** There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
** There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
***I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
***I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
**** The question of whether it is a list or not is not the issue. Those images are unallowable as they all fail NFCC#8, since there's no discussion about the images and the article is readable without them. All they are, that you can justify, are pretty pictures, which means they fail as decorative elements. There's no other position we allow here. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
===Congressional charter===
===Congressional charter===
Revision as of 06:37, 5 April 2013
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
These images are used in Roy Lichtenstein and other articles whose subjects are not mainly images themselves. I wonder whether rationales are valid and whether commentaries are sufficient enough to justify use of these images. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lichtenstein is an important 20th century artist and it is imperative to have the few images used in the biographical article, to educate readers as to what those visual artworks look like...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely reasonable to use a few (a few) NFC images for an artist as representatives of their work, as long as the specific examples are called out as demonstrating why they are examples (the work the artist is most noted for? etc.) This is no different than providing a few samples of music for a musician/band as representing their work. How many is allowed, its hard to say, however. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not; Bedroom at Arles does not fully represent Lichtenstein's career - leaving out his most famous pieces that relate to Pop Art. I agree with User:Masem however; we've tried to limit the imagery there to 3 important paintings demonstrating his pioneering work in both pop art and appropriation, and we have included 1 industrial commission done late in his career...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Lichtenstein's work actually. At is Lichtenstein's; In is van Gogh's. By the way, I'm withdrawing review on one image. --George Ho (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The use of Bedroom could be a bit stronger, but the text does describe how he applied his style to famous artists, with that being one example against the Van Gogh, so edging on allowance there is fine. (Drowning Girl + Wham, no question that they are well-discussed). Again, we don't use numbers, but 4 non-frees on an artist of this many works and of this fame seems completely reasonable. And no, I'm not saying "4 images" is a number test to apply elsewhere. It just "feels" right given the point of NFCC in balance with whom the artist is. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Lichtenstein article is already reviewed and resolved, and that Arles image has passed NFCC, let's discuss other images that are used in non-Lichtenstein articles, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Whaam! at History_of_painting#Pop_art seems reasonable, since the text describes the relation of the image to a specific comic-book panel (a predominantly visual medium) and describes how it represents "recognizable imagery". All these visual characteristics are best understood through images rather than text.
Drowning Girl: - at Pop art is the only image at the "United States" section. Maybe any one of his works could be used there, but this one is mentioned in text and references to " thick outlines, bold colors and Ben-Day dots to represent certain colors, as if created by photographic reproduction" require an image to illustrate them for reasonable understanding.
- at Western painting#Pop_art. Here is not essential as there are three other images for por art; although is the only one representing comic-book style and again the line "thick outlines, bold colors and Ben-Day dots to represent certain colors" is mentioned. I don't think it's against NFCC#3a, and it certainly passes NFCC#8.
It would fail NFCC#8 - while the event ccan't be recreated, it's not a difficult scene (a baseball field littered with trash) to envision, and thus fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NFCC#8 (Contextual significance), as a historic, unrecreatible, example of the application of the Infield fly rule. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the rationale needs to be improved a bit, but the image needs to stay. Reality check; this event can not be recreated, and the fact of the field being so littered with an obviously full stadium in attendance is a very remarkable event in baseball history that text alone can not convey. As this search of Google News shows, the event is highly significant, and the image is directly relevant to the prose in which it is displayed. The overly strict interpretation of NFCC policy being attempted here is absurd on the face of it when taken in context of the mass use of non-free images elsewhere. I don't mean to advocate a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but rather that our common practice is not anywhere near so restrictive that we can't allow this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question I'm still somewhat of a n00b on NFCC, but does the fact that the following hook was just on the front page through DYK mean anything to the event's significance? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for NFCC#8 is not that "you can understand what's written without the image", is that the image's omission hampers it because the image increase readers' understanding. The image describes the public's reaction better than a thousand words; if you've never seen a littered sports field, you wouldn't understand from text alone how people can quickly make it unplayable. Diego (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 says a non-free image can only be used if it's omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. My opinion is that even without the image, the article would still be understandable. But well, that's of course just my opinion and others are free to disagree with me. If the consensus is to keep the image, then I will accept that. -- ToshioYamaguchi11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally a picture of trash on a stadium's infield. There, I just replaced it with free text. End of story, the image fails NFCC#1. (This is not saying that the fact that the trash disrupted the game isn't important to state in the article, but it does not need to be illustrated. Readers are smarter than that.) --MASEM (t) 14:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's the trash in the stadium that was on October 5 2012 at Turner Field as reported by reliable sources; thus making it significant per NFCC#8. Readers from a different culture that have never been in a stadium and never have seen spectators throwing things at the field can get information from that view that is not available in your sentence and is relevant to what happened that day; Wikipedia should not be written with a western culture bias. Images that are important to show how something happened are the reason why the exemption doctrine policy was created. Diego (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All ten points of NFCC have to be met. I agree that NFCC#8 is (at least in part) met because the effect of debris on the field is discussed. But NFCC#1, free replacement, is just as important, and there is nothing "special" about that image that the text line "A baseball infield covered with trash thrown by fans" cannot replace. Note that there's nothing in that shot that 1) identifies the field clearly as Turner Field (I'm sure fans can tell but not the average layreader) and 2) identifies it as from a baseball game (there's a line marker and some grass and dirt but that could be a football field, for example). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we know for sure that the images come from the TV broadcast as in happened. This allow readers to verify that the spectators' reaction would necessarily stop the game, by estimating how much garbage reached the field. The purpose to include images in Wikipedia is not only to say what happened (which can always be explained in text) but how. To serve that verifiability purpose, we would require a reliable source describing the density of debris that was enough to stop the game - wait we have one, it's the broadcast image. Diego (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree that there is a difference between, say, if one wrapper landed on the field and temporarily stopped the game, and a dense field of debris that took much longer to clear, the latter being more of interest to the game's notability. But, importantly, there are plenty of other sources that state that it took 18 minutes to clear the field before play could resume after the game (eg here), and it doesn't take much to envision how much debris cluttered the field that required an 18 minute cleanup job, in light of the statement "...while angry fans pelted the field with cups, bottles and other debris." In other words, we can show that was a trash-covered field via free text; the screenshot is not the only source that explains this. NFCC#1 still fails. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the original uploader, I would have appreciated of being informed both of this discussion and the image's removal from the page for Infield fly rule. I'm disappointed that this is the first I'm hearing of this. Regarding its former use on the page infield fly rule, I had a talk page discussion regarding it, and it was agreed that it was notable in the context of fan reaction in regard to the reaction by fans of the perceived misapplication of the rule. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the image appears to violate Microsoft's permission. See {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}, in particular #5 where it says "Do not use screen shots that contain an image of an identifiable individual." This image contains 9 identifiable individuals. I'm not saying we can't use the image because of that; rather, that using {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} as the license is most likely inappropriate, and {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be a preferable license. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if MS is trying to cover the issue of personality rights with that requirement. That said, are any of the people in that shot "recognizable"? I mean, I'm sure we spend enough time, someone can name who they are, but we're not talking about an easily-identified person like a celeb or politician. (Also, I wonder how other sites get around that then since I've seen that Metro-style used all over the 'net for Xbox and Windows Phone reviews). As to the uses, I think that if rationales were added they could be justified (given the dramatic shift the interface has over past iterations, its use in History of Microsoft Windows and Start Menu would make sense, in addition to of course the basic allowance at Windows 8. I'd be iffy for the Metro article since there's already one of the phone with the similar interface. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different read on it; that identifiable means if a person's features are clear enough to be recognizable, not whether they are a celebrity or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I don't know for sure, but I would definitely play it safe to find an screenshot without the face images (if one can be had...) --MASEM (t) 22:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, people generally seem to slap Commons:Template:Personality rights on photos if you see the face of a person, although I suppose you could sometimes tell who the person is even without seeing the face. I'd say that these people are identifiable: if you know the people on the photos, you'll be able to see that they are the ones on the photos. In some cases, e.g. File:11-05-19-landtag-thueringen-making-of-01.jpg, you have to zoom in quite a lot in order to tell that the people are identifiable. Another thing: "Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content." Were all photos taken by Microsoft? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) I have uploaded a new version of the image without the profile image of an individual. (I would think the person in the News tile cannot be identified due to his face cover). This is the default Start menu experience on a PC running Windows 8. This means that it is also different from the three-tile width layout seen on a tablet running Windows 8. I also feel that this is more encyclopedic, as it represents better a Desktop system experience, being more of a reference system of Windows 8. Please advise on whether the non-free media data has to be updated as well. Optakeover(Talk)05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded my third version with definitely no identifiable faces. Sorry for the repeated uploads, I am just trying to make sure there are no loopholes. Optakeover(Talk)05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded a fourth version with no third-party material. I'm not sure how far we can push the interpretation of the clauses in the Microsoft's conditions, so please advise. Optakeover(Talk)05:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. But fair-use rationales are easy to write. The guidelines on the use of non-free images doesn't say the limit of the number of articles the image is used on, though I assume that it should preferably be a small number of articles only. But if there are missing fair-use rationales for the respective articles, I don't think that it is a major problem requiring that the image be removed, for example. But since personality rights were brought up, I think it made sense to mention about it. I suggest that the revision of the image at [1] should be used, since you don't seem to have any worries about third-party material used on the image (my concern is the info on the Market tile, which is pulled from syndicated news sources, and the travel tile). If you think it is okay, I will upload a completely new image this revision, with an even smaller res (now 800*450, going for 600*?), and I'll write the fair-use rationales for all five articles. Optakeover(Talk)14:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still probably too large (you can always call out what the text is on the image description page). A 1/4-size (1/2 in each direction) would do the same job.
"The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px." The largest dimension is currently 600 pixels, which is much more than "300–400px".
"The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." The purpose is to show small images in articles, the largest of them being 300 x 169 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) Well, my opinion is that the text of the tiles should be at least barely visible as it provides some context on the kind of features available on Windows 8's Modern interface. Understood on image size. I will resize it as accordingly. As for the number of pages it is used on, I am of the opinion that the image could probably be removed from History of Microsoft Windows, but I think the rest should stay, especially on Microsoft Windows. I feel it is important in Start Menu as it will illustrate how it is different in this version as compared to the traditional Start Button and Menu, and in Microsoft Windows for the same reason, as the article is about Windows, and the image is about a major revision to Windows.
