Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media files without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. A list of current content review requests is maintained on the Category:Non-free content review requested page.

Uses that are legal, or perceived to be legal, may still not be allowed by Wikipedia policy on non-free content. The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia. As a further concern, we wish to minimize legal exposure. We, therefore, permit only a limited amount of non-free content under strictly defined circumstances that are deliberately more restrictive than United States fair use law.

Note that this page should be used for:

  • Discussing a file that has both some appropriate and inappropriate uses (that is, the deletion of the file is not a desired outcome).
  • Discussing multiple non-free images on a single page
  • Discussing whether a non-free file should be treated as free (possibly public domain or uncopyrightable)

For cases where deletion of one specific file is desired by the nominator, typically representing its only use on Wikipedia, please open discussion at WP:FFD.

How to nominate[edit]

Please follow these steps to nominate the media for review:

  • For text copied and pasted into articles, see WP:COPYVIO.
  • For media files, such as images, sounds and movies, add the {{Non-free review}} template to the file's page. If your question is about the selection of non-free files for an article, post a message on the talk page linking here.
  • Start a new section with level 2 header (==) at the bottom of this page, using a link to the media as the header title.[1]
    For example: ==[[:File:ImageNameHere]] ==
  • Include reason(s) for nominating (references to specific WP:NFC criteria are helpful) and the article(s) for which fair use is to be evaluated.
  • Be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~.

How to close[edit]

When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 30 days have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure.

Closing the discussion[edit]

Closed discussions will be archived by ClueBot III.

Media action[edit]

Depending upon the outcome of the discussion, several actions may be taken. If the media is to be kept, simply replace the {{Non-free review}} template on the media file page with {{Non-free reviewed}}. If there is no consensus after a reasonable amount of time has passed, use the {{Non-free reviewed no consensus}} tag instead.

If the media is to be removed, the closer should remove the media from the applicable articles. If the media is removed from all articles, it may be tagged with {{Di-orphaned fair use}} or, if the closer is an admin, deleted at their discretion. If the media has a remediable problem, the closer is encouraged to implement the fix or tag the media as appropriate. For example:

  • If the media is deemed to be too high resolution/fidelity (NFCC#3), add the {{Non-free reduce}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a source (NFCC#10A), add the {{subst:nsd}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a copyright tag (NFCC#10B), add the {{subst:nld}} template to the media page.
  • If the media does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C), add the {{subst:frn}} template to the media page.

If an article is tagged, follow the same steps individually on each offending image, and remove the Non-free review template from the page.


  1. ^ To nominate multiple media files in one section, title the section "Multiple files" (or similar wording, at your discretion) and ensure all files are linked in your comments.

edit guidelines


File:Windows logo - 2006.svg[edit]

