Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates

For the purposes of consistency and automated identification, all non-free images on English Wikipedia must be directly tagged with a template that begins with the prefix "Non-free". This will enable automated tools to detect such images by matching on the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free" or by consulting the templatelinks table in the database. Machine readability is required by the Wikimedia foundation licensing policy.

This page is an automatically updated list of templates which are used on media to indicate a non-free status.

Currently this page is being used to host information about the current project to rename these templates for the purpose of machine readability. Once this task is completed the page will be repurposed to document all of the non-free templates on the project.

See also Special:Prefixindex/Template:Non-free for a real-time list of the renamed templates.

Done
A list of templates that have been completely moved to the new naming style, including fixing all of the template text on the images themselves.

Process related

 * Non-free unsure
 * Fair use rationale - Non-free fair use rationale
 * Isn't this redundant? Shouldn't it just be Non-free media rationale? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, it could be... but I thought it was useful to be specific that we're looking for a rationale covering the requirements for fair use status and not just our policy. --Gmaxwell 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now redirected to Non-free media rationale. Is this the final name?  Should I run the bot on it?  -- Cyde Weys  21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why "media"? If we're going to remove "fair use" from the name because it is redundant, why have "media" in it? Obviously it is for media. Just make it "Non-free rationale". --- RockMFR 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lets say "Non-free rationale" but lets leave it a day for someone else to put their $0.02 in before we hit it with the bot again. --Gmaxwell 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Non-free rationale" sounds quite right...I'd rather have the word "media" in the middle. "Non-free media rationale" just sounds better to me, clarifying that the media, not the rationale, is unfree. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As of 2012, Fair use rationale redirects to Non-free use rationale. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-free allowed in
 * Non-free reduce
 * Non-free reduced
 * Non-free fair use in

Screenshots

 * Non-free game screenshot
 * Non-free web screenshot
 * Non-free film screenshot
 * Non-free music video screenshot
 * Non-free television screenshot
 * Non-free video screenshot
 * Non-free software screenshot

Identifying marks

 * Non-free logo
 * Non-free computer icon
 * Non-free Mozilla logo
 * Non-free symbol

Copyrighted products or covers

 * Non-free stamp
 * Non-free album cover
 * Non-free book cover
 * Non-free video cover
 * Non-free game cover
 * Non-free magazine cover
 * Non-free newspaper image

Posters

 * Non-free event poster
 * Non-free poster
 * Non-free sports poster

Generic promotional materials

 * Non-free promotional

Art / Historic images

 * Non-free 2D art
 * Non-free 3D art
 * Non-free historic image
 * Non-free audio sample
 * Non-free standard test image

No longer used but kept around

 * Non-free screenshot

TFD Pending

 * Fairusenoalternative
 * This one is a more or less free use template -- no explicit permission for derivatives, but I think that could be clarified with an email. Someone want to check? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I emailed him for clarification. He makes it clear that commercial use is permitted on his page, I suggested a creative commons license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's about der.works? Besides, I see Cc-sampling tag on Use Policy page - this tag is non-free. Alex Spade 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's about der.works? Besides, I see Cc-sampling tag on Use Policy page - this tag is non-free. Alex Spade 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot ready

 * Boardgamecover needs a bot to convert uses of the old name to the new name: Non-free board game cover. Currently there are 29 transclusions of it that need to be fixed.  Back in June, User:MBisanz converted the (working) hard redirect that was in place to a soft redirect, thereby breaking, and hiding the licensing statements, on all 29 pages.  It is important to leave the hard redirect in place until no new uses of it show up for, say 6 months.  Then we can make it a soft redirect.  Less than a month is far too short. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

