Template talk:Non-free biog-pic

Remove article link dependency

|Please amend the template so it's not tied to a specfic article, which is an issue for the rationale as opposed to the license template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The new version, with a revised wording is in the sandbox Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Be prosperous! Paine  03:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG and Paine Ellsworth: I have essentially reverted this request, given that I just found out that this parameter is still added to file uploads uploaded via Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard; removing a parameter here without it being removed from automatic postings there could cause problems. (However, I did improve the functionality of parameter 1; I updated the code so that the template coding will no longer appear if parameter 1 is empty.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG and Paine Ellsworth: In fact, per the fact that this page is transcluded in a MediaWiki namespace page, this page probably needs to be cascade protected, along with any other copyright templates transcluded on MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js... Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To editors Sfan00 IMG and Steel1943: Thank you so much, Steel1943, for catching this and for correcting my error. The correct response would have been to seek consensus for the removal of a parameter.  Paine  02:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Add note regarding transformative use and press agency/press photo images

The {{Non-free historic image}} template has a note specifying that non-free images from press agencies or photo agencies can only be used in a transformative manner. In WP:NFCI, item 10 mentions photos of deceased individuals but also says that images from press or photo agencies must be used such that there is critical commentary about the image itself (in other words, the image is transformatively used for a purpose that is different from its original market purpose.) Along these lines, it seems useful for {{Non-free biog-pic}} to have a similar note regarding transformative use and press/photo agency images. Please edit {{Non-free biog-pic}} to match this sandbox version. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that note should go into the blue box. The main box is for the copyright tag, the blue box is the place to put information for the uploader. Come to think about it, I wonder if the blue box (which plus or minus a few parameters is standardized) should be moved to its own template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Template draft here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have moved it to template space and deployed on Template:Non-free biog-pic and Template:Non-free historic image. @Elegie: are you happy to add your text to that template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This can be further complicated by the fact that someone's own non-free blog pic of themselves may be intended for promotional use; it may make more sense to write to the owner for permission than to apply "old press photo" rules to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Change template call {{image other}} to {{file other}} to avoid the redirect. That template is transcluded in around 15,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Year published parameter

I propose to add a "year" parameter that would cause images to be subcategorized by year of publication, such as Category:Non-free biographical images published in 1939. This would allow for easy tracking of images entering the public domain due to age of publication. BD2412 T 01:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Any proposed code would have to be careful to avoid assigning categories that do not exist or should not exist. How would we get the verified year of publication? I checked one page at random, File:C V Devan Nair.jpg, and there is no indication of a publication year that I could see. Maybe I missed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Some of these (e.g. File:Abdul Hannan.jpg, File:Elizabeth L. Barrett-Connor.png, File:Kurt Amplatz.jpg) have a "Date of publication" parameter that has been filled out. Others (e.g. File:Denzil Davies.jpg) have a publication date described in the text. I actually thought that the parameter was required of all fair use uploads, but I have no doubt that enough of them have a date to substantially fill subcategories. With over 25,000 images, I expect that there will be no empty categories post-1928 (the current cutoff year for the public domain), and I expect that we will find a fair number of works that should be in the public domain by age because they were uploaded to Wikipedia years ago and have aged out with no notice. That's one of the problems this categorization scheme would resolve. In other words, all categories-by-year into which these images can be put should exist, and should be created. BD2412 T 05:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, I think. See File:Abdul Hannan.jpg. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Yes, this is perfect. BD2412 T 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The current configuration makes it hard to track old images that need to be reclassified as public domain. For example, setting |year=1925 puts a file in Category:Non-free biographical images published in 1925, which is a soft redirect that is hard to find unless you're looking for it. And even older years, e.g., 1919, don't exist, so the images are put into the general category. We should expect that uploaders will continue to apply non-free tags to PD images, out of unawareness of copyright law or an excess of caution, and we should have processes that make it easy to manage those uploads. Wikiacc (¶) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe BD2412 knows why the categories were renamed, causing images to be placed in redirected categories. That's a bit of a mess, but we should be able to clean it up. Maybe images from before a certain year should be placed in a different category altogether, something like "images marked as non-free that may be free" or something with better wording. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Non-free biographical images published in 1925 redirects to Category:Biographical images published in 1925 because it is often unclear whether the image is in fact non-free; a category name that does not specify that the image is non-free leaves the category open to both free and non-free images, and leaves it up to editors to determine whether an individual image should be moved to Commons (as free images generally should be). A separate category for questions about the status of the image would be useful. Please also feel free to create a Category:Biographical images published in 1919, and so forth. BD2412 T 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BD2412. I think your point about the name is well-made. I think this should be implemented as a subcategory, not a category redirect, because the "source" page on a category redirect is somewhat of a black hole -- files that have ended up there (especially if they're put there by a template call) are hard to track down. Looks like between Timrollpickering and me, that change is now made. Wikiacc (¶) 02:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)