This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation. Werieth (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. This is not the logo of Microsoft and it is not used in any event-related articles. The various Microsoft Windows releases in whose articles it is used do not have their "own" logos. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Then the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page. We don't duplicate a company's logo onto its product pages if those product pages do not have their own logos. (One has to remember that the UUI are not written in generic terms but more specific pages, and in this case, about reuse of a logo several articles is clearly cautioned against). --MASEM (t) 19:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not the Microsoft Logo. If it were, then you would be correct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
So because they lack their own logo they can include a wider topical logo to fill that gap? Werieth (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I see what you are getting at. If we can find images like Commons:File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg for each of the listed products then we can limit this file's use to Microsoft Windows. Note that the XP logo is hosted on the Commons. A non-free Windows logo would still be inappropriate on the company's page though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant (you're right, that's not the MS logo). However, given we have the MS Windows article where that logo would seem most appropriate, the individual versions should not repeat that same logo, those as I recall, there are variations of that logo (adjusting workmarks) for branding of each individual product, so that's what should be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Expect other editors to come here to discuss the use of this image in the Microsoft Windows article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Retain: Hi. I spotted the following issues with the following discussions in this page:
  • "This screams of WP:NFC#UUI #14 violation."
    1. No, it does not. That section talks about "events" only not "computer software". Logos of events are purely decorative while logos and icons of computer software are their primary means of identification.
    2. Even if clause 14 was to be generalize, this logo is a specific logo, which only applies to a small subset of Windows family.
    3. Extrapolating the clause 14 is a direct violation of NFCC § 3a: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  • "the only place that logo is appropriate is on Microsoft's page". Doing so is a violation of NFCC § 1: No free equivalent and NFCC § 8: Contextual significance.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Microsoft thing was my bad, so ignore that. What the case appeared to be is that 1) we have the Windows logo which covers a family of products, and 2) that logo was being used on many of the individual products of that family when those products lacked individual logos. Assuming this logo non-free, those uses would be inappropriate outlined as NFC#UUI#14 and NFCC#3a (you only need the logo on the product family page), and the individual product pages would simply go without a logo. That said, I'm pretty confident each of the products in this family do have an individual logo (even if it just the wordmark of the product slapped atop the logo). As such we would allow each individual wordmarked product logo on those individual pages (this is the allowed spelled out in UUI#14). Note that this is based on the base Windows logo being non-free. If is free, these discussions don't matter. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. Guidelines are only generally correct. So, that means extrapolating them should be done with caution. You are right that the difference is only in wordmark. (Windows Vista through Windows Server 2008 R2). We cannot forgo the logo in version articles (although we can do that in edition articles) because unlike Microsoft Office, each product does not have an icon as well. I think occasionally, you do run into non-free images that are used in so many articles and their use is justified; and we don't have hard limit either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, let's put it this way. If a product has its own unique logo (not shared with any other similar product), we allow that product logo on the product page. But if the product lacks a unique logo, and the most applicable logo (whether that of the larger product family or the vendor) is non-free, we don't allow that type of logo use at all, since the logo for the product family/client should a link away within the article's lead. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not saying I disagree; I love to keep our arbitrary standards fluid. But I also have been around and have a conception of the norm here. I think if you removed this image from those articles that I mentioned and instead added it to Windows NT or Windows, the image would come back over the course of a year or two; there will be reverts and redos but eventually, it stays. And, you see, the image isn't exactly a click away; it is a click a few wheel scrolls away. I learned it the hard way that the scrolling is the important part.
This isn't just a gut feeling; I have a lead for you too: Four years ago, (Hint: I joined a year and eleven month ago) there was a discussion that logo+wordmark variations must be merged and the status quo that we see right now must be created. The discussion was abruptly abandoned when these logos were uploaded to Commons. Perhaps you can use your admin tools to investigate the now-deleted images and extract a link to that discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First, I think we may need to refine some of our guidelines (especially WP:NFC#UUI). Also, I don't think that this or the XP logo are {{PD-simple}}. That aside, I want to discuss the uses of this image.
  • Microsoft Windows - The logo just seems to be used for identifying the logo. I believe this use fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary about the logo in that article. I also feel this is unnecessary redundancy, because if you open any version specific article, the image is there.
  • The remaining articles, in my opinion, should have the specific logos (I know the flag is the same) with the text. Microsoft spent much monies branding the specific way, with the bolder font followed by a skinnier font. I'm an IT professional (I can verify that for anyone interested) and I identify with the different versions logos including the text. This would be in line with other software including Windows XP (file is on Commons, but I dispute the threshold). Some of these have different flag logos (alternatives can be seen at Microsoft's website).
  • If neither of these discussions are fruitful, my next question would be do we need both a logo and a screenshot (that includes the logo, more than just the start button)? Windows Server 2008 R2 & Windows Home Server specifically. Windows Mobile screenshot uses the plain white logo. And the background of Windows 7 uses a variation of the logo that many persons identify as specifically coming from Windows 7, so do we need further use?
  • Sorry for being late to the discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. The problem with your argument #2 is that there is no specific logos. The logo + specific workmark is accomplished by inserting the Wikicode to this logo plus the wikicode to wordmark (already uploaded on Commons) together. Even then, this logo will be used on the same number of articles. Uploading images that contains logo + wordmark goes straight against WP:NFCC#3. The biggest problem with this discussion is an unwarranted interpolation of WP:NFC#UUI without a consensus.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the flag and wordmark combined are specific logos. Look at Microsoft's site, and the site that I link. Look at the software used on these operating systems. Look at the start up screens, etc. There is always the word mark with the logo. Also, think of Wikipedia's logo. The puzzle-globe thing is obviously an identifier for the project, it is globally recognized. but in any official capacity it includes the word Wikipedia (with a specifically chosen font).
  • When it comes to WP:NFCC#3, using one logo 9 times, versus using 9 logos (including the wordmark) is no different. Either way is 9 uses of a logo, and neither minimizes use more than the other, so I don't think that is a fair argument in this discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wordmarks are not part of the logo; Microsoft just likes to use them. (It uses them in different languages and sometimes does not uses them.) I think no matter what we do, the number of images containing this logo in the articles cannot be so easily reduced. We must accept that we have articles that intensely tend to the subject. In that light, what you say about NFCC#3 would totally correct.
Anyway, Timothy, I was assuming you'd be standing watch to eventually close the discussion instead of involving yourself. Not I that there is a problem; in fact, I think it is good that you decided to add input. Face-smile.svg Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Normally I would stand-by to close, but when I thought about closing it, I had too strong of an opinion to make an impartial close this time. Realize that it is not my opinion to remove the logos completely, rather its my opinion to include what I think the full logo is (something we just disagree on, and that's okay). I also think its less likely to come back of an issue if they are different files (as no one could attempt to argue WP:NFC#UUI or WP:NFCC#3). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I just removed the NFCC#8 violations (someone mentioned them here) from Windows NT and Microsoft Windows, now that the 2002 logo is localized under fair-use. But of course, the time is ripe to decide the fates of File:Windows logo - 2002.svg and File:Microsoft Windows XP logo and wordmark.svg. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • qwertyxp2000 says... I think the only scales that are available should be up to 1000px and plus 2000px is not necessary.
  • Comment I have removed this from one page per WP:NFCC#9. I have not looked at the other pages, so I do not have an opinion about them. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Two month later...[edit]