General

 * No_source_no_license to Non-free without source and license ?
 * No copyright information .. change to Non-free without copyright information?
 * I disagree with the two aboive, they should not be considered non-free copyright tags. Lack of required information makes the images candidates for speedy-ish deletion, but they are not nessesarily non-free and having bots treat them as such is A) redundant (they will either be fixed or deleted due to the presense of these tags), and B) confusing (if someone upload a PD image but does not include source info because they didn't understand all the Wikipedia processes it doesn't help matters if a bot comes along and demands a non-free use rationale). --Sherool (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewedfairuse .. change to Non-free review?
 * Fair use in - Should we replaced these with Allowedin (which would be renamed Non-free Allowedin) ? --Gmaxwell 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think these should be orthogonal to licensing. In other words, none of these templates should be considered a statement regarding licensing.  Content with one of these templates needs to have another (non-free) template that sets forth the actual licensing conditions on the content. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, well thats explictly the purpose of allowed in. I only added the reasoning stuff today.. perhaps I should take that out? The purpose of allowedin is access control... and nothing else really. But I do want people signing the entries to keep track of who authorized the use. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least all of the above should be merged into one, no point in 5 different templates now that we have optional parameters and parserfunctions in our template arsenal. --Sherool (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I've added support for multiple parameters in fair use in and redirected the others and theyr various redirects to it. Now we just have to figure out what to rename it to. --Sherool (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like replacing these with allowedin, but will that be retroactive? This isn't something a bot can do unless we're ok with some not having inline reasons. This is an improvement because I think it makes it clear that it isn't a license tag, but it could be quite a project. - cohesion 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't rely agree with the statement that these are not license tags. They are sure intended to be license tags and have been used as such for quite a while, and I don't rely see the problem as long as they have source and fair use rationales in order. Turning these into pure "access control" templates (meaning that any image tagged only with these would basicaly be considered untagged and subject to deletion) would IMHO be quite a big deal. Not saying it's nessesarily a bad idea, but if we just go and do it without some significant debate/warning beforehand you just know it's gonna turn into another one of those firestorms of controversy. Let's at least finish the fairly uncontroversial renamings and mergers first. --Sherool (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Sherool. Incidentally, does allowedin work?  --Iamunknown 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should replace them with non-free allowed in and add a generic FU template.. that doesn't imply that we'll start auto-deleting based on allowed in use without a lot more time and work. --Gmaxwell 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FairusewithNC NC isn't a license status that we care about. If something is also available under NC we can mention it in the text or on the talk page. Having a template looks like an endorsement. Should this go away? --Gmaxwell 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is useful to record information in a sanderdised way.Geni 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't hate the concept, but I don't like the name, how about non-free non-commercial. "Fair use" is too confusing for many many people. - cohesion 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No because that would be too close to traditional NC. The whole point of the tag name is that you can only use it if there is also a legit fair use claim.Geni 11:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a non-commercial tag that specifies that it is considered a non-free license on Wikipedia, and that if a proper image license tag isn't given the image should be deleted. There are images licensed under both (either) the GFDL and cc-by-nc, so that a reuser can choose which license to use. Other images are cc-by-nc, but can be used here as an allowed non-free image. And others should be deleted. It seems to me that a single tag, non-commercial, should be usable in all three cases: with a GFDL tag, with an allowedin tag, or with a db tag. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-free restricted use - should be replaced with generic non-free use template; this template was already deprecated. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is the most generic non-free one we have fair use and some other big ones redirect here. Not the best solution, but this tag is used a lot. Category:Fair use tag needs updating. - cohesion 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we move it to Non-free? --- RockMFR 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NoncommercialProvided - noncommercial with additional restrictions; should just be replaced with generic non-free template, NC status mentioned in description. Template already warns of impending deletion. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, useless. 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cc-sampling - not a license we care about, and nothing is using it. Should probably just be deleted. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Db-ccnoncom? Alex Spade 05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Simpsons-screenshot-Ullman No context at all in the template proper.. no real difference from the regular simpsons screenshot template. --Gmaxwell 01:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another one of those fair use templates that is improperly being used to categorize content. I'll break it out into the standard screenshot template and a category for the Tracey Ullman information.  -- Cyde Weys  04:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gymnast ru image
 * "with permission", and I doubt the guy granting permission actually holds the copyright. Should be replaced with generic fair use for those who do not have other photos reasonably available. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use them if we cannot determine who the copyright holder is. I've asked the creator, about it on his/her talk page. I'll wait a little while before doing anything further.  --Iamunknown 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Denver Public Library images - It tells us where it came from but nothing of the fair use justification for this media. --Gmaxwell 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, useless. 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be preserved as a source-only tag, like smithsonian, especially because it contains parameters that can point people directly to the item in the collection. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Parody - Our use should never be parody. Yes, sometimes we'll make fair use of someone elses parody.. but our fair use rationale isn't because the work is parody (since our use isn't). Instead we should treat a parody like any other copyrighted work that we use, and classify it accordingly. --Gmaxwell 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * non-free media AFAICT, this template and all templates that transclude it are in Category:All non-free media (not just the pictures that use said templates) I'm just getting my feet wet with templates so I don't know for sure if there are technical limitations in play here, however I believe that conventionally templates are excluded from categories which are specific to Articles/Images/etc.  (would wrapping the the category link in an block fix it for the template but not the templates that transclude it?)  --Jeremyb 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon
Do we really need so many pokemon templates? In addition to all the generic ones which might apply (character, video game, card, comic, etc..) there are at least 9 others. Are they redundant? --Gmaxwell 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PokeCover - Non-free game cover + Category:Pokémon game covers  Pagra shtak  19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pokeimage - these will need to be divided into Non-free game screenshot, Non-free comic, and possibly others, combined with Pokemon categories.  Pagra shtak  19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Digimonimage - Digimon != Pokemon ;) Anyway this one is basicaly game screensot and comic panel rolled into one... --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pgl
 * PokeArt - Merge wtih character-artwork ? --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it, although from the wording of the tag there might be a few that don't fit.  Pagra shtak  19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PokeFilm-screenshot - Should probably be merged with Film screenshot (add support for subcating via parameters if needed). --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So what exact category are we going to put this (and other Pokemon stuff) into, and how should it be implemented? Is there any reason we can't just use bare categories, e.g. something like Category:Pokemon film screenshots?  Bare categories are a lot nicer from a machine-readability standpoint than a template that generates a category, because there's hundreds of different ways it's done with templates and most would have to be coded up individually.  -- Cyde Weys  15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno, ask the pokemon project maybe? I have a scertain afinity for "smart" templates, but I guess you have a point. Beeing eable to tell what categories are used from just parsing the wikitext clearly have it's benefits, and I guess copyright templates are not where we have the most need for 20+K of nested parserfunctions just to make it easier for people to add categoris that have very little to do with copyright status... --Sherool (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PokeGame-screenshot - "Convert" to a parameter of game-screenshot instead. --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PokeCard - Cardimage - (or rather, Non-free card once created)  Pagra shtak  19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PokeTv-screenshot - Should probably be merged with tv-screenshot (add support for subcating via parameters if needed). --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pli - Not actualy a copyright template, just a fair-use-rationale-on-a-can (userify maybe?). --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't even userfy. Canned fair use rationale is bad.  Pagra shtak  19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pokefair
 * Ptcg
 * Ptcg2
 * I am thinking we need to combine the Pokemon Trading Card Game (PTCG) templates into one, since the templates say the exact same thing and everything else can be added later on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should bring this up at WikiProject Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Video game screenshots
Video game screenshots were all upmerged into the game screenshot template and given a category. Old discussion can be found here.

