? I'd be surprised if there's a dozen active admins who have ever done even one.) —Cryptic 10:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current practice is that files are split by deleting the page, then undeleting each file one at a time and moving them without redirect to different names. This template describes a different process which means destroying the upload history and therefore is very dangerous if someone finds other copies of the image elsewhere on the Internet as it may then be more difficult to tell where the file was first posted.

When files are moved to Commons, the original history is unfortunately also lost, but at least people add an original upload log, something which hasn't been done when this template has been used. However, in the Commons case, this is because of technical limitations. There are no such technical limitations when splitting a file into multiple file names on the same project. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Quite frankly, what on earth the nom. is talking about? (Has he nominated the wrong template?) Looking at this template, it is requesting an admin to delete older image revisions that have nothing to do with the current revision. That's a plausible speedy deletion request. This template has a mandatory reason parameter too. Only this template is best name ((Delete old irrelevant revisions)). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no deletion criterion which would allow for the deletion of the old revisions simply because the old revisions mustn't be deleted. Instead, the file should be split so that the old revisions appear under different names. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong! WP:CSD applies to individual revisions too; that's why admins always delete the old revisions of non-free images. (They do it per WP:CSD § F5.) An irrelevant revision (which is subsequently overwritten) lacks source, license, and (where applicable) use rationale. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:F4 says that you can delete files if there is too little information available about its copyright status. If you can obtain this information by inspecting the history of the file information page, then the file appears to be ineligible for deletion under WP:F4. If a FUR is missing, then it would seem that the overwritten revision is non-free, meaning that it can be deleted under WP:F5, or in some cases under WP:F9. --09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Exactly! There needs to be a mean (a template or nomination page) to request for the deletion of the specific revision. —Codename Lisa (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose (rename or delete and modify SD templates) – At the first glance, the nomination seems to make sense: The procedure has changed; hence this template is now irrelevant. But consider this scenario: User A produces a new slightly different version of File:Diagram P.png but mistakenly uploads it to File:Diagram B.png. Having noticed his mistake, he presses the revert button, bringing the last good revision back. Then, proceeds to upload his new slightly modified version into the correct target, File:Diagram P.png. In such situations, there should be a way to request an admin to delete the mistake. One alternative would be to rename this template as CL suggested. Another would be to add a |revision= parameter to all speedy deletion templates for files and delete this template. Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that this should be changed into some kind of WP:G7 template? The ones who have added the template to files haven't used the template in this way. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really see why we must restrict this to the author only. For all we know, User A in my scenario might not be the author of File:Diagram P.png or File:Diagram B.png. Or consider this scenario: User A, having committed the said mistake, never notices his error. User B comes, notices the mistake, reverts to the last good known revision and then has to ask an admin to delete the incorrect file revision. Situation gets even more delicate if File:Diagram B.png is non-free. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).