As for question about the article name being "Microsoft Windows 8" instead of "Windows 8", because it's a fair use rationale for a specific article and that specific article's name is Windows 8, it passes Wikipedia's FUR. The only concern is with the article's name itself, as according to the license conditions, the use of Microsoft's trademarks must conform to their guidelines of their use. However, according to [2], all is good. In the page,
Properly Identify Windows Products and the list of Microsoft products in the list doesn't mean that all names used in Wikipedia must be used similar to the names as written in the list (e.g. Windows XP operating system, as opposed to just Windows XP), as the list is just meant to give an example of the products covered by the guidelines of the page. But,
Do Not Shorten, Abbreviate, or Create Acronyms for the Windows Trademark states that names shouldn't be shortened, like Windows8, Win8 or W8. Since Windows 8 is the name of the article, I think that it passes. Optakeover(Talk)15:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a completely new image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_8_Start_Screen.png to further comply with Microsoft's use of trademarks, as the previous file name didn't have capitalized letters for Start Screen. Resolution now conforms to rule of thumb, but use on articles have not been ironed out yet. Image descriptions, NFURs and related templates has been copied over to the new image. Optakeover(Talk)15:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First as a piece of advice, you can always upload a new image that is designed to replace an old image over the over image. (If you go near the bottom of the file page, there's a "Upload a new version of this file"; it will not overright the licensing/rationale, and simply replace the existing uses.
Copying over rationales like you did to satisify NFCC#10c is reasonable to start, but per NFCC#8, it is very difficult to accept that the image is being used for the same purpose on all 5 pages, and we would reasonably expect a more detailed rationale for each. For example, its use at Windows 8 is basically to demonstrate the appearance of the software, presumably as a lead/infobox image, which is generally accepted for an article on software. But its use at something like the Metro design is different - it's not to show W8, but to show how the Metro design is structured, with boxes and readable text. This is where the question of "do we really need this image 5 times" is being asked. Remember that we're seeking minimal use (via NFCC#3a) so we want to be sure its being used where it is absolutely necessary, and only on those pages. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, I'd like to ask for consensus regarding which specific articles the image should only be used on. I'm tired now and I'm nursing a headache, so I'm done for the night. I'm still okay having it on four pages: Windows 8, Microsoft Windows 8, Metro (design language) and Start Menu but if anyone objects, I won't fight it, because I think I'm not too picky on the article selection already. But once we do reach a consensus, I would appreciate if someone would edit the fair-use rationales, do the removal of the images on the articles to be excluded, and to delete the deprecated image. Oh, and I uploaded a completely new image because I realize I couldn't change the file name. I'm not sure if I made a mistake on that, but that's what I gathered when I tried to do so. I uploaded a new image to coincide with Microsoft's guidelines for trademarks, as I felt a properly capitalized Start Screen is compliant. Optakeover(Talk)16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claes Oldenburg seems to have a thing about copyright. However, this photo of a 3D object looks to have fair use under US law for educational purposes. Possibly it could be reduced in size a bit, but it is OK with the current tagging.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this image's use on the Nude photography article violates the non-free content criteria. First, to address criterion #1: there are plenty of free nude photos we could use without having to resort to using a copyrighted one. Second, to address criterion #8: there's no contextual significance here. The image's absence would not significantly detract from the educational value of the article.
Finally, there's this passage, from WP:NFC#UULP: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) is an article about the photo, so it seems like that's the only article that should display the image.
(And in light of that passage, I'm also concerned about this photo's use on the Charis Wilson article, which is about the subject of the photo.)
There's a pretty lengthy rationale regarding its use in the Wilson article and why it is integral to that subject. I don't see cause for concern there.
I agree that it's not doing much in nude photography, at least given the current state of the article (further expansion may change that), and that article already includes public domain (pre 1923) examples, of which there are many more in existence. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the Wilson article has nothing to do with the quality of the rationale, and entirely to do with the passage I quoted from WP:NFC. (There's also a slight question of relevance; since the image doesn't show Ms. Wilson's face, it doesn't do much to illustrate her biography.) PowersT18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't included to show what she looked like, but to illustrate the reason why she is notable. It is unquestionably the most iconic image of her work with Weston, which is why it (and not a face shot of her) accompanied most media reports of her death. Colloquially, I think it serves pretty much the same function as a book cover does in an article on that book—a reader will see that and go, "oh yeah, that photograph." There's no free substitute for that that would have anywhere near the relevance. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the image is "Nude (Charis, Santa Monica)" but isn't in use on Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) but is elsewhere? On that basis, I'm afraid it ought to be used on Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) but not elsewhere. The guideline is there because you can link to the article about it, where they can seen the photograph, rather than using the image itself. Thus, as I understand it, it is a straightforward application of the principle. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The separate article on the photograph didn't exist at the time I added this to the biographical article. Yes, Grandiose, that is the current policy language; I don't agree with it, but that's apparently the way it is. So according to that, it should be moved to the article on the photograph (which an editor apparently removed it from because it was lacking a NFUR for that article, rather than writing a rather obvious NFUR) and that article merely linked to in the biographical article. A larger version should be uploaded as well. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the Nude photography article as an artist and photographer. The topic of the article should now be clear, it is photography of the human figure as a fine art genre, not just photos of naked people, so the statement "there are plenty of free nude photos" is mistaken. Any visual arts article needs an illustration within the article, not just a link, and it would have to be one with a fair use rationale, since the medium was not established as a fine art until after 1923. The very early Stieglitz in the article is hardly sufficient, given its poor quality. The 19th century photo is "French Postcard" quality, but illustrates that period. I have tried to expand the article to show Edward Weston's significance to the genre, but I am not an historian.FigureArtist (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better, and historically more important photo by Stieglitz, one of Georgia O'Keeffe pre-1923; but I continue to maintain that the article needs some example that is more recent, and the Weston is the only image currently available.FigureArtist (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a PD photo for historic value, and can find a freely licensed artistic nude of more recent vintage for a modern take, then I should think that sufficient. It certainly becomes much harder in that situation to justify violating copyright. PowersT17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find someone to donate a free image. The discussion here is clearly against having such fair-use images. I remember uploading a nude by an amateur photographer about a year ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks that an amateur photo can be used to illustrate an article on Fine Art should not be making any decisions regarding the subject. When policy issues stray into matters of essential content on the arts, the verbally talented should defer to the visually intelligent.FigureArtist (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree here with FigureArtist, in that the article is not about "photographing people in the nude" which could be done by free amateur photos, but "nude photograph as an art genre" which is documented. While I won't comment on necessarily this specific photo (in light of the other discussion, in which a question of whether free acclaimed nude photos might be better replacement for non-free ones), it is clear that we can't use amateur photos for the same discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was an example if (s)he does not like the replacement I added, which is a) free and b) from a noted photographer. What is perfectly clear is that the image is not discussed in this article at all but used as an example. For this use there are numerous free images which could replace it. As for whether or not nude photography as an article should be limited to "fine" art (which is inherently subjective anyways), that is an issue for the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that example of "fine art" nude photography, if they are going to be non-free, need discussion in the text - again refering to the section below on the Nude (art) page, if there was a fundamental shift in nude photography post-1923 that only non-free fine art examples could demonstrate, we would need discussion of that change in the text to even considering allowing it. Now, from that section below, there is an argument that nude art (photography or painting) has come to ignore body shape, eg allowing more obese models to pose, a change in the mid-20th century. Great, but lets source that before include a non-free example of that. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between Fine Art and amateur efforts is not "subjective" any more than any other professional judgement. As in NPOV there is no claim to objectivity, but the necessity of providing citations for opinions. I make supported statements regarding the establishment of photography as a fine art medium only in the post-1923 era, and the place of Edward Weston's work in that history. Stating that another photo is 'just as good' merely because it was an 'image of the day' on WP is subjective. I removed that image since (1) the status of the photographer, Arnold Genthe, who did mainly glamour portraits of movie stars and other famous people, has no comparison to Edward Weston called "one of the most innovative and influential American photographers" in our own article. (2) The Genthe photo is a recreation somewhere between 1911 and 1942 of a process used mainly at the turn of the 20th century. Technically interesting, but meaningless in the history of Fine Art.FigureArtist (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The distinction between Fine Art and amateur efforts is not "subjective" any more than any other professional judgement." - This coming from a field known for having artists pass off work by monkeys as their own (to critical acclaim). Wine tasting is another similar "professional" field in which experts have been repeatedly bamboozled.
As for the image, no image is better than a fair use image. If it's out, I have no issue with the article. If it must be in, be sure to provide contextual significance per NFCC #8 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to state that individual conduct can be taken as a valid characterization of an entire field of practice and study? I have been an artist for more than forty years, and do not know this monkey story. I will take it as an urban legend unless a source is given. (What wine tasting has to do with this discussion I cannot imagine.)
No image is better than a bad image, but the article remains crippled without some example of the topic, which did not exist until the 1930's, as I have said above.FigureArtist (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". This would exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for the article Nude Photography is that the image or the photographer has their own article in WP which substantiates their status. All of the photographers mentioned in this article have their own biographical articles. If anyone knows of a free image of a nude photograph by any photographer currently in WP as an art photographer (not fashion, glamour, porn, or other commercial work), then it would pass the test. It would appear that the NFCC policy is being strictly enforced for biographies of photographers since their articles rarely have any of the artist's own work. So the consensus is that WP's converge of modern photography is fine without photographs, the non-free content policy being more important?FigureArtist (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These animated GIFs directly capture animations and cutscenes from the above game. NFCC is pretty clear about non-free screenshots, but seems to me to lean heavily against animated non-free anything. In any case, these animations are not just a few seconds, but are fully 10 seconds long, and depict some subscenes in their entirety. The game is out of production and informally considered "abandonware", if that matters. Discuss?. --Lexein (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Animated GIFs are fine - I would think of equating them with video files since they are "multiple screens". To that extent , however, they should not be very long or comprise all the animation elements. And importantly, the computer animation itself needs to be discussed. For example, one example that I believe is accepted use is File:Cabanela dance.gif used on Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective as the animation style was critically praised - the GIF is one small animation sequence out of several for that character, ~5 seconds long, so that's all appropriate. GIF animations of near-entire cutscenes? Probably not, and even if the game is abandonware, someone owns the copyright or we have to have explicit notice it was put to public domain. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I'm seeing no discussion by RS of the animation or the cutscenes, and no mention of such critical discussion in the GIF rationales. Oh, and it's also hellaciously unsourced. I'm leaning toward keeping the cutscene one(trimmed), and use a still or two in place of the animation one, since it's semi-obvious that characters will be moving, and the field will be scrolling. I am, however, not going up against the game-articles cabal alone. --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The animated gifs are necessary per WP:NFCC#8. I definitely wouldn't have understood what the "Cinematic Soccer" scenes are without the comparison of the two cutscenes, and the article makes a big deal about Captain Tsubasa 5 having a different style than the predecessors. That the complete cutscene is shown is not a problem per NFCC#3b, as it's still a small part of the whole videogame, and I don't think that each cutscene has been individually copyrighted. Being abandonware is irrelevant to the discussion; a NFC rationale is still required. Diego (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif seems unnecessary. While the image caption explains what is going on, the significance to the rest of the article (or even the section this file is appearing in) is not apparent to me. I think the other image is worth keeping. A stronger integration into the article (via introduction of explicit references in the article text to the image) might be desirable. -- ToshioYamaguchi23:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) False source info provided, actually sourced here; 2) Not low resolution; 3) Not specific to the subject of the article (a generic logo rather than specific to Honda's F1 team) therefore fails to identify subject of the article. User has a history of uploading unfree and flat out copyvio files, both at his present incarnation and his previous sockpuppet accounts. Pyrope22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any trademark registration is irrelevant as trademark restrictions are non-copyright restrictions and thus irrelevant for us. See Commons:Commons:Trademarks. Very simple logos are ineligible for copyright and are thus in the public domain, although different countries define "very simple" differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Havana (film)
I am questioning the use of the following files in the Havana (film).