Other screenshots

 * Software-screenshot - Non-free software screenshot
 * I think, all game- and software-screenshot can be combine (into one) - there is no special difference between them. From image we can cleary see what is this - game or not game. While Film-screenshot must stay independent - some images with will be PD in future. Alex Spade 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Web-screenshot - Non-free web screenshot
 * Film-screenshot - Non-free film screenshot
 * Mac-software-screenshot - Non-free software screenshot
 * Windows-software-screenshot - Non-free software screenshot
 * It seems like these two should be merged into Non-free software screenshot and categorized by OS. What OS the screenshot is from doesn't make a lick of difference regarding fair use concerns.  -- Cyde Weys  15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part this is true, but there is a slight difference. A screenshot of proprietary software on Linux or FreeBSD is different from a screenshot of proprietary software on Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X. The window borders and icons are likely under the free software license of the desktop environment (KDE or GNOME), unlike on Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X where they're just as proprietary as everything else. Once WINE and GNUstep mature, on the other hand, there may be a preference for taking screenshots in WINE or GNUstep if feasible. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it rely matter? I mean if the software you take a screenshot of is not free licensed what good does it do to have a tag that point out that the titlebar is rendered by a GPL licensed window manager? As far as I can tell the wording of the OS-software-screenshot tags are pretty much identical anyway... --Sherool (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You just destroyed a whole pile of careful categorization and tagging work that was done around Microsoft Windows images. Thanks.  Much appreciated.  You know, it wouldn't kill you to look a little more carefully at templates and how they're being used, before going ahead and damaging the encyclopedia with these broad brush strokes.  -/- Warren 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be productive if rather than just complaining you provided a description of the problem. If in-fact something was broken it will be easy enough to fix... but it also possible that you misunderstand the change. As far as I can tell, all images are in the same categories that they were in before at this point and we now have the 'missing a rationale' feature for all screenshot images. --Gmaxwell 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I don't seen anything broken either. If there is something broken I would like to try to fix it, but unless that is pointed out to me, I cannot do anything about it.  Mindless complaining devoid of constructive information is useless.  -- Cyde Weys  14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Musicpromo-screenshot - Non-free music video screenshot
 * Cvg-titlescreen - Non-free game screenshot + Category:Title screens of video games &mdash; A screenshot of a title screen is still a screenshot.  Pagra shtak  19:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Linux-software-screenshot
 * Vodcast-screenshot
 * Web-software-screenshot
 * Video-screenshot - Non-free video screenshot
 * Mac-game-screenshot - Non-free game screenshot
 * Be-software-screenshot
 * Machinima-screenshot
 * The Simpsons-screenshot - Non-free television screenshot with added
 * Hmm, I'm still of the opinion that, though it makes sense to completely separate the image copyright tag from the categorization, it will result in a disorganized categorizing scheme to do so. --Iamunknown 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it will result in a much more organized and flexible category system. I speak from lots of experience over at WP:CFD.  Bare categories are by the best way to handle categorization, as all of the bots can easily deal with them.  Start passing in category names as template parameters, however, and you end up with situations where you have to code up a custom replacement regex for each template.  It's absolutely hideous, tedious, mind-numbing work, and I hate it every time I see a job listed at WP:CFDW that uses categorization via passed template parameters, because they're just so damn unmaintainable.  The bot should not need to have a full version of the wiki text parser inside of it to understand how categories are getting assigned, which is something that has been happening recently, especially with overuse of parser functions.  -- Cyde Weys  16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it depends how it's done I guess. If arbitrary categories can be given as parameter values like with media or reqphotoin I can see the problem. However if a template is set up to add a spesific category only if a spesific parameter have a spesific value you won't have that problem since you can move all pages that use any given (valid) parameter by just editing the template. --Sherool (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking. While bots may mess up the templates, humans won't, and it consolidates the task of changing templates into editing a single template.  --Iamunknown 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Covers
Does the fair use justification for covers ever really differ? --Gmaxwell 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We could have . This would be really great because we wouldn't have to remember which templates are hyphenated, which have no spaces, and which have spaces! - cohesion 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, we should probably standardize all these, game screenshots, covers etc in the same way, whatever is decided above. - cohesion 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should standarise in way that stops people thinking that just because we have a category called X that all Xes are fine. As we don't generally have articles for DVDs, TIME magazine issues and the like their obliteration may be useful.. Secretlondon 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am strongly supporting the integration, unification and simplification, especially in license policy, especially for newbies. Alex Spade 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think more of these should be consolidated. I don't see how an album cover, book cover, DVD cover, or videogame cover are at all different in regards to fair use. -- Cyde Weys 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why just covers? What about a photo of a page of a book used to illustrate the page layout and general appearance?