  • Commnet FleetCommand did a non-admin closure on this, with their reasoning has given below, but I believe this is in fault as 1) NACs are meant for non-ambigious cases and I don't believe this exists in the discussion above 2) there's demonstrated faults with NFC logic here. FC's comments are as follows otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • (Keep) In closing with this result, there were three topics to consider:
      1. There is no denying that the coverage of Windows in Wikipedia is vast; in fact no other non-free subject can match its magnitude. Higher use of non-free contents is only natural and acceptable.
      2. While guidelines are flexible rules that can be bent or even broken when common sense and consensus says so, this nomination suggests a dangerous opposite: Extrapolating a clause of a guideline outside its scope in absence of unanimous consent. Allow me to use an example: One person removes {{Di-no fair use rationale}} tag from an otherwise-empty description page of a non-free image, citing PROD removal procedure as the reason. He is no doubt extrapolating, but this is an act of gaming the system that defies both purpose and the spirit of the law. Similarly, extrapolating WP:NFC#UUI #14 disregards both purpose of the image and the NFCC policy, and is disputed by the participants here.
      3. A consensus spelled out explicitly on 8 July 2011 (approximately) in a discussion about Rozen Maiden characters (and used implicitly elsewhere) has it that the measure of the number of non-free contents used is not the number of files, but the contents itself, e.g. images shown at the top of Microsoft Office 2010 and Microsoft Office 2013 each consist of four copyright-protected item, not one. Likewise, the combination of a logo and its wordmark is two items, not one; only the non-free logo remains the same regardless of the wordmark, and infoboxes do not need the free and non-accessible wordmark because they already display an accessible title. So, no matter what you do, this frivolous approach of making multiple copies of the same logo with different wordmark is a defiance to the purpose of NFCC policy (preventing overuse) that serves no purpose but eluding a legal technicality (one wrong) resulted from stringent extrapolation of an already flexible guideline (another wrong). Two wrongs don't make one right.
    • Meanwhile, editors should use this image on Windows Mobile 6.0 too, because File:Windows Mobile 6 logo.jpg consists of two non-free contents, instead of one: This logo, and a non-free background. Fleet Command (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Vast coverage does not automatically equate to a scalable allowance for NFC. Your last point is very off however. From an NFC standpoint, 100 reuses of the same image is equal to single uses of 100 unique images. So whether a product has the Windows logo alone, or the Windows logo with product wordmark still represents an equivalent case. Further, remember that if the copyright owners provide a single image that may consist of multiple copyrighted elements that they all control, that, for us, is considered a single image, so there's no reason to swap out the Windows Mobile 6 logo due to copyright, since that logo is still a single image.
    • What does help is that if the product is distributed as its own brand with the Windows mark and the word mark, that shows to us it is a significant product that the logo+wordmark should be used to identify it. Contrast that, to , an article on Windows Solitare, a component of Windows. The logic in the close above would suggest that I should be able to include the Windows logo on the Solitare page because it is a windows product, which of course is unallowable, the whole point of UUI#17. Using the logo+wordmark, even if this is just "repeating" the logo, shows that the product is something branded and thus fits the reason we use the logo+wordmark to ID it. If the product does not have such branding, it should forgo any logo, even the Windows one. This situation has no harm from an NFC standpoint in terms of logo use. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Masem: I must seriously protest your behavior! Although I reserve my comments on the NAC closure (which was BOLD) and the stuff that I earlier addressed, you have explicitly claimed things from Fleet Command that he never said. Your comment about Windows Solitaire was way of out line, especially since you yourself said that this logo should be used in Microsoft article, which is equally questionable! How can you theorize about File:Windows Mobile 6 logo.jpg being one work when he explicitly claims it is two? (Source field seems to confirm this.) If you know it for sure, please prove it.
This is unbelievable! I keep encouraging newcomers not to nitpick on words and not to pretend failing to understand the meaning when they actually do and resort to proper avenues of appeal... and you, an admin nonetheless, forgo all of these, just because like millions of others, disagree with the closure verdict of a discussion? Did you discuss with him before reverting? (You cannot have done this in the capacity of an admin, per WP:INVOLVED, because you are a participant here.) Not good, man! Not good!
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, where NACs are meant to be used are meant for obvious cases, this was not one, so I am completely in the right for undoing per WP:NAC. If this needs closure, since there's no obviousness to it, we get an uninvolved admin]. And in addition, note that INVOLVED only is for closing the discussion, but not in reverting an inappropriate NAC.
Second, I fucked up myself at the start of this discussion (which I since admitted), since I was assuming it was the Microsoft logo when instead it is the Windows logo. In the context, the logo would be find in whatever is the base article for talking about the Windows family of products (assuming this is the current logo, but with W8, I don't think it is anymore), but not in a random Windows product.
And no, the Windows Mobile 6 logo is a single image for our evaluation of NFC. Yes, it has three primary components, the logo (nonfree), the wordmark and the background (nonfree), but the fact that MS assembled all that themselves and put at as a single image (at least here [1]) means, to us, it is one single copytaking. If a WP user put that image together, sure, that's 2 non-frees in a single image, but that's not the case. There are several faults to how FC took NFC in the closure that I would have questioned if an admin closed that way as well, which is why this closure is faulty to start with. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:BADNAC "inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator" and per WP:INVOLVED you cannot act as an admin here. Besides, tough closure is not listed as a case of BADNAC. I was forbidden from reverting a NAC of an AfD which had three keep and four merge. Why should you be exempt? Finally, being or not being an admin does not have any impact on the nature of the closure. The closing party only needs to be sane and experienced.
You should have contacted a colleague; without doubt, he'd have reverted FC. But now, regardless of the truth of your intention, this revert gives the impression that you simply used your superior position to defuse a dispute in your own favor. Even now you are not letting go of twisting words: Even if File:Windows Mobile 6 logo.jpg is one work, per WP:NFCC#3 two such logos must not be uploaded when one would suffice.
Still very disappointed,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." Further, if the closure is fundamental (not subjectively) wrong, there's a problem - I would reasonably expect that if an AFD that was primarily keep with absolutely no "delete" !votes was closed "delete" in a NAC, that's a clear revision anyone can do. And again, I'm not trying to decide the case, just that that close using very faulty and wrong logic against NFC (eg closing the obvious keep AFD as delete).
"Even if File:Windows Mobile 6 logo.jpg is one work, per WP:NFCC#3 two such logos must not be uploaded when one would suffice." There's only one logo there and in use at Windows Mobile 6.0. Now, editorially, we could upload a version that subtracts out the green BG - it would remain NFC but cleaner. But from the handling of NFC, the current version with the green BG, or a version lacking it, are equivalent in how they meet NFC, since both are directly published by the copyright holder. That's the faulty logic that is against the objective basics of NFC that that close asked for. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I've asked for review of my actions as well as for an uninvolved admin closure on this at AN[2]. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You may be right on both accounts but there are two questions: "Does it matter?" and "Does it matter?" In other words, so far there has been one objection and one does not qualify as controversy. And do whatever you want with the background; at the end of they day, there are two files while only one suffices. ("Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information".) If you want wordmarks, they are already on Commons; adding their code to the article so that they appear along the logo doesn't take an NFCR. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter, it's understanding how we handle logos on WP, when they themselves are not commented on visually. The use of logos by default through the non-free logo template is a unique identifying image to brand a product or company or the like. As soon as the logo is reused on a separate product, like the various Windows products, as opposed to the family, that's overuse of the logo, and something that we don't allow under NFC. If the side products have their own logos, even if just takes the family logo and adds a word mark, that's what should be used as the logo (as [3] does for Windows Server 2008). In fact, the combination of the logo + wordmark is a branding aspect; eg a large use of the logo over the text is marketing to show the connectivity of the products. And from our NFC standpoint, using this new image over just the existing Window logo does not change the amount of NFC that we are counting. What does create the problem is that when one logo is reused at many articles without distinction, new users follow this pattern without understanding the nuances of our NFC policy. Additionally, as the logo is being used on these pages, it is a visual decoration to attribute the fact that this is part ofthe "Windows Family", but we don't allow non-free for such distinctions. But you can still get that using the direct wordmark.
You mentioned at the AN that you'd lose the Windows icon on all the pages, but when I check what logos are there specific for the project (which yes, amount to the logo + wordmark), you would still have the Windows logo on each of those products, abutted or over the product name, so no, you'd not lose the logo.
And to reiterate: if a company has two copyright elements that they have published separate, and then they have a single image that uses both copyrighted elements together, for our NFC purposes that last image is only counted as one non-free image even if we know we can obtain the images separately. The copyright owner merged their copyrights together to make a single image, as opposed to a WP editor. So again, it's not an issue of "multiple non-free". --MASEM (t) 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Masem, 90% of your message consists of theoretical "what if" that does not even contradict what I proposed. Are you sure you know what I want, what you want and to what great extent they are the same thing? And I don't remember saying anything about Windows icons in AN.
In fact, in your next message, please try to phrase out your proposal and what you think my proposal is. I believe there is a huge amount of denying and fixing the misunderstanding that I'd better do ASAP.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg[edit]