I don't think these meet NFCC#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
If it is decided that though do then NFCC#3a will come into play "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
They also have identical rationals, yet none of them meet the descroption provided. I have concerns over the source description. They all say "Digital capture from the film "Havana" (Production Featurette)." The fourth one is obviously a screen capture, but the other three are not scenes taken from the movie. They may be from a "making of" extra feature, but considering they are all appear to be copy pasted rationals then I think that might be suspect. AIRcorn(talk)08:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationales are the same as the screen snaps serve an identical purpose. They provide the reader an insight to the production of the film by illustrating the director on the set, the set construction, a view of the main production set and also the transformation from a constructed "street" into the identical scene in the film.
The photos enhance the article considerably and are unavailable from any open source. The justification in adding them is sound and the addition to them is very reasonable. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 is definitely met. The fact that the city should be recreated for the film because of the US Embargo is a big deal in sources and reflected in the Production section (see [3], [4]). I agree that NFCC#3a is relevant and not all images are needed; I think the best way to illustrate this is to keep image 3 to illustrate the construction of the set, and image 4 to show how it looks onscreen. I'll fix the "purpose" rationales to support this use. Diego (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can live with two non-free ones describing the development of the set. Still not really comfortable with the sourcing for number 3 as it is definitely not a screenshot from the movie. Maybe the uploader could clarify how he got them? Not sure what is meant by they "are available from any open source" either. AIRcorn(talk)23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review is requested for use in Fred Rogers only. On Fred Rogers, this image's use violates WP:NFCC #1, seeing as there are several free images already in the article that adequately illustrate the subject. RJaguar3 | u | t19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable here. The only one that is a near-equivalent replacement (considering age) is File:Fred Rogers.jpg, and there's something about how he's posed there that it is not obvious that it is Fred Rogers (eg it looks like a different person). Given that Rogers' claim to fame is pretty much MRN, I think the non-free of him with the miniature set is completely in line. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is not of Araksi Cetinyan. It is actually of Günseli Başar, the 1952 Miss Turkey and Miss Europe, who is not deceased. Images of Gunseli can be seen here, along with images of her from the Miss Europe pageants for 1952 and 1953, both showing that the photograph is of Gunseli - same hairstyle, same dress, same make-up, same face. The real Araksi is presumably one of the women in the photograph on this page - although all very pretty, none of them are similar in appearance or dress to this photograph that purports to be of her. It seems very clear cut, although there is this which identifies the image as Araksi - yet a commenter points out that it is Gunseli. It seems a clear cut case of mistaken identity here. As I understand it, we do not allow photographs of non-deceased people but User:Ronhjones has suggested there may be some justification for keeping this as it shows the subject at the time of her beauty-contest winning notability, which a more current photograph would not illustrate. Mabalu (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very obvious to me, but then, my speciality is dress/fashion history, and it is clear to me that the photograph does not show a 1920s beauty queen. Everything about it screams 1950s to me. Plus, I think the Miss Universe pages are pretty conclusive, whereas all the links you show clearly have a common root - they are all based on the same article and source. The Google Image search for Gunseli provides lots of images of the very lovely Ms. Basar from sources such as this - the presence of lots of extra photographs showing the same woman identified as Gunseli is more compelling evidence to me than a single image identified as someone else. A similar search for Araksi brings up only Gunseli's image and lots of pictures who are clearly or demonstrably not Ms Cetinyan. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another source here - this is a completed Ebay auction for a 1952 magazine with a photo of a double page spread devoted to Ms Basar. I know the picture is too small to see the details, but you can still tell it's the same person. Mabalu (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts, though obviously one use within Ek Baap would meet requirements with proper rationale. The caption on the Ek Baap article in the second use can be applied in the infobox to serve the same purpose (id'ing the various actors). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that second image on the election page is a non-free derivative work (Even though its on commons, claimed to be an original work). Both agree that both images are not needed in the decorative fashion they are used in. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the terms cited there refer to the physical reproduction of the banknote. The images I have uploaded were images already on the internet and is used only to illustrate the article. They are images of the banknotes themselves and not a reproduction of it. I was just wondering if I have tagged them correctly?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of unclear what reproduction in any form means, but I interpret it as also covering reproduction by means of photography and digitalization. The terms don't say explicitly (or even implicitly) that it is meant to apply only to physical reproduction. The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee seems excessive to me and probably in violation of NFCC#3a. -- ToshioYamaguchi13:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full document of the Monetary Law Act and the title adjacent to Section 58 on pg 26 and in the contents says it is an offence in the Mutilation and defacement of currency notes, but this is neither. Taking an unaltered photograph of the banknote is not defacement. (In my opinion) The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee shows the progression of the banknote over time and there exists only one copy of each note, (not supposed to be of excessive use). Also I am planning to create an article on each of the different denominations, therefore each image will be restricted to two articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Section 58 (d) explicitly says that reproduction in any form of any currency note is an offence. Aside from the section of the Monetary Law Act we have the issue with copyright. The banknote design is likely subject to copyright, regardless of the applicability of the Monetary Law Act. -- ToshioYamaguchi16:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of issues...
Some of these images are hosted on Commons. The images thus hosted need to be handled there. Of note; Commons:Commons:Currency does not contain a specific exemption for Sri Lanka. Given that it does not, Commons does not have a stance indicating such images are free license or public domain. As such, they should be deleted from Commons.
The issue of the Sri Lankan government's stance on reproduction is immaterial. They can not prevent the use of images of their currency under terms of Fair Use in the U.S. Similarly, the FBI attempted to stop Wikipedia from using its logo because such use violated their usage restrictions. They were soundly rejected by Wikipedia counsel and the logo remains in use.
The important question at hand is whether the images are free license or not. We can't presume simply because they are on the Internet somewhere that they are public domain. We must have proof they are free license or public domain. We do not have such proof. As such, all images much be used under terms of WP:NFCC on Wikipedia.
If we upload images for every box where an image should be, this article would be hosting in excess of 100 non-free images. This would make it the highest article user of non-free content on the project by more than double the current highest user. Currency articles and their use of non-free images have been debated a number of times. It is a divisive issue, with no agreement.
However, an article hosting such an extreme use of non-free images needs extreme justification. Simply showing the progression of designs is not enough. If there are no secondary sources supporting the notability of design changes and thus supporting the prose of the article, there is no reason to have a particular set of images to depict the change. Mere existence of the change is not enough for inclusion. It must be sourced. As the article stands there are exactly three references which would notionally "support" more than 100 non-free images? No, this is an utter failure. Baring the introduction of a huge number of secondary sources, these images must go.
Agree on the key point, irregardless of the Sri Lankan law, it cannot affect US fair use allowance, as long as the use falls within normal fair use guidelines. Further agree that if the plan is to have individual articles for each denomination of currency, this overall page may not use images of every bill; I can reasonably access one representative front/back from each series to demonstrate what the series looks like, but not of every denomination. Non-free use in this article needs to be cut back. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously approached the TV project on screenshot removals on pre-2008 articles on tv episodes (read: before the Foundation Resolution was in place), and seemed to be "yea, we sorta need to flush those out" response. I note that I've been plot-editing TNG episode lately too and many of them have superficial screenshots as well, I would not be surprised to see these extended to the other Trek series. As we do have an active Star Trek project, WP:STARTREK, it may be good to get their help in pruning these out. I'll drop a note there and at the TV project about this. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just being a central plot element is not sufficient if there are no sources to describe said scene as a central plot element. This is why we are usually looking for critical commentary specifically on that scene, or production information about the scene that would aid the reader in understanding. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A) some of these have valid use (I was looking at one that shows the nature of the aliens in a given episode, something text would be hard pressed to convey and it was the only image in that article) others may not. A mass nomination like this where the case for each will be different is unwise. I'd suggest instead nominating 3-4 a day for a while after checking each for meeting NFCC. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion discussion. It's a review of use of the images. Because they have a similar quality (episode screenshot across a series), highlighting them all at the same and discussing which ones to keep or not is fine; after which proper FFD would be followed for those deemed inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot. Thanks. Just followed the link and assumed I was at FfD... Oyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
No worries; I would definitely be concerned of a large mass nom without prior discussion about it (see my comment below). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-free TV episode screenshots are sometimes OK, but usually not. I think that it would be better to nominate the files individually at WP:FFD and not all at the same time since it's easier to discuss something if there aren't a hundred discussions running simultaneously. I haven't checked whether any of these images look OK or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the last time that a set of TV screenshots were mass-nomed at FFD and the backlash from that, it is better to figure out which ones we clearly should keep first and then follow with FFD of the rest (pointing to this discussion) to go forward with the proper removal, basically giving a two-gate review before any are actually deleted. (And I've already altered the Trek project and TV project on this discussion). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mass nomination is going overboard. Many images are important--or relevant--to the Voyager TV episodes. And its is indeed better to figure out which images are keep (and which are superficial) before going out and filing a mass deletion and facing another huge angry backlash from the Trek community on wikipedia. These 2 images here: File:ST-VOY 3-3 The Chute.jpg or File:ST-VOY 3-17 Unity.jpg would clearly be relevant to the Voyager episodes since they illustrate what is going on here in their shows. --Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, those two are exactly representative of what needs to go. Both articles consist purely of plot renarration, which in most cases means there couldn't possibly be a reasonable case for any image at all – if there is no analytical commentary in the article, there is nothing that an image could legitimately serve to support. Also, both images illustrate plot elements that could very easily be described through text, and especially in the case of the second, the image does literally nothing to even make the plot element understood (you need the text to understand what the image is, not the other way round). We've had dozens and dozens of FFDs on these kinds of things, and these are exactly the ones that always, invariably, get deleted. Fut.Perf.☼08:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is there a mass review of images if someone is determined to file a mass deletion. The point of a mass review is to locate those image which are clearly junk. Wikipedia went through that process in 2008 when 20 useless images were deleted. I stress that we must look at each and every image and see how it is used in the Voyager article to consider if it makes sense before considering a mass image deletion as in this case. That at least would be fair. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're here. The results from this talk page will not directly lead to deletion; instead, let's assume one image is said to be unnecessary - the image would be removed, a bot would tag it orphan, and likely in 7 days would appear at FFD (another review point) to make the last determination. But here, we have no rush compared to the other processes, and so this is the time to alert the various projects (note: I have), and get them to help determine which ones should be kept and improve any rationales for them. We want every image to be looked at and reviewed, but since the problem persists across the bulk of the Voyager episodes, we should consider the rest in bulk. Note that that set in 2008 doesn't appear to be part of any organized effort, and certainly in August 2008 there wasn't any larger scale effort. Again to summarize: we want each image to be reviewed now leisurely before the faster-paced FFD process is started.