 * Albumcover - Non-free media cover
 * Album Image - Non-free media cover
 * DVDcover - Non-free media cover
 * Video tape cover - Non-free media cover
 * How about all the media covers into one template? The justification for all of them is simmlar, and it's a resonable reporting unit (i.e. 33.239% of our non-free images are cover images for CDs, DVDs, and video tapes)


 * Book cover - Non-free book cover
 * TIME - Non-free magazine cover
 * Game-cover - Non-free game cover


 * Newspapercover - Non-free newspaper cover - this would be useful for historically important front pages. --Iamunknown 05:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer Non-free newspaper scan. If you read the template, it refers to a lot more than merely newspaper covers, and if you look at how the template is used, you'll see it's used on a lot of individually scanned historical articles, some without any cover context at all.  -- Cyde Weys  05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. --Iamunknown 05:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, since they're not all scans necessarily, I'm just going for Non-free newspaper image -- Cyde Weys 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno, wouldn't that name kinda give the implression that it's for found in newspapers, rater than images of newspapers? --Sherool (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comiccover
 * Boardgamecover
 * Cereal box cover
 * Softwarecover
 * Arcade-game-cover
 * Video disc cover
 * Product-cover
 * Magazinecover - Non-free magazine cover

Logos
Does our justification for logos differ so much that we need 23 templates? --Gmaxwell 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. For the templates that are for the school logos, maybe rename them to non-free-education-logo. This includes K-12, Preschooling, universities, colleges, school baords, etc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think mostly they are useful to diffuse categories (same with the other sections). --Iamunknown 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO we should roll all these into logo (or I guess Non-free logo) and just throw in some parserfunctions if wording needs to be changed for scertain parameters. So use would be for example, etc. Would be trivial for a bot or gang of AWB users to convert the existing templates into such a scheme. As a bonus we could easily get statistics on all logo types via whatlinkshere regardles of how they are categorized.   --Sherool (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor correction, that'd be, etc. -- Cyde Weys  01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, an end goal is that someone can always tell if an image is unfree by checking the wikitext for the regex "\{\{[Nn]on-free". Cutting down on the proliferation will make life easier, but once they are all prefixed with non-free at least we'll be able to find the darn things. --Gmaxwell 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with reduceing the number of templates is that the catigories become imposible to manage which is why the fair use wikiproject split everything up in the first place.Geni 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, they split them up so they could have a fair use justification which made sense for the content... If we just want to keep the categories small we could use parserfunctions to use a single template but split up the categories randomly. In any case, the practice of using templates like this isn't working for splitting things up.. We have templates like logo with over 60k things in it then ones like MPAA-logo with 8 things in them, in effect the split up hides some of the content. --Gmaxwell 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We can keep all the category divisions (if they make sense, this might be a good time to review some of the less used ones), and even special wording if warranted. As mentioned above users would just enter instead of , the template would be a great deal more complex behind the scenes with all the parserfunctions, but we will hopefully not have to edit it too much once it's up and running. --Sherool (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * should also be noted that there are a number of copyright free logos in Logo simply because sorting out the trademark issues was too much work.Geni 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a problem I've been trying to correct now. I've been finding government logos, trivial logotypes, and freely licenced logos all carrying the non-free logo tag. People should really be careful to use the appropriate copyright tag. The Trademark tag can also be added. nadav 11:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:BetacommandBot tagging sports logo for deletion citing this page? The sports logo template was fine as it simply said this is a sports logo and will always be fair use, surely this bot should be converting to non Non-free logo|sports or something that doesn't involve use input (Gnevin 12:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Logo - Non-free logo
 * DisneyLogo - Non-free logo
 * Radiologo - Non-free logo
 * Mozilla-logo - Non-free Mozilla logo - the licensing terms are different enough to justify a separate tag. --Iamunknown 05:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Scoutlogo
 * Olympics-logo This one is enough of an outlier to deserve a tag due to the special quasi trademark/copyright rights granted by the Amateur Sports Act. Kotepho 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sports-logo
 * Tv-logo
 * Tv-program-logo
 * Computer hardware logo
 * Commercial logo
 * I have uploaded literally hundreds of corporate logos from African, Russian and Middle Eastern companies, each one of which seems to have been tagged with the "non-free content" tag today. (eg Ghana Stock Exchange, Sonatel, Zambeef)  What do I have to do to satisfy the "fair use rationale"?  And, it just doesn't seem possible that I am going to be able to go back and write something for each one.  Is there an alternative to editing 500 logos?   --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Panic. :) Logos have always been non-free. We still permit them, see Non-free content. The change is that the template name is changing. Any image permitted before is still permitted with this change. We hope that, among other benefits, the name change will help raise awareness that content like this is non-free and only permitted by exception. Messages like yours are a sign that, perhaps, the process is working. --Gmaxwell 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! Thanks. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Event logo
 * Govt-logo
 * Univ-logo
 * MPAA-logo
 * OFLCA-logo
 * PreK12-logo
 * Game-logo
 * Zoo logos
 * Schoolboard-logo
 * Drink-logo
 * K12-logo
 * Film logo
 * Restaurant
 * Hqfl_logo