The file is used on Flag of Australia, Torres Strait Islander Flag, Torres Strait Islanders, Torres Strait Islands, Indigenous Australians. and I can really only see justifcation for it on Torres Strait Islands and Torres Strait Islander Flag. Werieth (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

While you may not see the justification, like other images you keep removing without discussion, there is a reason for its use in several articles:
  • At Flag of Australia, which is an article discussing (not simply listing) all of the Australian flags, it is used in a section that visually compares some of the official Australian flags. The file has a valid FUR for this article and is the subject of commentary.
  • At Indigenous Australians the image is used alongside the Australian Aboriginal flag. Indigenous Australians fall into two distinct groups, Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. These groups are represented by different, official flags. Exclusion of the Torres Strait Islander flag misrepresents Torres Strait Islanders by giving readers the impression that all Indigenous Australians are represented by the Australian Aboriginal flag, which is most definitely NOT the case. This is so significant that it is mentioned in the lead.
  • At Torres Strait Islanders the flag is used in the infobox as it is the official flag of the people that are the subject of the article. It has a valid FUR for this article and while it is not the subject of critical commentary, it is an important visual indication that Torres Strait Islanders are not represented by the Australian Aboriginal flag. (See my comments about Indigenous Australians above) --AussieLegend () 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NFUR's dont mean that a file is permissible. In the case of Indigenous Australians if it leads to an imbalance the solution is to remove both flags. For the other two cases NFCC#3 comes into play as we can just reference the primary article about the subject. (either the article on the place or more specifically the article about the flag itself. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
We could delete all images to solve problems but we don't. We should be including both images in the article. NFCC#3 doesn't apply:
  • "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - One item can't convey equivalent significant information. We need both.
  • "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" - A portion won't suffice.
  • "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" - That's applicable. The image should be resized so it complies, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Note that NFCC#3 doesn't say anything abut the number of articles that non-free content can be used it. In this case we're using it in the minimum number of articles in which it should be used. NFCC#7 says that non-free content should be used in at least one article but it doesn't specify a maximum. As for "NFUR's dont mean that a file is permissible", WP:NFCCP says "all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" and I don't see how any of the criteria aren't met. --AussieLegend () 13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NFCC#3 applies to multiple uses of the same file across all of WP - it's part of minimizing non-free in, so to say that that situation is not covered is false. And also remember that all the criteria has to be met, and that includes ones lke NFCC#1 and NFCC#8; just having the rational present but unreviewed by others doesn't mean the image's use is valid. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And if you really want to be pendantic: NFCC#1 says that non-free content should be replaced by free content serving the same purpose whenever possible; a link to an article where a non-free image is being used in proper context can be an equivalent replacement for using the non-free image without appropriate context in an article, such as in the case of Flag of Australia (there is no discussion about the visual elements of the flags shown there). --MASEM (t) 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
NFCC is a policy with legal considerations and the language used seems clear. NFCC#3 doesn't say anything about minimising the use of individual files across Wikipedia. That seems to be an almost WP:SYNTHy interpretation of the criteria. NFCC specifically says "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content" but it says nothing about minimising the use of the non-free content. That's just something we do. A link is hardly free content. Content is far more than just a link. There's an old saying, "A picture paints a thousand words". When you have two side by side images, you don't need to discuss the intricacies of the images in depth to be able to compare them. NFCC doesn't say you have to discuss the visual elements. If we were required to do that there wouldn't be a single TV series with an image in its infobox. --AussieLegend () 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC. As for your SYNTH claim it refers to Minimal usage and then has sub points to clarify a few things. But Minimal usage refers to exactly that Minimal usage. Using as little as needed on as few pages as needed. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
See example WP:NFC#UUI #14. about the usage of a logo across multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And WP:NFC#UUI #6. Since the flag has its won article. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
"Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC." - That's completely untrue. In fact there are very few TV series articles that don't have non-free images in the infobox. UUI 14 refers to a "logo of a perennial event". That's not relevant to this file. A flag isn't a logo per se. UUI 6 is not how the image is being used. --AussieLegend () 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Werieth is speaking to TV episodes. TV series are completely allowed to have a single title-card/logo for identifications purposes. And you are allowed to use a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents for the same purpose ("for identification" on such articles meets NFCC#8), but that's the only page where the flag may be used without any additional commentary. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why Werieth is speaking about episodes when I specifically said "TV series". Regarding using a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents, that is exactly how the image is being used in the articles that I addressed so there should be no problem with it in those articles. --AussieLegend () 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