Also, note that for TV screenshots, just being relevant is not a reason to keep. We need sourced discussion about the scene used in question, most of the time. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The TV wikiproject was notified two days ago. Has anybody seen any positive response so far, as in, people from that project actually going round improving FURs for those they think should be kept, and removing others from articles? I'd say, give them one week. If I don't see constructive activity on a significant number of the images listed above by that time, I'm prepared to speedy-delete the whole lot. Constructive activity means: either orphan the image, or improve the FUR to one that is (a) individual, not boilerplated, and (b) clearly describes, in concrete, individualized terms, why this particular image is necessary to make that particular article understood properly. Currently, all these images have entirely boilerplated generic pseudo-rationales, which are ipso facto invalid, so they are all subject to speedy deletion under CSD#F7, a week from being identified as such (which is now.) Fut.Perf.☼08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its very strange. Most of the images have different contributors. And Masem very cordially writes that "This isn't a deletion discussion. It's a review of use of the images." That's very respectful. And yet Fut Perf clearly says he wants to delete all the images or have people give complete and immaculate rationales for them when he knows fairly well that most people have not seen all of the Voyager episodes and cannot simply give a 100% valid rationale for each and every image in 1 week. I wonder if Fut Perf is a fan of Voyager. This does not sound like a sincere way way to start a discussion....when he already wishes to file a mass deletion and is dedicated to do just that and doesn't care to wait to see how the discussion will develop. This is how we respect other people's image contributions? If Fut Perf respected other's contributions, he wouldn't have said what he just said. I suggest that someone else more neutral such as Masem go through each of the above images, see how they are used in the Voyager episodes and decide on a case by case basis whether to file a deletion rather than take the Easy Way out and file a mass deletion as Fut Perf wishes. Masem, at least, hasn't shown any pre-determined bias on this review, which is Not, unlike Fut Perf's wishes, a mass deletion. Look. I don't have the time to give rationales for all these images since I, too, haven't seen them all, work in real life and, yes, many Voyager episodes were not good. (And some of Thealok's pics aren't good either) But if Fut Perf hasn't seen any of the episodes, which I suspect, its just better to let a viewer or fan like Masem decide which images are critical/pertinent to a Voyager episode. These are just my thoughts. Thank You --Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What on earth has being a Star Trek "fan" or not being one to do with our ability to judge proper NFC usage on these articles? No, I'm not a Star Trek fan, and no, I haven't seen those episodes and I have no interest in seeing them. But that's beside the point. Non-free images are supposed to be helpful for exactly those readers who haven't seen the episode, and their FURs and the articles themselves are supposed to make it clear how and why they are significant. If I, as a reader who hasn't seen the episode, can't recognize the explanative value of the image on seeing it used in the article, then that in itself means that either the image use or the article itself, or both, are crap. Deleting these images en masse is not an "easy way out". It is a final way out, after seeing this problem festering for years and years, seeing editors in this topic domain piling up bad images in dozens of articles, again and again, despite multiple warnings and explanations, and seeing the relevant wikiprojects doing absolutely nothing to stop this abuse of our policies during all this time, despite being clearly aware of the problem. No, I am not demanding that everything should be cleaned up within a week, but I do expect to see at least a significant sign of good will until then. Somebody at least making a start. Fut.Perf.☼10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please heed Admin Masem's comment that this is a discussion at present. What do many 'reputable' scholars say about wikipedia--when they sneer at us. That it is a place of disorder or chaos. Some articles are top of the class and others are bottom of the barrel. Everything depends on the articles' contributors. A picture can be important since we can get people to contribute more often to an article if there is a visual reference. I understand your frustrations but please don't place a personal arbitrary deadline of 1 week on such images. Maybe Cbbkr can improve several Voyager article's more. I just notified him about this discussion but he has been away for 2 days now. I say let Admin Masem decide which images to keep and improve with a better rationale and which are just junk and file an image deletion. That is fair comment, I think. I have to go now. --Artene50 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(There's nothing special in my contributions due to being an admin - I'm just participating as concern for NFC, and avoiding a problem that came up about 1.5 months ago with Simpsons screenshots. If these are to be deleted, I won't be doing that step due to involvement). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to add one thing, just to understand my place here: I've gone though many of the Trek episode articles and have had to do plot trimming, and while I haven't run through Voyager eps in a while, my recollection is that most of them have superficial use of screenshots just to fill an infobox, with little justification why to use that screenshot, notably as most episodes have little reception information (I think we run on an assumption that all Trek episodes are notable but people need to look for these sources. But that's another problem). Were I to be BOLD, I suspect I'd only leave a handful behind in removing them from episode articles. I will note that on two other present shows that I work on, Doctor Who and Fringe, we don't add (or revert additions) of screenshots unless we have found sources to justify a screenshot use. Unfortunately, most of the Trek episodes, like with older series, were created before 2008, where, while we had the basis of NFC, we didn't have the weight of the Foundation's non-free use resolution behind it, so per-episode screenshots were common, and this is what we're struggling with today. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Masem. That is the problem with some of the Trek articles. Some are very good and some are bottom of the barrel. I uploaded images between 2010-2012 mostly and tried to upload relevant images. Most of the pre-2008 images were uploaded by Thealok in 2006 before he left wikipedia the same year. Some Voyager articles like Remember have a third party source. I'll ask Cbbkr if he can improve the narratives of a few shows but all I can do is 1-2 shows because I work. Which of the above images would pass NFC today? One can't say without looking at how the images are used in an article but a mass deletion doesn't really address this issue at all. One shouldn't throw out everything if you want to remove say 15 or 18+ or so useless images. And for someone else to say 'this isn't a discussion, I will impose my own solution of a mass deletion doesn't seem right either'. This is a discussion about which images to single out for deletion, not a mass deletion. That is the point and I have no problem with this. Please analyse the images as they are used in an article to see if they are merely decorative or are significant to an understanding of an episode or its premise. And file an image deletion on those that fail this test. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a problem that most of the Trek episode articles lack sources outside of the links to the Trek wikis - this "suggests" there's a notability problem but I think I would be hard pressed to send any to AFD given that likely source do exist. (EG for TNG, AV Club has run through the series, and the new Blu-Rays provide new commentary). But without sourcing it is hard to justify images, and while we can certainly wait on the image getting up to snuff, our non-free content policy and the Foundation require use to be a bit more pro-active there. Personally - not trying to be mean here - a slash+burn to remove any image not immediately having some possible discussion should be removed from any episode that is unsourced, if only so that when the episode does become better sourced, there might be a better image to use for that episode based on that source (completely hypothetical case, for Voyager's premiere which is using a shot of the Caretaker, maybe reviewers were found to be more impressed when Kim is shown to be "marked" or some other scene, which would make the image of that scene the appropriate one to use.) Again, I stress that right now at NFCR we should be asking people to note ones that have some reasonable potential to meet NFCC, such that we can then remove the rest from the articles, and then let normal orphaning and FFD process follow as a second check before outright deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These all need to be gone through on a case by case basis. I'm going to straight-up delete the clear offenders while leaving the ones that have the potential in the near term to be properly defended. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is what I'm just saying. Some of the images use can be defended and some would fail NFC today. Please don't file a mass deletion on them all without going through their use on a case by case basis. That's prejudging the outcome of this discussion. --Artene50 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since it has been pointed out above that those images need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, lets start with the first one: How does the use of File:An Omega Particle.png in The Omega Directive satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Note that WP:NFCI#5 says that film and television screenshots should be for critical commentary, which is completely lacking here. Thus this seems to be a complete failure of NFCC#8. -- ToshioYamaguchi10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that a better approach would be for any image that an editor thinks should be kept (because I think there's general agreement that the bulk of these are failures), to say "let's talk about this one"; get the ones that have a likelihood that editors want to keep than to waste time on the more obvious cases. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images to be kept
Please list any images to be kept in this subsection, using the following format (simply paste the following into the edit window, a notice in the edit window indicates where to list the image. Thank you.). -- ToshioYamaguchi13:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
====[[:File:Example.png]]==== This image should be kept because (give reason here). ~~~~
This image should be kept because it shows the stolen timeship which would cause the end of the 29th century in a time inversion. It is the basis for the Voyager episode Future's End. Without this timeship, there would be no premise for the Voyager episode and a single image helps viewers understand what this ship looks like. Future's End was a two part series of Voyager, too and the existing article has 5 references from Star Trek.com (CBS) --Artene50 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced. What matters is not how important that plot element is for the episode. What matters is how important the visual details are for understanding the plot element. The article doesn't talk about the details of the visual design of the ship. To understand the plot, a verbal description (a small spaceship approximately the size of a 20th-century fighter plane with delta wings) would be entirely sufficient. Fut.Perf.☼08:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, without any sourced commentary about the time ship, it's not really necessary to otherwise understand the episode. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Voyager producers never talked about the ship's technical details--just that it was a timeship from the 29th century which was faster than Voyager. I suppose it will have to be deleted then, so decided to ask for an uploader deletion since I can't think of a reason to keep. --Artene50 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image should also be kept because it establishes with one screenshot that Chakotay (the Number 2 officer on Voyager) is on a planet populated and run by deassimiliated Borg drones--people who have detached themselves from the Borg collective--in Unity Its very useful in showing immediately the situation that Chakotay is in. Before, these people presented themselves to him as just the planet's colonists...but now, Chakotay learns the shocking truth. --Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image doesn't "establish" that he is "on a planet populated with deassimilated Borg drones". The only thing it establishes is that somebody (can't even figure out it's Chakotay) is in a dark room with some gloomy-looking people. The image is no help to understanding anything. Quite to the contrary, I need the text to help me understand what the image shows, rather than the other way round. Fut.Perf.☼08:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is pertinent since it shows that Not All is What it Seems at the place that it is living on. The people who rescued him are not merely innocent settlers of the planet that his spaceaft carshlanded on but deassimiliated Borg drones who have detached themselves from the Borg collective. I chose this screencap to show Chakotay viewing this scene and learning the awful truth for the first time. Its not decorative and any Trek fan would know that people he was viewing were not ordinary inhabitants of the planet. Fut.Perf. notes that he needed the text to undetsatnd the scene but if anyone had viewed this episode, they would know that this was Chakotay since he was wearing a red shirt and his ship had crashed on the planet. Chief of Security Tuvok's uniform in contrast is yellow and black. --Artene50 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't writing articles for Trek fans but for the general reader. Given that we have separate articles that show what Borg are, and who Chakotay is, there's little need for an image that has no additional discussion outside the plot; the reader can still understand that this involves Chakotay and Borg drones from the text. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a visual image of the Borg Drone--the title of the episode Drone--called 'One' who was created from Seven of Nine’s nanoprobe technology. Its a good visual illustration for this episode--direct and to the point for this new creation. --Artene50 (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help me to understand anything, beyond what Borgs look like (for which we have an extra article, with its own illustrations.) Same for the other character shown. Fut.Perf.