Posters

 * Movie poster - Non-free film poster - Note that "film" is a more international word than "movie", and most of the rest of the categories and templates seem to be standardized on "film". -- Cyde Weys  15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sportsposter - Non-free sports poster
 * Eventposter - Non-free event poster
 * DisneyAttractionPoster
 * Politicalposter
 * Combine them all into one Non-free poster. There is no special difference between them in license policy. Alex Spade 06:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why posters would be treated any differently than any other published image. Isn't this a source distinction, not a license distinction? Seems to me that we should get rid of all these tags. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Politician photos
Why would our fair use claim depend on the country the subject lives in? --Gmaxwell 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine its mostly to diffuse the categories; so, to answer your question, the country is irrelevant. --Iamunknown 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If people really want to keep them all I'd survive.. but I'd much rather see people doing Dutch-politician+Non-free public person image or + Non-free politician image .. or just apply the category directly plus a non-free template. As things stand what do we put on a free image of a Dutch politican? problably Dutch-politician-photo ... which is completely broken. ;) --Gmaxwell 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to separate source tags from license tags. And now since we are re-designing the system, I say we do that.  (I.e. I like your idea.)  I'd prefer not even have a "Non-free public person image" tag, but if it is necesssary, then I concede.  --Iamunknown 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't most of these images fail the first criteria, in that they only show what the person looks like and a free photo could be taken to replace them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that we should not move these to the new Non-free prefix yet; instead, go through the images and try to find free replacements, tag the images for speedy deletion, etc.; and then put the image copyright tags up for deletion.  These tags IMO suggest that we accept without hesitation non-free media of living people, which we don't.  If a non-free picture of a living person must be used, it should use fair use in (or whatever that tag is changed to) and have a very strong fair use rationale; a blanket tag would be inappropriate.  --Iamunknown 16:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, they're inconsistent, some have wording about only using it for dead people, some are missing that. I'd recommend replacing the live ones with Image:Replace this image1.svg and the dead ones with a specific tag and rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Canada-politician-photo
 * Nova Scotia-politician-photo
 * India-politician-photo
 * Dutch-politician-photo
 * Sri-Lanka-politician-photo
 * Political party trademark
 * Alberta-politician-photo
 * New Brunswick-politician-photo
 * Saskatchewan-politician-photo
 * Quebec-politician-photo
 * Philippines-politician-photo

Comic stuff

 * Perhaps we should take one of these and rename it to "comic artwork" and upmerge all of them to it? Looking at them they are all making the same fair use argument .. I don't know if the panel vs scene web vs not-web is a material distinction for us from a licensing perspective. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not from a licensing perspective there are other reasons why we would want the stuff sorted.Geni 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a part of this effort. Separating licensing issues from attribution issues from content issues. Mak (talk)  23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that some of these are pretty much exact duplicates and apply the same cats... I don't mind if people keep around an excessive number of the templates (since soon we'll at least know that they are all non-free).. but I don't want to do so unless someone really wants us to and can articulate a need. --Gmaxwell 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comicpanel
 * Comicscene
 * Webcomicpanel
 * Webcomicscene
 * Webcomic-character
 * Webcomicepisode
 * Promocomic