There are only one article where we are talking about the region, that is Torres Strait Islands, and the flag is fine there. Further, the flag itself is proper at Torres Strait Islander Flag since that's discussing the flag directly. All other users are not about country/region. It's not even reasonable on Flag of Australia as are the other sub-national flags since they are not the Flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The flag doesn't just represent a region, it represents a specific group of people. Note that it's not the "Torres Strait Islands Flag", it's the "Torres Strait Islander Flag". And, while the flag is not the flag of Australia, it's still a Flag of Australia as prescribed under Section 5 of the Flags Act 1953, which essentially makes it another national flag. --AussieLegend () 05:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
"WP:NFCC#3 applies to multiple uses of the same file across all of WP"
No Beta, it doesn't. Please stop making policies up to suit your own biases. You've been told this repeatedly beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure who you are talking to. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I'm talking to you. Why are you mis-representing (yet again) WP:NFCC#3? We consider each use of media independently. If they meet our criteria, they are acceptable. It does not matter if they are used elsewhere, where or how often they are used elsewhere, nor even if they are being used incorrectly elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Have to agree with Werieth. Andy, if you intend on addressing Werieth anyone as "Beta" (apparently meaning User:Betacommand) you had better come with some sort of evidence, and not a sideways comment in a thread Werieth happens to have started. Your accusations are undermining of the discussion. Drop it, and take it up elsewhere if you must. This is NOT the appropriate place for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually with the indentation I think he's called me Beta which is even stranger... --MASEM (t) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To avoid the category becoming so large as to be unmanageable it should be diffusing and have appropriate subcategories Thincat (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've warned Andy for making false accusations. We do not need to turn what was a decent discussion into a drama board. If he continues this process, he will eventually be blocked. Case closed. TLSuda (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All the listed uses seem fair enough to me. Legal exposure could easily be minimised by including the name of the creator Bernard Namok and date of creation 1992 on the file page.[4] It should also appear on List of Australian flags, and its current omission could be considered offensive. User:Werieth seems to be responsible for the omission and edit warring over this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The NFCR did not "determine that it was unacceptable", it determined that one specific use of it, in one particular article, at one particular time was unacceptable. That is no evidence that the content itself was unacceptable anywhere, as you are now claiming. Specifically the policy cited was NFCC#8, which requires contextual significance and discussion of the media. There is no reason why such could not be added to any relevant article, even if it wasn't there at the time of review. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you not read? I was specifically responding to Graeme Bartlett's comment about its usage on List of Australian flags. I wasnt making a general claim about the other current usages, just the case that Graeme re-added in violation of the previous WP:NFCR. Werieth (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probably not a good idea to question other editors that way when you've made the same mistake above, talking about TV episodes when I specifically referred to the TV series. --AussieLegend () 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • NFC's goal is not about reducing legal issues (though it is a secondary result); it is about writing a free-content encyclopedia while minimizing non-free uses. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This thread is a microcosm of why WP:NFCC is a miserable failure. One little image, of a flag that is openly displayed in all sorts of places, creates an enormous amount of headache, followed by insults and accusations flying, warnings being placed on user talk pages, and more. All over one image. <facepalm> --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Endless debate is better than endless edit warring. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree MASEM. I seem to be jumping into the deep end here, but here I go. I have contributed to List of Australian flags before, and probably will in the future. However I cannot see a reason why the flag image should be excluded. The flag its self is a national level flag (considered equal to the Australian National Flag) but only represents descendants of torres strait islanders. The image may have copyright, but has anyone of the editors emailed the owner to seek unadulterated permission of use? The way flag image copyright rules are governed on WP is a little confusing is some way's, using -File:Naval Ensign of Australia.svg- as an example. The image's author is marked as 'unknown' though the designer's were the members of the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board under Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll (Slight side-track, my bad). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It does seem rather silly to exclude the flag when there are so many other flags reproduced on the same page. It detracts from the quality of the encyclopaedia when readers have to question why a particular flag is excluded, especially when the flag is available on Wikipedia and is used in other articles. "Minimizing non-free uses" is not the same as excluding non-free uses. --AussieLegend () 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Removing non-free uses when they duplicate a more proper use elsewhere is one of our goals. And sometimes it is the problem with how the page is constructed that force the non-free inclusion that is the problem - for example there is no need to illustrate the non-national flags in Flag of Australia since, well, they aren't the flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
While they aren't "the" flag of Australia, they are official flags of Australia as prescribed under Section 5 of the Flags Act 1953, which essentially makes them another national flag. On certain occasions both the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag fly alongside "the" flag of Australia. It's clear that, despite lack of a single "s" in the title, the flags are the subject of the article. Because there are so many official flags, all need to be displayed so that their differences to the flag can be demonstrated. It's not possible to do that with prose, at least not without making the article huge. --AussieLegend () 05:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Travel & Living Europe[edit]