☼08:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cite shows the Borg Queen and Jean Luc Picard as a Borg drone but this drone was not created by the Borg. It was created specifically in Voyager by an accident--by Seven of Nine's Borg nanoprobe technology. Surely, this single image is a pertinent illustration of this episode which I am concerned that Fut.Perf. may not have seen since he has not seen this TV series. Its not purely decorative. --Artene50 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image could be kept because it is a striking image of the wormhole through which Voyager sends a message to a Romulan captain in a Romulan vessel through a probe in the distant Alpha Quadrant in Eye of the Needle. I say it may be kept this is a suggestion just for this particular image as it is almost literally an eye of the needle view of the Alpha Quadrant where Voyager's home, Earth, is located. --Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the article contained non-trivial, well-sourced, real-world critical discussion of the technical or aesthetic design aspects of that "worm hole" simulation. Which, of course, it doesn't. Like almost all the others, the article consists only of plot renarration. Plot-only articles can virtually never sustain a reasonable non-free image claim. Fut.Perf.☼08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image should be kept because it is the first visual appearance of the real Marayna, a lonely sentient alien, who previously only appeared in Voyager's holodeck program in the episode Alter Ego. This article has at least 3 references from the star trek.com website which is run by CBS. In the screencap, Tuvok meets Marayna and has to reason with her and ask her to release Voyager from her control or risk seeing the death of his ship and his crew in a nebula that Marayna also controls. So, yes, the screencap is notable. --Artene50 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screencaps are never "notable". Article topics are. Don't tell us what's happening in that scene; tell us why it's in need of visual illustration to make the article understood. Do we need a visual illustration of what that particular alien looks like, out of the myriads of aliens that have been designed for the series? Possibly, if the article contained non-trivial, sourced, real-life analysis of the design choices made in creating that mask. Which, again, it doesn't. Fut.Perf.☼09:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that sometimes a visual illustration of what a particular alien looks like--out of a myriad of aliens--is helpful and sometimes it is just junk. But you haven't seen this particular episode, Fut.Perf., and you don't see how the alien Marayna infiltrates Voyager's holodeck program and disguises herself as just part of one of the 'extra' holodeck characters in a Hawaiian setting that capture the attention of Harry Kim and then Tuvok. She can use the Doctor's transponder to beam down out of the holodeck to Tuvok's quarters and later seize control of Voyager's computers and stop its engines. Finally, she can even make the nebula that Voyager is investigating suddenly increase in activity--thereby threatening the safety of the ship all because Tuvok rebuffs her request to see her. This shows that she is not your day of the week forgettable alien and if I was an ordinary Trek viewer, I'd prefer a scene where I could see who on earth the real Marayna since its pertinent here. This article has sources to startrek.com which is run by CBS and is a WP:RS. Thanks, --Artene50 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just go off your assurances the character/scene/setting is notable. We need to have sourced commentary about the character or scene to make that connection. You can't state that importance in the article yourself (that would be original research) and without that discussion in the text, we don't need the image to understand the article. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the justification is pretty clear--to illustrate his style in his most famous work. It also has a very low resolution. I'm not seeing how 8 and 3b aren't met. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, unless the work itself in connection to the artist is of critical discussion (eg using sound clips to describe a musical group's style, using representative paintings that are highlighted as exemplars of an artist's work), we don't reuse art from an article about the work on the article about the creator. The article is referenced, but not that specific line that discusses the style, so it is hard to verify if this is considered a critical comment on his style (which would help satisfy #8) or just an WPian's appraisal which would fail #8. (The 3b aspect is easy, as the image is too large per normal resolution guidance). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me to show a representative of an artist's work, so the reader can see and judge for themselves his/her style. It adds to reader understanding about the artist in the most direct and obvious way. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no sourced discussion of the artist's style (which I'm not saying doesn't exist for Kuijpers, but its presently not shown here), we have no reason to show an image to show what that looks like to the reader, particularly when they are one link away from seeing it on a different article. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not true. In my view, gaining an impression of the artist's work is something that absolutely fundamentally adds to reader understanding of the artist, regardless of whether there is textual discussion. And I don't find the "one click away" argument convincing either -- if something is worth including in the article, then it's worth including in the article - full stop. We should aim for our articles to be self-standing and self-sufficient as far as possible, because we have no idea how they may be reused (eg saved to disk, or printed out, automatically extracted, or otherwise selected, with no guarantee the other article will also be available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
But our non-free content mission is against that, and that's policy. Again, find/affirm sources that describe his art style in context as a BLP, and the image (outside of its size) is probably fine. The artist is searchable but I'm not having luck on page translations to determine if this is the case, and its possible the sources exist already to show this. But in the general case, if an artist or other creative person/group are notable for an article but lack any sourced discussion about the style of their creative output, there's no benefit to the reader to show that, otherwise its assuming OR that the reader needs to see the art to see/hear that. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what policy says, in black and white, is that the image should add to reader understanding about the subject of the article. This image manifestly does just that. And making that assessment ultimately doesn't rest on me finding sources: it is a judgement the policy commands me and the community to make, as editors. WP:OR applies to theses and propositions advanced by the article. It does not apply to talk pages, or editorial judgements, or community consensuses. Contextual significance is a matter for community assessment, which is not something to which the WP:OR policy applies. I put it again: that to me it seems blindingly obvious that showing an artist's style adds something absolutely fundamental to the reader understanding of the subject, when the subject is an artist. And I imagine most of the community would find it similarly blindingly obvious, too. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going on that logic alone, I can justify the inclusion of any non-free image because I talk about it (without sources) in the article and say the reader needs to see it to understand it. It has long been policy and practice that sourced discussion of images are required in such cases like this as to meet NFCC#8, as to say that "If our reliable sources think it is necessary to highlight this factor of this creative person's work, then we can justify using non-free to show accompany that." If no sources discuss the creative person's style, then we have very little leg to stand on to justify its inclusion - there are exceptions, but not always. This is necessary to reduce non-free use otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. A blanket statement of the kind you propose has occasionally been suggested at WT:NFC, and always been rejected. There are some particular specific categories -- for example high-value agency photographs -- where we require commentary on the image itself, and for that commentary to be properly sourced; but the requirement is not a general part of NFCC #8. (As witnessed, for example, by our preparedness to include album covers, company logos, etc without comment, because of their manifest revelance). IIRC in the very early days of the NFCC, there might have been a requirement for direct commentary on the image added for a few weeks, but it was removed again after consideration of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley. But the basic position has always been that NFCC #8 requires a judgement on whether the image adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and that that is a judgement for the community to make based on whatever common sense and context and background it wishes to bear -- there is no requirement, not stated in the NFC nor out of it, for a "smoking gun" source to be found saying "this image is significant".
If we have an article on an artist, for the reader to properly understand the nature of the artist and their work, it seems absolutely plain to me that it is manifestly relevant to show some example of what that artist's output looked like -- quite apart from whether or not the artist's style has attracted any particular comments. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the readers wants to understand the artists work, the reader can click on the wikilink to the works article and view the image in that article. Also, I don't see how it adds to the readers understanding of the work if there is no (preferrably sourced) commentary about what aspect of the artists style the image depicts. -- ToshioYamaguchi20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because readers have eyes. You don't have to drag them by the nose and say "you can see this" and "you can see that" and "you can see the other". Jheald (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with images illustrating an artist's style in an article about the artist's style, but this article only mentions his art style briefly (saying that he uses the clear line style). Also, I'm not sure if a cover illustration is a good idea for illustrating an artist's drawing style, unless you are specifically discussing cover illustrations. On a cover illustration, a lot of the page is typically covered by logos and text, so it is harder to see the actual art in the thumbnail in the article. Single panels from a story serve this purpose better. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's long been guidance at WP:COMICS, where the image policy in fact goes back substantially before WP:NFC, to prefer exterior matter over interior panels unless illustrating points specific to those panels, on the basis that you have had to pay to see interior matter, but the exterior matter is what you could see on the news-stand, and what tends to be circulated in promotional material, and so may be less economically significant a copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if we are going to demonstrate someone's already-notable art on their bio page, reusing an image, while not completely avoiding NFC issues, would be better than uploading a new image of just one part of their art. But if there's sourced justification to use a more detailed closeup of the art, that's reasonable. That's simply not the case here (yet). --MASEM (t) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if an image of the style is to be used there, there should be a specific reference in the article to that image highlighting how that image demonstrates the specific style. Otherwise, I don't see how the image is helpful for a readers understanding of the article, if the reader doesn't already know what that style is. -- ToshioYamaguchi09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have maybe edited half a dozen articles on illustrators at one time or another. In each case, I think the article probably had an image of the illustrator's style. Toshio says that an article needs to say how an image demonstrates the specific style, if a reader is going to get any understanding out of it. But that's simply not true. Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them. For example, suppose you have an illustrator -- are the works they are celebrated for loose watercolours, hard-edged realism, Quentin Blake-style cartoons, ligne claire, 80's-style airbrush, Tenniel-style Victoriana, or something else again entirely...? Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin, perhaps the most famous example of ligne claire, and see for yourself that, no, it is not quite the same. Seeing the image therefore, even without commentary, gives you a much better idea of what the artist actually did -- which has to be something absolutely fundamental in an article on an artist. One can see immediately, for example, that what Henk Kuijpers did was rather different to say Action Comics 1. It's not a question of sourced commentary, it's a question of giving the reader a better understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8) -- exactly as showing a characteristic work on an artist's page does. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them." .... "Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin."
Anybody seeing the image might interpret the artists supposed intention behind the image differently. What we as Wikipedia editors think the artist was doing is irrelevant, we'd need reliable sources to support such claims. Also I am not aware that there is a consensus that such a use of a non-free image is acceptable (I don't see it at WP:NFCI). -- ToshioYamaguchi11:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the figure of speech. I wasn't talking about the artist's intention, I was talking about physically what sort of work they produce. And that is exactly what seeing the image shows you. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if the image is to show the characteristics of the style of Kuijpers works there needs to be more discussion of this style in the article and a reference to this specific image explaining how that image is representative of that style. -- ToshioYamaguchi12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without jumping in the middle, I just want to say that "manifest relevance" is a darn fine bit of reasoning here, just as it is with album covers (more so actually IMO). You can't understand what an artist _does_ without seeing the art. Period. It clearly meets NFCC#8 by definition. And nothing other than a sample of their art (or more than one in some cases where they have a wildly varying style) can accomplish that same thing. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a larger, sourced discussion about his art style, certainly NFCC#8 is met. But we can't justify that based on a single, unsourced line, which could just be an OR statement by a WPian to try to justify their use. It simply doesn't qualify for the more rigorous nature we expect from NFCC#8 (in particular the second half about omission making the article difficult to understand - the importance of the artist is understood without the image, as there's no significant discussion about the art style).