How about upmerging all to Non-free comic for now, and then possibly upmerge to a more general non-free tag later? -- Cyde Weys 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think having a distinct template for comics isn't too bad, but having seven probably is... Your suggestion is file with me. --Gmaxwell 16:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue with the conversion of the tags related to comics. The special page Special:Uncategorizedimages has been flooded with comic related images that have the correct tag, but are missing a category.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Icons

 * Wayfinding - Non-free logo
 * Objections? - cohesion 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nay. In fact, a show of support!  :-D  --Iamunknown 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Character art
I fail to see how Character-artwork and CopyrightedCharacter are significantly different to justify separate templates. --Iamunknown 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the disney one can probably be merged with the general artwork one. The last one seems to be intended for figurines and action figures more than drawings. Might warrante a seperate tag, or maybe lump in with non-free 3D objects ... --Sherool (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * DisneyCharacter - Non-free character
 * Character-artwork - Non-free character
 * CopyrightedCharacter - Non-free copyrighted character
 * No need to create a new tag for this, only one image is using it.  Pagra shtak  17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free Government

 * Non-free Crown copyright


 * EU image
 * It must be obsoleted, this is rather source, no license tag. Alex Spade 06:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these actually prohibit modification though, they just don't explicitly allow it. Are you sure we need to get rid of these images? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BC-traffic-sign
 * FinnishDefenceForces
 * NZCrownCopyright
 * Parliament of Australia
 * CACrownCopyright

Money and postage stamps

 * Money
 * "Non-free money" would sound kind of silly. How about "Non-free money scan" or "Non-free money image"?  -- Cyde Weys  05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "Non-free currency image", of if we want to get "fancy" "Non-free numismatics image". --Sherool (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * USPSstamp - Non-free USPSstamp
 * Maybe throw in a space and make it Non-free USPS stamp. --Sherool (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * NZ-Currency
 * PhilippinesGov with fair use
 * CrownCopyright/Proposed
 * What on earth is this? Secretlondon 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like an old draft. Can probably be deleted. --Sherool (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Money-EU

Process related

 * AutoReplaceable fair use buildings
 * AutoReplaceable fair use people
 * Replaceable fair use disputed
 * Orphaned fairuse replaced
 * No rationale
 * Replaceable fair use 2
 * Orphaned fairuse not replaced - Non-free orphaned not replaced
 * I think this one's process-related. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsorted
Format is *CurrentTemplate - ProposedNewName.
 * RPG-artwork
 * Somehow this one got missed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Flagimage
 * Otto Perry image
 * Robert Richardson image

random break 1

 * YuGiOhimage - Non-free Yu-Gi-Oh! image
 * I don't think it needs a separate licensing template. Someone will have to go through manually and tag each one with Non-free television screenshot, Non-free film screenshot, or whatever is appropriate, and add something like .  -- Cyde Weys  05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Withpermission - Non-free with permission
 * This tag is deprecated and useless. Images with it must have another FU-tag, therefore it can be deleted painlessly. Alex Spade 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed but I do not think that it would be deleted at TfD currently. I'll go through and remove inclusions where no assertion of permission (i.e. at least "Website owner gave me permission" at best a copy of the e-mail) is given.  --Iamunknown 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep it, because it's useful for noting the information, even if we don't care that much. Someone else might want to ask for permission, or ask for a free license release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like a useless piece of metadata to me as Wikipedia is meant to me useful for downstream users as well. --Iamunknown 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iamunknown that it's not likely to be deleted today. Lets rename it for now. I see that a lot of the images are bogus .. in many cases we got permission from people who weren't the copyright holders. :( --Gmaxwell 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Seal - Non-free seal
 * Be aware that there are free seals. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over my shoulder for pinnipeds escaped from the zoo. . . – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved this one for you. Your bot already changed all the uses of it to non-free logo, but I am nostalgic for the days of non generic fair use templates. Fix your bot. -Nard 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * TNA-photo
 * Far too specific. Promotional with a specific source. Secretlondon 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

random break 2

 * Mugshot
 * Is there even a solid legal background for this copyright tag? --Iamunknown 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, probably created after mugshot photos were whacked from the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of them are orphaned or have no source; co-ordinated effort to clean 'em up at User:Iamunknown/images tagged as mugshots. --Iamunknown 02:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WWE-photo
 * Obliterate with the other wrestling photo tag above. Secretlondon 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Speech - Non-free speech
 * Is there something else we could call this? "non-free speech" sounds a little funny. :) --Gmaxwell 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * oration? Kotepho 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoken-word? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me (minus the fact that spoken word shouldn't be copyrighted, at least philosophically :-(). --Iamunknown 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If we don't mind beeing verbose we could always go with Non-free recording or speech or some such, emphasising on the non-freenes of the recording rater than the speaking. --Sherool (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