The logos in the "Distribution" section fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

TLC (Asia)[edit]

The logos in the "Logo" section fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Travel & Living[edit]

The old logo fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Discovery Travel & Living[edit]

The logo in the "Former services" section fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sky 1[edit]

The former logos fail WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8 and, elsewhere, WP:NFCC#9. Some of them seem to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Seal of Chhattisgarh.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Chhattisgarh. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article.[which?] Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations[edit]

It seems to be redundant to both have a flag and an almost identical logo. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is nominally a flag and a logo for these geopolitical entities, and other cases generally can use 2 non-frees here, then while there is near duplication here between these for the Commonwealth, it would reasonable to have the two different images. But that's assuming this is the nominal case that we have flags and logos for both. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg[edit]

File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg is a combination of two non-free images,[5][6] which is not reflected in the FUR. AussieLegend () 11:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a more detailed FUR that metions boths covers. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
While that fixes the FUR, the image itself would seem to contravene NFCC#3a by combining multiple items of non-free content when a single one would serve the same purpose. --AussieLegend () 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Arguable this is a reasonable use: if the only way this season was distributed on home media was as two parts (and no box set is known to be incoming), then showing both covers is reasonable, and the use of a user-created montage that acknowledges this would be fine. But, I do beg the question if both covers are really needed, since the imagery is nearly the same (same color scheme, same actress, slightly different posing), so there's more the NFCC#3a minimization question to be asked. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
We use home media cover art in TV season infoboxes to identify the seasons, not the media itself, so I can't see a reason to ever use two images in these articles when one will do, especially as there's barely justification for one. The two cover art images have been used by the uploader to justify the inclusion of original research into the article so it's problematic in that regard as well. --AussieLegend () 00:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason I uploaded both covers is because the season is in two parts. If you need a reference to other articles that use this format please have a look.
Teen Wolf (season 3), Meet the Vamps — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Davis2003 (talkcontribs) 12:11, 16 June 2014‎ (UTC)
Meet the Vamps is not a TV season article. Teen Wolf (season 3) actually uses two separate images, which violates WP:NFCC#3a. --AussieLegend () 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I know that, it was just a reference. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @AussieLegend:@De728631:@B.Davis2003:@Masem: Is there any reason we cannot use a different promotional image instead of two covers? It seems to me this image at Amazon or one similar would be sufficient to identify the season, and would limit it to just one image. I think we should consider this idea for situations like this, especially since instant video is becoming increasingly popular, and the imagery is similar/same. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not - it's clearly meant to be in the same "flavor" as the way the DVD covers are presented, so its the same branding/marketing approach. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
      • It was a long-standing convention that we use DVD cover art but that has now been extended to cover Blu-ray. I see no reason why the convention shouldn't be extended again to include instant video images. The main criteria is an image (preferably only one if non-free) that represents the season and this image satisfies that. --AussieLegend () 00:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
        • It is not the situation in this case, but I would argue that if we had a similar conditions where the home media release had two different but commonly-branded covers (eg two non-free images) and the digital release through iTunes was a significantly different image that we should still default to the home release, since 1) most people will be seeing that version than the digital, at least at the present time and 2) the home media release nearly always trails the digital release nowadays and thus reflects changes in branding that might have happened during release. But I can't even think of such a case. This case for Dance Moms provides an ample opportunity to cut down one non-free without losing any branding message. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Consistency. That is something that I've been told we should maintain through out the articles, and having a dvd home release on one season article and then having a digital home release on another article makes for inconsistency. At this stage I feel that both images should be represented as the second season is presented in two parts, with the covers having different colour schemes and different character positions. B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the two covers have the same color scheme (save for the top bar). And as more TV shows forego the physical media release for the digital on, we're not going to be able to stay consistent with what image is used to ID the product. As long as the intended branding is there (which is in this case) and the cover is otherwise not discussed, we should go with the version that minimizes non-free. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The colour schemes are different. VOL 1 is gold, with the cast wearing gold. VOL 2 is silver, with the cast wearing silver. The season is split up into two parts, and the images provided depicts both volumes. If you want Non Free ones, then someone should source for it. I have put these covers up because it depicts the season and their two volumes. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are clear differences, but the layout, the logo, the predominance of the host (whomever that woman is, I assume) over the competitors, all on a clean white set - that's the branding message there, irregardless of the color bar change or the outfit differences. And the digital release cover continues the same theme. For our purposes, one image serves the same academic purpose as two. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Darryl Braxton[edit]

In Special:PermanentLink/613589343, this article has a freely licensed image. The editor who included the image in the article wrote in the edit summary that "NFCC claims for such things are spurious -- we have photos of the real life individual". I agree on this: the non-free image which was restored in the following edit looks very similar, so the subject of the article should be equally easy to understand using either image. Therefore, WP:NFCC#1 requires that the free one should be used. Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been argued before (even at FAC) that in the case of a notable (standalone article) fictional character that the use of a non-free of that character (the actor in character) is reasonable even if that doesn't require any makeup or special presentation. The claim is made that the poise and manner the actor presents the character is part of the character's nature, something that is not captured by a free shot of the actor alone. But this only applies to notable characters. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Requesting removal from Nazi Propaganda because:

  • The claim that there is no non-free equivalent for this article means there are no free Nazi movie propaganda posters. This claim is dubious.
  • Contextual significance is very low for this particular picture and low for movie posters in general for this article. The context is of propaganda posters in general, not movie posters in particular. The claim that there are no free Nazi propaganda posters available is very dubious.

Requesting removal from Fritz Hippler as movie posters are typically not used on movie-director's biographical pages and the encyclopedic purpose of the image is almost completely served by a link to the article about the film. I concede there will be a small loss of encyclopedic value but it is acceptable.

Requesting removal from Eberhard Taubert as he was "only" the script-writer and the encyclopedic purpose of this image above and beyond that of a link to the film is very low or non-existent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly removed it from Eberhard Taubert, see Talk:Eberhard Taubert for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's preferred outcome, but likely impossible to do: If this can be proven to be in the public domain, either through Commons:Template:PD-GermanGov, by virtue of having its copyrights forfeited as a result of WWII, or simply by virtue of not complying with applicable copyright formalities, it can be kept and moved to the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that {{PD-GermanGov}} only can be used for text, not images. See c:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone can prove that Commons:Template:anonymous-EU applies, this might solve the problem. See Commons:File:Bund Deutscher Osten - nazi poster.jpg for an example. I am not optimistic regarding the ability to use that template though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You should check the note about Germany: Germany has an odd definition of the word "anonymous" for works created before 1 July 1995. As far as I can tell, a German artwork created before 1 July 1995 can only be anonymous in two special cases:
  1. if it was first published after the death of the anonymous author, but within 70 years after his death, or
  2. if it satisfies {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}.
If it doesn't satisfy any of the special cases, then it is not anonymous even if it is impossible to identify the author. It is of course never possible to tell if a work satisfies condition 1. Note that an artwork isn't the same thing as a literary work. The definition of an anonymous literary work is different. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Scouting and Guiding in Belarus[edit]

This article is not an article about an organisation, so there should not be any logos in the article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Belarusian Scout Association[edit]

This article should only contain one logo. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Cornerstone Television. Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Is it really correct to use this in two articles? To me it seems that this should only be used in an article about the CD, but not in the articles about the songs on the CD. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's okay here. When singles were released on 45's, the B-side was usually non-notable, so the cover of the single would be in the A-side single and the B-side be overlooked. Here's a case where both sides are notable, but didn't receive separate releases. As such the cover is fine on both sides for this case. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern Jazz Trumpets[edit]

We don't need two images here. Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Busan IPark[edit]

This article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gwangju Sangmu FC[edit]

The logo should not be used more than once in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gyeongnam FC[edit]

This article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sangju Sangmu FC[edit]

This article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Seongnam FC[edit]

This article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ulsan Hyundai FC[edit]