I will stress one thing: despite the language barrier on searches, I do suspect there is additional sources to be used for this artist, and from those a few more words can be added about his art style as to secure the appropriateness of the image in this article. That it, I would urge those trying to keep it to find these sources (the name generates enough hits) and justify the art style appropriately, instead of fighting against standard expectations for such images. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're re-writing NFCC #8 in your head again. It doesn't say that "omission would make the article difficult to understand". It says that the additional understanding of the topic, which the reader would have with the image, would be lost without it.
For an example see, eg Quentin Blake, and then look at a Google image search [5]. I submit that you gain more real understanding about Quentin Blake and why he is celebrated by seeing any single one of these images than you do from the entirety of our shockingly image-less article. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The image simply sits in the article without being discussed. Thus I do not see how the presence of the image in the article significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The claim that the reader gains significantly from the images presence on that page is unfounded and the article is still understandable, if the image were removed. -- ToshioYamaguchi17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Toshio points out, no, that is actually what NFCC#8 says - it is a two prong test. It is nearly always easy to prove the first part that the picture helps, but the second part regarding omission is where, if there's no detailed discussion of the need for the image - nearly always required sourced discussion to avoid OR - then NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that NFCC #8 doesn't actually say what Toshio claims it does. What it actually says is
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
(emphasis added).
So it's not a question of whether the article is still "understandable" without the image. The question is whether not having the image is detrimental to the understanding the reader would have gained had the image been there.
And no, you don't always need to have detailed discussion of an image for that image to add something significant to reader understanding of the topic. As for example here. Knowing the sort of work an artist does adds something absolutely fundamental to what you understand about the artist. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your claim contains a flaw, since it actually says:
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Yes... And the point that has been consistently been put is that to know what kind of work it was that the artist made is perhaps the most significant increase in understanding that it's possible to imagine about the artist. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that NFCC8 isn't a bright line. I'd say it is _well_ over the line here and I'm somewhat surprised others disagree. But matters of opinion are sometimes that way. What seems black-and-white to one person isn't to another. I don't think arguing back-and-forth is going to solve that. If you don't believe having the art of an artist visible adds significantly to the understanding of that artist (and not having it therefore detracts) you're just not in a place that I can vaguely understand. And apparently you can't understand me. So we're stuck and more words aren't going to change that. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To step back, a key facet of US Fair Use law in determining if a use of the work includes the idea of a transformative nature; the phrase "criticism and commentary" that we banter around comes pretty much directly from why fair use is allowed. ([6]). As we are purposely stricter than Fair Use law, this concept is still embedded within NFC policy, even if not fully listed out - this is why, for example, we highlight the need for "critical commentary" within NFCI - which I know is not exactly the same as the fair use phrase, but its origins are there.
To this point, this is why NFCC#8 - which is pretty much our guide to assure the transformative nature is met - nearly always (with very limited exception) - requires sourced discussion of the article in question. WPians cannot provide criticism and commentary without violating OR so ergo it has to come from reliable sources. This is the metric used in practice (effectively, WP:FAC being the ultimate point of review without consideration to delete) and has been the way for years. I don't question that a reader can be helped by seeing the artist's work to understand the artist's style, but without sourced discussion, the omission isn't hurting the article, particularly if the reader is one click away from the work in question. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley. Commentary on the image is not a pre-requisite for U.S. Fair Use.
In any case, the context of being used in as part of an education article, for an educational purpose, is transformative -- it's a very different context from that for which the image was originally created.
NFCC #8 is quite carefully drafted, both in what it requires and what it does not. "Significantly aiding reader understanding" is a good and appropriate test -- good for WP, and good in the context of one of our articles for U.S. law. This image is passing that test.
Such images, as you confirm, plainly help our readers -- so omitting them plainly harms what the article might be. In the specific language of NFCC #8, its omission is detrimental to the understanding that it would give readers if it was there.
Finally, I think WP:FAC is a red herring. An article on an artist probably deserves to fail WP:FAC if it doesn't discuss the artist's style. But we're not talking about whether this article is up for FAC -- we are talking about whether it (and articles like it) ought to have an image to convey an understanding of the artist's work. The test for that is not that an article has to be FAC standard, it is that the image has to pass NFCC #8 -- which this does. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC case in point is the one for Pink Floyd which passed recently (last few months). Prior to FAC the article included pretty much every cover of their albums. The FAC discussion on images was centered on how this is just not acceptable, and with the end result being the album covers that were considered to have sourcable discussion w.r.t. to the band were left - eg for example Dark Side's iconic prism. The point here is that FAC understands that sourcing style and the like needs to be present before images about the creative person can be included. Remember, if no RS talks about the person's style, but otherwise is sufficiently sourced, we as WPians can't fill in that gap, but at FAC this wouldn't be considered an impediment.
You can't use the same argument on NFCC#8 to satisfy both parts. I will agree the image can be of help to the reader, but I still understand, with what text is presently there, that the guy is a comic artist, with or without the image, ergo the image is not necessary. Since it is impossible for a WPian to expand any more on the art style without evoking OR, we need sourced discussion to make seeing his style necessary to understand the article. I'm going to keep stressing: this has been a long-time standard for creative professionals, to require sourcing of style or the like to be able to include non-free works representative of them. But I will further stress: I think there are sources out there that would then otherwise make this whole argument moot, I just can't break the language barrier for them. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "you understand that the guy is a comic artist". But what kind of art did he produce? There's a clear difference between Henk Kuijpers and Action Comics #1, or Quentin Blake, or even Hergé -- that much better understanding of what kind of art the artist produced is what the image contributes, without any further commentary -- and that is why it passes NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no RS talked about the quality of the work, just saying he did comic art is sufficient for our readers and the picture is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not sufficient. If through the art we can give our readers a better understanding about the artist, namely a better idea of what he did, then that's a usage that policy -- NFCC #8 -- says is absolutely justified. Why sell our readers short, when policy says show them the picture? Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't have a free content mission with non-free exceptional use, I would totally agree that yes, we'd plop an image of the cover of the comic the guy created on the article about the artist, absent any text discussing the art, and be done. But we have a require to minimize non-free use to exceptional uses. The logic that the image helps the reader to understand the article in the absence of sourced discussion is a slippery slope that would allow for any crafty-enough editor to include any piece of non-free where they want. We have consistently required (with some IAR, but not many) sourced commentary to identify when an exemption can be made, as to avoid this slope. In the current state of this article, this image is not one of those exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Slippery slope" is the last defence of scare-mongering. NFCC #8 has been what it says from the start, and there has been no slippery slope. Anyway, the proper place to meet a 'slippery slope' is where images do not add to reader understanding, not to delete images which do add to reader understanding "just in case". Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the question at hand is if it meets NFCC#8, not if it meets fair use requirements. If you'd like to debate the fair use issue as a separate notion, I'm fine with that, but let's settle the NFCC stuff first. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since NFC is purposely stricter than fair use, we have to meet fair use irregardless. It cannot be treated as a separate notion. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's quite relevant. NFCC#8 is designed to meet the transformative nature of US fair use law by seeking commentary in the article using the image to justify its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tedious. NFCC #8 tells us to ask a direct question, framed with an eye to US fair use law: "Does this image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?" You've now agreed that it does. That should be an end to it.
Instead you seem to be claiming that, due to some super-sekrit protocol vouchsafed to the enlightened, the plain meaning of the black-and-white text of NFCC #8 is quite misleading, and that what is required is a quite different test, which NFCC #8 specifically (and intentionally) does not call for.
Why you think that should have any credence I'm not quite sure. But let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR decision that you claim has re-written policy in this area (without actually bothering to re-write the policy). Otherwise all of this wordage is no more than an ode to a small lump of green non-policy you found in your armpit one midsummer morning -- and worth as much. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, NFCC#8 asked two distinct questions:
"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,..."
"and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The first question is always the easiest to meet and nearly always yes if the image is relevant to the topic; and it certainly holds in this case. That's rarely the problem.
The second is where most people have a hard time justifying. Yes, the metric "would be detrimental to understanding" is a negative, and typically difficult to quantify to proof, but in so many past image reviews (FFD, FAC, etc.) a grey line test applied nearly in every case is if there is discussion of this image in the article in question - if there is this discussion towards the image, lacking the image would harm that discussion to not see it right there, and one could argue NFCC#8 would be met (There's other aspects here from other NFCC points, but that's trivial right now). No, this test is not stated because it doesn't always apply in all cases and may not be the only test, and it is highly subjective, but this example (a picture of the creative output of a creative person in the article about that creative person) is one where this has always been used. Now, that discussion itself is usually easy to provide (as is the case right now with the unsourced statement about the line art style), but that then links to our OR policy; if the text of discussion in question fails OR, then the text itself should be removed, and suddenly you don't have that discussion. Hence why we always come back to "sourced discussion" as the requirement to meet the second half of NFCC#8.
To take it another way, on the second point of NFCC#8, the single unsourced line about his style gives me enough to understand his style for the amount of context the article gives me, that I don't need an image to understand his importance as a comic author. Therefore, with the omission of the image, my understand is not reduced, and therefore NFCC#8 fails. On the other hand, if the style line expanded to include more detail on his style, comparison to others, influences he borrowed from, and so on, I could see that lacking the image would harm my understanding. But to create those statements, we would absolutely need sources as it begs OR; a WPian could not write that without introducing OR. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're going round in circles. We've been through all this already. NFCC #8 doesn't say "detrimental to the understanding of the discussion", or "detrimental to the understanding of the text". It could do, but it deliberately doesn't. What is says is "detrimental to that understanding" -- meaning detrimental to the understanding you would have, if the image was there.
Now, the article could present either
that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist; or
that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist, and show the reader what his work looked like.
Which gives the reader a better understanding of the man and his work? #2. Significantly. And that is the test that NFCC #8 lays down.
Again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted, so we can assess the quality of the discussion there. Because the plain reading of NFCC #8 is clear: what matters is what improves reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are just flat out wrong; hundreds of FFD and FAC prove that out. The "that understanding" is reference to the topic without the image, not with. With what is given on the page, without the image, I understand everything that is said, and thus no image is necessary, because there is no text given to understand why I need to appreciate his art style. You're trying to change policy to justify something that has long been practice. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
-- i.e. the understanding of the topic the reader would have with the image
There's simply no other way to read that sentence.