random break 3

 * Image-license-fairuse
 * Sheet music
 * Fairuseair - Non-free air Mothmolevna 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, non-free air has a strange ring to it. Anyway this is just Non-free fair use in with the word "object" substituted with "aircraft" + an additional parameter that adds an additional "non-replacable" rationale saying there are no surviving examples of the aircraft to be photographed. The extra parameter is neat, but is it worth a seperate copyright tag? --Sherool (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Video sample
 * Statue - Non-free statue Statue is not a good name.  would be better imo, and would match the 2D one. Kotepho 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

random break 4

 * Old-50
 * PD-old-70
 * It sounds like these two should be renamed to some variation of "Free public domain xx years" because their use is unrestricted. -- Cyde Weys  00:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * CartoonNetworkImageTag
 * Permission from license selector
 * Sports uniform
 * Non-commercial from license selector
 * Khfair
 * This is from the Kingdom Hearts video game series. It includes source, url, two fair use tags and also a rational all boiled into one. I suggest putting this one down. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Iraqcopyright - Non-free Iraqcopyright
 * Is this just for images that have not yet entered the public domain? Is there a corresponding PD-Iraq template? --- RockMFR 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IEEPA sanctions
 * WP Trains fair use
 * This one seems completely unnecessary. It's neither a source nor a licensing tag, and it doesn't even claim to be. It says "This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag." --Abu badali (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a rubber stamp fair use rationale. TFD.  Pagra shtak  17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cardimage - Non-free card
 * Recordingmedium
 * FirefoxWiki
 * Four images tagged with this - three not used in the article space. The fourth image has no rationale and probably should be replaced with a non-Wikipedia screenshot. --- RockMFR 14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hqfl logo
 * Derivative works of original sports team logos. no thanks. Secretlondon 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Brazilian Olympic Committee Image
 * I listed all the images using this tag on PUI a few days back, the tag itself should be deleted once they have either been deleted or given proper fair use rationales. --Sherool (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright by Wikimedia - Non-free Wikimedia
 * Also see Wikipedia-screenshot. --- RockMFR 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Flags.net
 * Just nuke the images here, there is only 4 or 5 to worry about; then nuke the template. I can't do it due to COI. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FOTWpic
 * Another to be nuked, methinks? --Iamunknown 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but as with that above template, I cannot do much with this due to COI (I am FOTW staff). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I speedied a whole pile of these. There's still a few that are beyond the May 2005 cutoff and some with fair use tags. MER-C 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Other non-free templates

 * CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat - We have permission for using, but haven't permission for derivative works, so it is non-free. Alex Spade 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * CopyrightedFreeUse-User
 * How the hell do either of these qualify as non-free? Only if the specific conditions overstep the bounds of what restrictions they allow is it non-free. The second is essentially a PD release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See TfD for more information, the text of license was changed without notice of authors. For example, if somebody change GFDL-text to CC-BY-text in GFDL-templates, he will be named as Vandal. Alex Spade 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First you must realize that they did not spend most of their life with this language.. people changed them willynilly several times. So we must consider the old language and because 'use' is not conventionally understood to allow derivative works or transferable redistribution rights (i.e. I can give it to you and you can give it to bob). I guess with the language of these templates, we could probably argue that we have the second of the two.. but the derivative works issue is harder. Really, I think if we look we'll find that a lot of these claims are totally bogus, at least thats what we find on commons. We should probably make a long term move to phase out these templates if we can.--Gmaxwell 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * it seems to have been phrased to allow modification since april 2005, so I don't think we can claim that's really being added ex post facto. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * GFDL-presumed - I think, images with this template is also non-free, bacause we haven't clear permission. Alex Spade 10:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This one needs to be cleaned out, not changed to a non-free tag. specific non-free tags may be necessary where it's improperly applied but a blanket switch won't solve anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cleaned out.. ugh. Perhaps I should make a list of ones which are used on 'User:' pages which begain life in the article namespace and which are owned by inactive users? I think that would be a lot of them... A lot are images that were uploaded for vanity articles which we 'AGFed' and userifyed. --Gmaxwell 10:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A blanket change to no license might work. I'm tagging some right now. MER-C 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Invariant sections are nonfree and the gfdl is a terrible license that you should never use for anything as it fails to protect the freedoms it is intended to and instead is a vehicle for the FSF's own agenda and soapboxing. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * as above. Kotepho 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I think invariants are good, or that we should accept them.. but they aren't much harm from the freedom perspective: The GFDL puts a lot of weird stipulations on invariants to keep them from being used to really reduce the freedom of the document. For example, they can only be documents which describe the relationship of the author to the work, they can't be about the subject of the work themselves. The only purpose of the sections, really, was so that the FSF could require that folks who distribute the GNU manuals also distribute the GNU manifesto. Which isn't really that bad.. it's better than putting the manifesto in the license itself. --Gmaxwell 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are used to attach invariant sections to any images, so we'd probably be best off just deleting them to simplify things.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are only two images with it. Plz, somebody, retag their and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are only two images with it. Plz, somebody, retag their and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * these are source tags only, images with them need to be tagged nolicense. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one image with it and this image is on ifd. Plz, somebody retag or delete image and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is only one image with it and this image is on ifd. Plz, somebody retag or delete image and put the template to TfD or speedy deletion. Alex Spade 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
