This article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:John Brown Painting.JPG[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in John Steuart Curry. Also fails WP:NFG and/or WP:NFCC#1 in some of the articles in which it fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:All-American Chuck Carney.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in 1920 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans. No information about the publication history, so the copyright status is unknown. Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:WM Tribe logo.svg[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's used in 4 places that I see, and all 4 places are invalid. Not that this logo should be removed but the only place that seems legit is on the article about W&M's athletic program as to describe the former logo and the requirement that they had to change it due to the native indian controversy. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:AAA 400 race logo.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine in the series article and the 2009 race article, but inappropriate in the 2010 + 2011 versions. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Aarons499 logo.gif[edit]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine in series and 2009 race articles, improper in the 2010 + 2011 articles. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Suffer the Children (song)[edit]

This article doesn't need two almost identical cover images. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded, a photographic negative can be described in text. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Windows 2000[edit]

This article cannot justify 6 non-free files Werieth (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Logo and screenshot are fine. No need for the Disk Quotas (a mostly-text interface) screen to show this feature. There's no demonstrated need of the Windows 2000 Server screen either (it's not showing anything unique). The integrated player screen and the computer management screen seem fine otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Tiny Dancer[edit]

There are too many non-free images here, but maybe some of them are below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue both alternate covers are under the TOO, but I beg the question if they are necessary even if free, since they add little. However, that question is outside the scope of NFCR once determined free. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Blogger (service)[edit]

We do not seem to need three non-free images here. Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No critical discussion on the site's layouts for presentation or editing (features, yes, but not these parts) , thus only one screenshot is necessary for this. Possibly the editing one to show the availability of tools for it. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Lehner Clovis bison-mammoth.jpg[edit]

This seems to be used inappropriately in violation of WP:NFLISTS on multiple pages. The article Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site should probably only contain one image. No opinion on which one to keep. Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It could meet NFC for Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site (and that alone, per NFLISTS) and the two images are sufficiently distinct in scale that both are justified: one shows the site, one shows the relevant fossil content there. The 1955 excavation image also has historical significance, as the first major excavation there. However I'm less sure about this image, as I can't see why it couldn't be re-photographed as a free image. I assume the site fossil items still look much the same today? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I would suspect that the bones have been removed from the site by now but I'm only guessing on that, but the historic site photo would be irreplaceable by a free one if that is the case. I think the larger photo is a better identification of the site for the purposes of non-free, and this specific photo (the closeup) over at Clovis culture where the actual scientific discussion about the hunting of mammoths is discussed. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If you can take photographs of the same bones somewhere else, for example at a museum, then I think that this would be replaceable by a photograph taken at that museum. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Not really - the article is about the site and the discovery, which the photo (the wider shot) shows. Yes perhaps if the bones were on display elsewhere that tighter shot could be replaced, but that assumes they are on display. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe the original excavation was backfilled, and hence the two photos are what we've got: irreplaceable historic records. First publication (in color) is (I think) at (2007) -- which has some nice details on the early excavations along the San Pedro. I really think we need both FU photos at Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site for readers to understand the significance of the site -- the second being File:Lehner bone-bed,1955.jpg, a nice overview of the excavation in progress. I suspect the excavated bones are in storage at the Arizona State Museum -- I don't think they've never been on display.
I'm pretty sure that, at least when I uploaded File:Lehner Clovis bison-mammoth.jpg in 2009, we were regularly using FU images in, eg, list articles such as List of National Historic Landmarks in Arizona. Have the rules changed since then? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC), original uploader
No, we've not allowed non-free in lists like this for several years now. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Vibrations[edit]

We do not seem to need the extra cover image here. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

San Miguel Beermen[edit]

The extra logos seem to fail WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also, is the bottle image really PD? It looks to have copyrighted logos and it probably wouldn't pass de minimis. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No, they're fine in that bottle pic - they're off to the side and clearly the focus of the picture is on the predominately text logo, so it's okay. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Worldox Logo.png[edit]

This is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd edge on it being beyond the TOO (copyrightable) here. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

File:SiriusDecisions logo.jpg.png.jpg[edit]

This is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As a note, I have moved the page from its excessive file extensions to File:SiriusDecisions logo.jpg.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say this is below the TOO and PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Yelp logo.svg[edit]

This is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Note that it is an SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say it probably does meet the threshold of originality (although I am no expert), I have commented out its use at User:CorporateM/Yelp. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


In the source field, it says that "The logo may be obtained from Toho." Is this really compliant with WP:NFCC#10a? Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a screencap from the show's title card, which would be a better source description. If someone can verify that's what it is, that should be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Heather O'Rourke[edit]

This article should not contain two pictures of the person. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the second one (from the first Poltergeist film) seems to be the more appropriate picture to us here since the article specifically discusses her role in that as what drew attention to her. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. She's most famous for the original Poltergeist. Paul Austin (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nyssa (Doctor Who)[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#3a: only one image is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the second photo (of her in the original costume) seems necessary. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of which image we choose to keep, the one which is kept should be placed in the infobox. The one you are talking about is currently placed elsewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
That's what I meant - her in costume should be the only one and should be in the infobox (I know the show, that's the better representative image too). --MASEM (t) 13:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Brother Louie (Modern Talking song)[edit]

The extra cover images do not seem to be needed here. Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, song cover versions not notable, no need for their covers. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Casanova (LeVert song)[edit]

We do not seem to need a picture of the alternative version here. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, cover of non-notable cover song not needed. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


See WP:NFLISTS: several images should go away. Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There's only two problematic images: the "cloned Dinobot" picture, and the one of the Beast Wars McDonalds Dinobot toy. The others seem fair usable of limited number of example images (3 total). --MASEM (t) 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Masem and I usually seem to butt heads on these issues but for once he seems absolutely correct. --AussieLegend () 13:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Even rarer is that me and AussieLegend agree, however in this case it is happening. Werieth (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


This page has unnecessarily many pictures of the character. Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:NCAT Bulldog Logo.png[edit]

This only has three FURs, but it is used in four articles, so it violates WP:NFCC#10c in one of them. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The lack-of-rationale use at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University is unneeded since the athletics program has its own article. Not seeing the NFCC#9 use from where the file use is listed. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It had been in userspace, I commented it out. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

George Lopez (TV series)[edit]