"its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic the reader would have without the image" simply doesn't make sense -- because you can't do something detrimental to understanding by taking the image away if it's already not there.
The meaning of NFCC #8 is therefore quite clear.
So again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted. Because WP:NFC is a core policy, and deviating from it should not be undertaken lightly. Jheald (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point. Because there is not verified (sourced) commentary about the artwor, there is zero need to see the artwork to understand the significance of the artwork given that there's no significance to this given in the article. The topic as presented is complete without the image. You cannot use the argument "an image is worth a thousand words" to justify NFCC#8. I'm in completely agreement that if we were at Wikia or any other site outside the Foundation's Resolution, we would of course use the image because it falls within fair use (assuming our purpose was educational). But that's not the case here.
And now here's the sad part because I said that sourcing would be everything. When I jump to the Franka article, there's a source, [7], which has this line "Henk Kuijpers is a realistic comic artist who works in a Clear Line style with a great sense of detail, especially in his backgrounds". Now, I can't judge that source as the best reliable source (I would believe it is given its a European antiquities dealer cataloging things like this), but all that we needed as I said was a source that stated that, and now I can fully support the cover image to demonstrate this. That's all that was needed, as I've been saying. I'm sure there's more sources that can be used, but at least now there is relevance to show the reader, while discussing the artist, an example of his art and now I can argue that omission would be harmful. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just this article, it's the articles on endless other artists too -- where by failing to show any idea of the art which makes them notable, we are systematically failing our readers.
Plus, in my view, half a line of text is a pretty poor fig-leaf.
The fundamental significance of an image like this is not that it relates to half a line of text. It is that it helps you to better understand the topic of the article -- namely the artist, and what they did -- text or no text. And that is the test that NFCC #8 sets out.
NFCC #8 doesn't talk about the topic "as presented" being complete. It asks: does an image add significantly to the reader understanding of the topic? And, would taking the image away be detrimental to that understanding?
The answer is yes, it would be detrimental, because the reader would then have so much poorer an idea of just what it was that the artist produced, and was known for. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that line of logic would allow for any non-free image to be used if it only helped comprehension. Take the Voyager screenshots above. Clearly every image can be claimed to help understand the episode, but very few are actually discussed short of text. But your logic says they should all be used. Nope, not going to happen. "Critical commentary" has always been a practical but unstated metric of validating NFCC#8, and why it appears in NFCI as when we readily accept uses. It provides a semi-objective starting point for NFCC#8 compliance. The need for critical commentary is also resonated in NFC#UUI of unacceptable uses that we don't just use images because they would be nice illustrations. This is a metric is used at FFD, it is used at FAC, and there's little room for any practice outside of these approaches. I'm not reinterpreting anything - this is just the norm for this. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not arguing for the Voyager images to be kept -- only if they significantly add to reader understanding. That's the test for NFCC #8, to be assessed by the community.
There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that an image is not expected to add anything particularly germane or significant, unless it specifically clarifies critical commentary.
There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that the image generally will add something significant, even if there is no commentary on the image.
And there are the remaining cases, where NFCC #8 has been left to speak for itself -- for the community to decide as and when, on the merits of the case, without WP:CREEP, and without making it harder to improve the wiki.
There is no "practical but unstated metric of requiring critical commentary" -- that's not the way policy works. Especially when that requirement (which was once added to NFCC #8 for a week or two) was specifically removed to allow NFCC #8 to better reflect the flexibility to do the right thing of the U.S. Law.
Instead NFCC #8 is quite plain: does the image add sufficiently significantly to reader understanding, which the community is to decide. For an image added to an article on an artist, to show the kind of work that the artist did, the answer to that is routinely going to be "yes". Jheald (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that an image without any commentary like in Henk Kuijpersadds significantly to a readers understanding of the article. Yes, the article looks more colorful and might be more pleasant to the eye, but this doesn't convey any trustworthy information to the reader. The reader can interpret the image in any way he or she wants in the context of the article, but that is just like any other unsourced statement in Wikipedia: it is original research. -- ToshioYamaguchi22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing for the slippery slope between showing a representative image of an artist's work without any non-OR discussion about it, and the use of a screenshot of a TV episode without any non-OR discussion about it. From NFC's POV, they fail in exactly the same way. Toshio's hit the nail on the head when it comes to NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept. Because adding to reader understanding is what we're here to do. That is what NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. For example, if the image shows some particular striking creature effect. But a random image from a random episode is going to have a much harder time meeting that criterion than a representative image from an artist's work, which is pretty much always going to meet the criterion.
But that is the call that NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. The material is verifiably by the artist, or from the episode, so this isn't a case of the article being used to advance some novel thesis or proposition. Rather, it is part of the normal editorial judgment of what verifiable material to include in an article, and what not to include. WP:OR relates to the content of the article, and the theses and propositions it develops. WP:OR does not relate to editorial judgements, talk page discussions, discussions about significance and other meta-level discussions that are discussions about the content of the article, and what it should be, rather than being the content of the article. File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg is not advancing some contentious thesis or proposition about the artist, it is merely being what it is, allowing the reader to see for themselves what his work looked like. Jheald (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept." is screaming to be gamed and is the start of a slippery slope, and why we don't let that arguement fly to justify NFCC#8. This is why for most images that fall outside of NFCI we consider the presence of sourced commentary as a starting point. Yes, I don't deny there's probably exceptions to that determined by consensus, but look at any FFD or FAC that involves these types of cases, and you'll see editors looking to only keep images where sourced discussion exists. To flip this around, if we truly have a notable creative person who's notability rests on their creative product, I do find it hard to imagine that zero sources would exist that discuss their creative product critically as to allow non-free image use. However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use - as otherwise it would fail NFCC and we're supposed to remove this within 7 days (unlike where with notability, we can take time to judge that fact). So it is not the issue that we would never accept non-free images of a creative person's work on the article on the creative person, but instead that we need to have that meet NFCC before it can be used. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use" -- No. You're pulling policy out of your armpit again. That is not what NFCC #8 requires -- and e.g. here is a DRV and a deletion discussion which upheld that. What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding. That is the test laid down by NFCC #8. "Sourced discussion" is not the test. I am sorry for you if you find that personally inconvenient, but you can't just dream up your own criteria because you find the actual policy inconvenient. WP:NFCC is not just a charter for deleting images. It is also a commitment to preserve images that advance reader understanding sufficiently to justify the copyright taking. That is what NFCC #8 tells the community to make the basis of its judgement. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding."
I don't know where you got this from. Anyway, that is not what the policy says. All that NFCC#8 says is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The requirement you give here doesn't exist. -- ToshioYamaguchi09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.
If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.
Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.
I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.
I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk)(COI)21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Wikipedia:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.
(ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.
(iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times [8]), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.
Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.
The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- ToshioYamaguchi15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)
The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.
Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.
But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk)(COI)16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all rather humorous
Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Wikipedia has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.
The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. [9][10]. Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.
The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.
So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it [11]. Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.
As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.
VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could maybe go either way in a court. Since it is so easily replaceable, wouldn't it be safer to simply tag it as replaceable and get it deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been argued extensively in the past. First, the logo is in fact copyrighted and Prince has registered it as such, whether we choose to think it is past the threshold of originality or not. This is noted in the second paragraph of this section. Two, see this prior discussion. Three, the logo has been stripped from inappropriate locations many, many times. It always gets restored. Four, there are two rationales for the use of the image. Just in Love Symbol Album and Prince (musician) alone there are five uses. I.e., three rationales short. It doesn't really matter. The image will be used anyway, regardless of the arcane NFCC policy. That's what the common practice has been for years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two uses in Love Symbol Album follow the above thread, so they'd be okay. Two of the three uses in Prince are appropriate - the "AKA" infobox section and the discussion about the "name" change that is discussed int he article, but the third use, again, to call out to Love Symbol Album is excessive. The other uses fall into the YYYY in music articles, and I can see only two fair uses - in the year where Prince changed his name to that, and the year when Love Symbol Album was released - and even this last one, I'm hesistent to say is necessary, given the 3rd use on the Prince article above. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am really unsure about this one. I think US copyright office normally refuses copyright protection for logos that can be easily described by a short text. I am unsure how to describe this one. It seems to be essentially a blue half circle with a bit cut out at the top and two quarter circles attached to the bottom ends of the first circle so that they meet in a single point at the bottom. It possibly could be described more accurately, but since such a description is possible in only relatively few words, it appears to be simple and thus ineligible for copyright protection. Just a guess on my part though, I am not a copyright lawyer. -- ToshioYamaguchi13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both images are needed as they depict two different portrayals of the subject matter; something which is a key and pivotal point of the article itself. As such, both images represent different significant information related to the articles subject matter and just one would not be able to convey the equivalent information. TunaStreet (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're talking about a live action show that doesn't involve extensive makeup, the images of the character would not be expected to fall too far from their actresses that play her. One image is justified, but the second can be replaced by a free image of the second actress without loss of educational value. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is claimed to be the uploader's own work ("own photo taken at site"), but under magnification you see what looks just like a colour print raster, strongly suggesting this image was scanned from a publication in print. The presumption must be, therefore, that this is non-free content. --Lambiam16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the summary "Hari Singh own photo taken at site for Sikhiwiki.org scanned" I'd be prepared to accept that as face value, absent of evidence of previous publication. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really belongs at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. However, I concur that it appears to be scanned. That doesn't mean it's not the uploader's work. However, I did find this, indicating the image belongs (and is copyrighted to) a person with the pseudonym "jeevan21" which is not the same as the uploader here. However, that upload postdates the upload here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshots of websites
I noticed recently that {{Infobox website}} displays an initially collapsed screenshot of the website. As most websites are copyrighted, we are both saying (under NFCC #8) that the image is so critical to the reader's understanding that we need to have a fair use screenshot, but the screenshot is so unimportant that we can show it as initially collapsed. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_website#Collapsed_screenshots and opine if desired. Thank you. --B (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excerpt from famous music review
Hi, I am fairly new to the NFCC policy, but when I uploaded this image, it seemed like it may have been consistent with NFCC #8 ("non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.")
this particular image is taken from a famous review of Illmatic in 1994. Here, for the first time, a debut artist was awarded the coveted '5 mic' rating. This review has historic value for hip hop music, given the prestige of The Source at that time. As you can see, this particular publication is very important to the topic - important enough to receive its own section in the article. Lacking visual commentary, however, I fear that readers could potentially be confused as to what the '5 mic' rating actually is.
Why? The 5-mic rating system is entirely unique to The Source. It is fair to assume that many readers won't be familiar with it, especially those who unfamiliar with hip hop journalism. And while the 5 mic rating is parallel to the the traditional five-star rating scale used by other music publications, it shouldn't simply be conflated. It just seems to me that a reader (absent some visual representation) might potentially confuse something like a '5 mic' rating with a '5 star' one - if it's only expressed using text. A visual symbol, on the other hand, could help make the distinction a lot clearer -- especially for an article like Illmatic, which contains so many other reviews and ratings.