 * This is another attribution-only, no mention of commercial or derivative use. Someone needs to make a clarification. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another attribution-only, no mention of commercial or derivative use. Someone needs to make a clarification. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Permission-wikipedian
 * There are a few images with it, I am offering to obsolete or deprecate it. Alex Spade 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, depreciate it and arrange for deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PD-US-patent - free at many cases, but not at all
What are we thinking about this? In some case patent is PD, in other is copyrighted. How can new ordinary user understand, does image (which he want to load or to use) free or not? The same problem was with PD-USGov-NARA, which is now on TfD. Alex Spade 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding and tagged with the non-free internal marker

 * Non-free restricted_use
 * Iraqcopyright
 * Video_tape_cover
 * Flagimage
 * Otto_Perry_image
 * USPSstamp
 * Money-EU
 * EU_image
 * Robert_Richardson_image
 * BC-traffic-sign
 * FinnishDefenceForces
 * FOTWpic
 * Gymnast_ru_image
 * Danishdefence
 * MEP_image_(EP)
 * NZCrownCopyright
 * HKCrownCopyright
 * Boardgamecover
 * GFDL-invariants
 * Seal
 * Parliament_of_Australia
 * Politicalposter
 * Withpermission
 * TNA-photo
 * Canada-politician-photo
 * Cc-sampling
 * Orphaned_fairuse_replaced
 * Orphaned_fairuse_not_replaced
 * Denver_Public_Library_images
 * Cereal_box_cover
 * Restaurant
 * Mugshot
 * Nintendo-screenshot
 * Linux-software-screenshot
 * Vodcast-screenshot
 * WWE-photo
 * Parody
 * Scoutlogo
 * Olympics-logo
 * PolishPresidentCopyright
 * Tv-program-logo
 * Web-software-screenshot
 * Computer_hardware_logo
 * Speech
 * Image-license-fairuse
 * NZ-Currency
 * Nova_Scotia-politician-photo
 * Commercial_logo
 * Sheet_music
 * Wayfinding
 * Softwarecover
 * Be-software-screenshot
 * India-politician-photo
 * Machinima-screenshot
 * Fairuseair
 * Video_sample
 * BCRP
 * Ptcg
 * Ptcg2
 * RPG-artwork
 * Old-50
 * PD-old-70
 * CartoonNetworkImageTag
 * Permission_from_license_selector
 * Dutch-politician-photo
 * Sri-Lanka-politician-photo
 * Sports_uniform
 * Non-commercial_from_license_selector
 * Arcade-game-cover
 * Khfair
 * IEEPA_sanctions
 * Video_disc_cover
 * Tvlogo
 * WP_Trains_fair_use
 * Political_party_trademark
 * Product-cover
 * CopyrightedCharacter
 * Alberta-politician-photo
 * New_Brunswick-politician-photo
 * Saskatchewan-politician-photo
 * FairusewithNC
 * K12-logo
 * Quebec-politician-photo
 * Replaceable_fair_use_2
 * Cardimage
 * PhilippinesGov_with_fair_use
 * Film_logo
 * Recordingmedium
 * Philippines-politician-photo
 * FirefoxWiki
 * GFDL-self-invariants
 * EUAVS
 * ESA_media
 * Money-EU_banknote
 * Money-EU_coin_common
 * Money-EU_coin_national
 * Maccabiah-logo
 * Non-free official document
 * Logo_fur -Now {[tl|Non-free use rationale logo}}
 * Album_cover_fur - Now Non-free use rationale album cover
 * Book_cover_fur - Now Non-free use rationale book cover
 * MEP_image_(EP_-_1st_term)
 * MEP_image_(EP_-_2nd_term)
 * MEP_image_(EP_-_3rd_term)
 * Album_cover_fur/development
 * Album_cover_fur/old

Scoutlogo
Would it have been too hard to put up a notice on the talk page of Scoutlogo before making these changes? The template put images into proper categories base on the parameter (as many do). Now that Cydebot is cranking away and doing a simple rename, we now have images in categories that don't exist and are the wrong name. I see where this is going, and it would not have been an issue if WikiProject Scouting had been given notice. It appears we are going to be hours fixing this by hand instead of editing. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change in wording
In the 'Fair use' templates, the tag at the top of the template reads "Non-free / fair use media rationale for {Mineko Iwasaki}". I would like to suggest that the wording be changed to "Non-free / fair use media rationale for use in the article: {Mineko Iwasaki}" as a way to more clearly articulate what the information in the template is for. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)