How many unfree cast images are needed? I think 3 is a little excessive. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the S4 cast pic is needed as it has all but one of the characters in the table, which for us is sufficient. The other two pictures are unnecessary (Additionally, I believe the show's title logo is free as it is only a regular font and qualitifies as PD-Text.) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


company logo used indiscriminately in multiple articles about local daughter branches, contrary to WP:NFC#UUI #17 Fut.Perf. 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a logo that would be copyrightable in the UK, and as such we need to treat as non-free and thus those extra uses are invalid; this is also lacking NFCC#10c rationals for each use.--MASEM (t) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The logo is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and can therefore be used in any number of articles. I don't know if copyright exists in the vectorisation of the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Flight Simulator 1.0 short animation.thumb.gif[edit]

The 13 frames of nonfree content in this file indicate a likely violation of WP:NFCC#3b, since one would be more than sufficient to demonstrate the early interface of Microsoft Flight Simulator. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that the uploader believes in the rationale that it was important to show the slow redrawing speed by the speed of the gif animation, but I really don't think this is something that needs to be shown (1 fps is clearly a very slow response. (I also see a potential problem with the # of images at History of Microsoft Flight Simulator, each only showing small graphical improvements, but that's a separate issue). --MASEM (t) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Picture book. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading the article with some benefit of doubt (eg: hoping to expect to see the significance of the Cat in the Hat to picture books), I found nothing that goes into any serious detail of that book's impact, only its relative place in the history applying to Dr. Suess, and as such, the image is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Adult Swim in a Box[edit]

The side of the box is not needed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an argument that the side image of the box is the more representative view of that product given that it is not a thin volume but actually has depth where more than just the DVD title is printed. That box shot should be the infobox image to represent the product more appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Masem. However, even at 35KB it is still more detailed than is needed for our purposes. Interestingly, the web page that allegedly hosts (or hosted) this image now hosts the 2-d PD-ineligible version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't check the from-side image size, but yea, that probably could have a non-free-reduce tagged. Enough that one can see the basics of the various show characters (space ghost was obvious, there were a few others). --MASEM (t) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:1917 Pan American Automobile Advertisement.jpg[edit]

If this advertisement is from 1917, then why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably a user unaware of how to determine copyright. It should be free. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Never Gonna Give You Up[edit]

The extra cover image looks unnecessary. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable cover version, unnecessary image. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


This nomination concerns the following files:

I don't see the need for two separate nonfree browser skins under WP:NFCC#3. At least one should be removed. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Only one is required to demonstrate the branding of the browser for a given game. Neither one stands out over the other, but one has to go. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


This image is probably PD-ineligible. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know. Or at least when we consider that the point of the page is to show what a file dialog looks like, this can be better done using a free Linux-like OS system (which has similar appearance but clearly in the free image for all aspects). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Don't think the two other files outside of the lead are needed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguably none of the images are necessary: "Spoo is shown as a light blue, putty-like substance." But agree the last two images are unneeded. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Things Have Changed.ogg[edit]

There is no FUR for the article about the song, so the song violates WP:NFCC#10c there.

There is a FUR for the article about the singer, but the file should arguably not be there per WP:NFC#UUI §6.

The file is also used outside the article namespace in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The song use needs the FUR. But as for the use on Dylan's page, it is reasonable to repeat some audio samples of a notable musican in discussing their musical style backed by sources, as this appears to be on Dylan's page. (We'd do this for artists and their notable works) So the two uses are fine, but we do need the second rationale. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


This has three FURs but is used in four articles, so it violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least one of the articles. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If I am reading references right, [7] the seal was made in 1854. Pretty sure this is PD old. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in the article about the person. Not necessarily needed in the article about the shooting since the person has an article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Would have to agree that the use on the shooting page is not really needed. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Hudson River Psychiatric Center Main Building.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFLISTS in two articles. The article about the building doesn't necessarily need two pictures of the building. Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still standing building, so technically a free image can be created. I do see the rationale notes "Building is located in the middle of a 296-acre (118 ha) parcel currently off-limits to the public as it awaits redevelopment.", but I assume that after redevelopment it would be possible to get a photo. Thus I would consider this replaceable, unless there is more that the rational is not explainable about building access. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Hamas iraq logo.JPG[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, only appropriate in the other article (Hamas in Iraq). --MASEM (t) 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe changing the permission type would be better. Iraq isn't a signatory to the Berne convention etc. I don't think Iraqi intellectual property has protection under US law, so the file may be public domain in the US. Maybe someone else can further clarify? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is correct, however Jimmy Wales has asked us to respect copyrights even of these non-Berne convention countries (eg we will consider images non-free for all purposes). --MASEM (t) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
KK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox polonium/testcases[edit]

This page fails WP:NFCC#9. I don't know how the syntax works, so I can't figure out how to remove File:Polonium.jpg from the page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to modify Template:Infobox polonium and Template:Infobox polonium/sandbox, replacing
<includeonly>|image name=Polonium.jpg</includeonly>
with code that will only display the image if it is included AND if the namespace is the article space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
A better solution would be to get rid of the "includeonly" statement altogether and have it coded so if the page name is :Polonium it displays correctly otherwise it displays some kind of error message or picture placeholder. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Matches Season 2014-2015[edit]

The article was speedily deleted, so no more action is needed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page contains lots of non-free logos. All of them violate WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8. Some of them are used multiple times. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that they way that article is formatted is the standard for team season articles. The title is extremely incorrect as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for speedy deletion per CSD:A10. It doesn't show anything that is not already presented in 2014–15 North West Counties Football League. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Taken care of, it also doesn't seem that it is standard for articles about individual team seasons for that league either. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Golden Age of Mexican cinema[edit]

The non-free images violate WP:NFCC#10c and there are way too many of them. Note that several of the so-called "free" ones have been nominated for deletion as presumably unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Angry Birds characters[edit]

This doesn't look compatible with WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Photoshop plugin[edit]

Per WP:NFLISTS: we don't need to see pictures of all of the plugins. Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A Best 2[edit]

There are too many covers here, see WP:NFCC#3a. The image in the lead section violates WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)