Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:All About That Bass by Meghan Trainor (sample).ogg.en.srt

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Close This discussion is important, but this is primarily a copyright question ("is this fair use") If it is not fair use then this is subject to speedy deletion already. Moving this to a more in depth conversation at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content - will seek additional input there as well. — xaosflux  Talk 03:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

TimedText:All About That Bass by Meghan Trainor (sample).ogg.en.srt


Question has arisen about whether a timed text page like this is acceptable. What has been created is a timed text version of song lyrics which are copyright material. The audio clip it's attached to is copyright as well, but being used with a fair use rationale. Is it acceptable to create a timed text of copyright material? Apparently other texts like this exist, but because timed text is such an unexplored space, I don't see a specific policy spelled out about it. Discussion here could help establish consensus. only (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If the song excerpt is fair use, why would the caption not be fair use? Also captioning with TimedText is supported in the WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines. Brustopher (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete !vote contingent on discussion. I also have a concern is over copyright infringement and I would be interested to know if this does fall under same.  Pinging  for her opinion as she has extensive experience with copyright issues.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Brustopher and due to existence of several similar files such as this, this, and this. --MaranoFan (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The song’s rationale as I understand it is all about the sound of the song. The timed text contains only the lyrics and does not convey the sound of the song. From the point of view of accessibility, the sound of the song could be conveyed better to non-hearing users with descriptive free text. —teb728 t c 22:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's barely any text. How (I ask as someone with little knowledge of fair use) is this any less acceptable than quoting a sentence from a book? The average musician's page on Wikiquote probably has far more copyrighted content that your average TimedText. It's not all the lyrics to the song or anything. Also while TimedText on audio may not be too helpful for the deaf, it could be more beneficial to those hard of hearing or people who just can't make out the lyrics of certain songs. Brustopher (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's less acceptable in the sense that media files, unlike text quotations, must have a written rationale on their description pages that prove that they meet all 10 WP:NFCC. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But are TimedText pages media files? They're SubRip text files and in a separate namespace to the File namespace, so aren't they closer to text quotations than the media files which fall under that policy. Also they're used as a component of a media file that already has a written rationale. Brustopher (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question you pose is what their use (and consequentially the faith of this nomination) hangs on. If they are not 'files', they are textual quotations that must be "properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,, or a similar method" (WP:NFCC). Our non-free content policies only recognize these two types of content - quotations and media - and there is nothing in between. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 23:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is starting to get into complicated territory. Wouldn't it be best to sort this out in a policy RfC, instead of at MfD? Because if this page gets deleted, it follows that pretty much every single other TimedText page on enwiki for an audio file has to go too. There seems to be 20 different discussion going on at this topic in 20 different places, and it would be helpful if we could find a centralised location to discuss it. Brustopher (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If these pages are 'files', then a fair use rationale is needed, per WP:NFCC. If they are not files, then source information is still needed, per WP:CITE. The obvious follow-up question is then where we should place the fair use rationale or source information. The TimedText namespace is a bit special in that you see the wikicode, so it is not ideal to put the information in that namespace. One option is to put the information on the talk page. However, considering that the entire purpose of a TimedText page is to use the page together with a file in the file namespace, and considering that the file needs a file information page with some information anyway, the natural location for this information seems to be the file information page, i.e. the fair use rationale on the file information page should specify why a TimedText page is needed.
 * The next issue is to figure out when we need a TimedText page for a non-free file in the first place. Since this is a situation which hasn't been discussed a lot in the past, it may be a good idea to start an RfC at WP:VPP or WT:NFC and try to establish some kind of policy or consensus. I don't think that a badly advertised MfD is the best location for writing a policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.