So in terms of relevance to NFCC #8, I feel having a visual representation of the '5 mic rating' would help to avoid any confusion -- by visually delineating the difference between "5 mics" and the traditional "five-star" symbol used by other music publications. Without this, I feel the reader's understanding might be obscured.
Unfortunately, I don't think this logic applies, at least for its use on a song/album article. Just doing a quick check of sources shows that the Five-Mic rating itself is a noted feature of the magazine, so highlighting that is fine, no problem, and in fact can be stated as a "coveted" review. However, once you say that in text, then the visual aspects of how a 5-mic rating are shown isn't necessary on an individual song/album article, as by stating the prestige of getting five mics, you've distinguished it from other, less impressive 5-star rating systems so the conflation you anticipate is not there.
That said, you may (I'm not 100% convinced but you could justify it better) be able to use that image on the article about The Source. You just need to boost that section in that article to explain how the five-mic rating was coveted, etc. from other reliable sources than The Source itself. (Again, my quick check of sources show that that is certainly something that can be done). It's still a weak rational because the image of five iconographs of mics in a row isn't too hard to envision, but its a far better shot there than on any individiaul song/album page. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Please note, that every album on Wikipedia already features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Judging from these other pages, I would say that readers generally expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough or even acceptable, but for most readers, it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. It gives ratings a certain profile within the topic, and it helps raise awareness about important jouranlistic distinctions in terms of how albums are evaluated. .
I think there's genuine enyclopedic value in including this image, for the sake of enhancing a reader's understanding of this topic -- and avoiding potential confusion. In the case of Illmatic, the absence of visual symbols makes it extremely vague to distinguish between 5 mics and 5 stars - especially because under the 'Professional Ratings' box, The Source is listed alongside Allmusic and The Rolling Stones as conferring 'stars' That alone invites the possibility of confusion. It would be helpful for readers to know that while the two rating systems are parallel, they are not the same. The star system is quite universal, but mic ratings are a lot more obscure, and I only want to help "increase [the] reader's understanding" by offering some sort of visual commentary that will familiarize them with it.
You make a really good point though: Having to explain a rating system for a reader is far more relevant for a wiki page dealing with the publication itself - rather than a particular album. Fair enough! But we should also remember that ratings have the potential to be relevant not just to the publications themselves, but also the albums that receive them -- especially when the legacy of that album has been shaped by the acclaim it received.
In this specific context, we are not just referring to a generic system of rating (which, in the grand scheme of things, is only a mundane concern), but we are citing a specific historical and symbolic moment that shaped how this album has been perceived. That's why I specifically chose to excerpt the review itself (or at least a segment of it) - rather than just include a generic logo of 5 mics. The review itself -- which of course, prominently features the 5 mic logo -- is fundamentally intertwined with the legacy of this album, in terms of its history, scholarship, and memorabilia. Most documentaries that allude to Illmatic will also mention this review; one major book even includes it in its appendix; and the review itself has even been featured in a recent deluxe edition of Illmatic, as part of a collector's set.
To sum up my logic then: Understanding the rating is secondary to understanding how this rating impacted the album's legacy - but in order to understand the album's legacy, you have to understand the rating, and if you don't, you will only have a partial grasp of Illmatics significance.
Again, I'm not that well-versed in NFCC. I must admit, much of this is new to me. But logic wise, it seems that the concerns I've raised fall under "significantly increase a reader's understanding" and "ommission...[being] detrimental to the understanding" Furthering the understanding of Illmatic (which is the stated goal of NFCC #8), requires an explanation of its critical reception (by taking steps to clarify the differences between each of the publications, and assigning greater weight to to ones that are 'coveted', 'prestigious', or quite simply 'unique'). Including visual commentary is the best way to enhance a reader's understanding, and it also helps to avoid potential ambiguities by making it significantly easier for a reader to distinguish the '5 mic rating' from other publications. Omitting a visual commentary, on the other hand, makes it harder to do so, and might potentially detract from a proper understanding of the album's historical and symbolic significance. Chubdub (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're entering an area where you are putting a lot of undue weight on one single review over the others. This is not to call out the Source's rating (being the first 5-mic to a hip-hop) as being unimportant - it seems, on my reading, to deserve that section that is there. Just that the importance of the 5-mic compared to other 5-star ratings as to require a picture to show that. I understand that in that field that a 5-mic Source review is considered far more prestigious than, say, 5 stars from Rolling Stone or a similar publication, and the fact its one of the few such works to get one should be called out. But at the same time, it is just another review that uses a 5-star-like system. It is just that the Source appears to be a bit more critical compared to other works. This concept happens all the times in other areas - for example video games , the area I work mostly, there's a few publications that are known to be tough reviewers and getting a perfect score on whatever scale it is is something to call out in prose, but in terms of a score relative to others, its just listed there (though these sources still use numbers or a plain 5-star system).
There's also another problem with the image, in that we also have something here that is easily described by text: that is, the 5-mic you have shows, pretty much what one can envision when you say something received a 5-mic rating: a picture of a microphone, repeated 5 times over. While there could be argument on NFCC#8 being met (as you are trying above), this aspect fails NFCC#1 since simply saying "the source gave Illmatic a 5-mic rating" describes exactly what that picture shows. And even moreso along that line, that picture doesn't help the reader, who may be unfamiliar with the Source and their 5-mic scale, to understand the importance of the Source's rating system over anyone else's. There may be other graphics that show this, but this is really something that can only be understood by text - and that means prose is the way to go. So I really don't think you can use this image on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't want to belabor the points I've made already. I just feel there's some genuine encylopedic value to including this image. I think you're right to point out that the caption is basically redundant - might we simply change it into some more in-line with NFCC 1? Chubdub (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "[t]o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have File:1929RoverLightSixTM6124.jpg on commons which is virtually the same vehicle in colour even. Do we need a fair use b/w just because it shows a road and people for five articles? It is used in a gallery in two articles which is also a no-no, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was, say, the photo of the car after winning that race (the first rationale listed), there might be reason, but all the uses seem to be "I want to illustrate this model of car, but this is the best I can find due to age). The free photo is sufficient replacement and this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Scrabble. The NFUR states "The image is used for identification and clarification in the context of critical commentary of the work from which the screenshot is taken. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Commentary in the article about the screenshot itself: Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original work, a single frame, being of comparatively low commercial value." The section of Scrabble (Scrabble#Television game show versions) where the image appears does not have such critical commentary; the image appears to merely show the logo decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the show had its own article (assuming notability) it might be reasonable there. But the show doesn't appear to be notable, and just to show its title card on a larger subject is inappropriate. Agree it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.
This may need a split up into multiple discussions. The files fall in multiple different categories.
Eagle Scout images
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)#History of the medal contains a list of medals. File:Eagle Scout medal THF1.png is apparently a photo of a medal from 1912. As the medal was published before 1923, it is unquestionably in the public domain. However, as this is a photo of a 3D object, the photographer gains copyright protection to the photo (per Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet). There are 5 additional medals there, and those are very similar to the first one, so I would say that those also are in the public domain per {{PD-ineligible}}. Also, most of them were published before 1978, so unless there is a copyright notice, the medals are in the public domain for that reason. Thus: all medals should go away as replaceable fair use: someone else can take freely licensed photos of the same medals. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation was just beginning, and the images were being tagged. I may have jumped the gun, but they are non-free and the number crossed a nebulous line. They could be restored if needed, but at this point I don't see that happening. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, there is a section titled "History of the badge". The first ones are probably in the public domain for failure to include a copyright notice or lack of copyright renewal. The rest might be fine per {{PD-ineligible}} as the changes to the earlier versions are trivial. Can we use {{PD-Art}} here, or are the badges too 3D for that? If the photographer gains copyright protection, then all need to be deleted as replaceable fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America contains a lot of badges and medals. However, the article doesn't tell when the medals were first published, and this information seems to be missing from the file information pages too (and I only checked a few of them). Some of them might be in the public domain for some reason, but it is impossible to verify without more information. The article would benefit from one or two badges but there is definitely no need for all of the badges per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. As there probably exist some free badges, everything non-free should go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images are non-free and non-replaceble with free images. Since this violates NFCC I have deleted them.
I disagree with their (premature) removal. This is somewhat like Blind men and an elephant in that the images added depth to the article that is not available with just the text. They tell the story the the 100 years of the badge's existence. They should remain in one form or another. --evrik(talk)14:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please put them back until the discussion is over. Very few people have weighed in, and I would like to get a print out of the page as it was yesterday. --evrik(talk)18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced these are replaceable fair use. Their removal was premature. I believe this whole discussion needs the revue of an IP professional. --evrik(talk)03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the original badge images have fallen into the PD (due to their age), then someone can take a free photo or make a SVG-type replacement image and license it freely. The original images were scans from a copyrighted book - while the badges may no longer be copyrighted, the photograph/book would still be non-free for our purposes. Hence tagged and deleted as replaceable non-free is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I think that the images were deleted too soon (ahem, Gadget), is that we can no longer see the page and how the images looked. It would be nice to see what has to be replaced. --evrik(talk)15:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State articles
Scouting in California contains a lot of logos. How are these clubs organised? Are they operated by some kind of government (so that they might be covered by {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}) or are they private organisations? Also, how old are the logos? It seems that many of the clubs are very old. If the logos also are old, then some of them might be covered by {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Unless it can be shown that the logos are free, it is inappropriate to keep all of them per WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to echo what Gadget850 has already said, "Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations ... CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such." He also addresses the age issue. So the issue becomes, as has been stated earlier, are these list articles. No, they are not list articles, and it is appropriate for the logos to be used. This is an important issue to resolve a there are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles as Scouting in California, check out {{Scouting in the United States}} and the several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos.
As I wrote earlier to Werieth, Scouting in California is the result of a compromise in long running debate over the notability of individual council articles. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. In 2006, so many articles kept getting nominated for deletion that the members of Scouting Wikiproject decided to Gabriel Valley Council&oldid=37053167 merge the individual council and camp articles into larger state articles to stop having to fight over hundreds of articles. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept.
This is not a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. As was recently noted on the DYK page, "... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?" Each council is unique to its community or region, and this is reflected in the selection of a CSP. Each of the articles could stand on its own, but that then leads to the struggles in 2006 of having to defend hundreds of articles over notability. Allowing the images to remain in the state articles is a much simpler solution.
The Scouting in California is the largest of the articles. If you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact an doesn't look like a list at all. Some of these pages, like San Gabriel Valley Council have moved back and forth from their own articles to the "Scouting in California" article. Making a policy based on the California articles is not fair. An equitable solution might be to allow the one use of each image, either in a state or local council article.
This is a list article. I'm judging this on the fact that none of the sections show significant signs of individual notability, and thus none of them would ever be their own article. If that was the case, there may be justification to include the logo as part of significant discussion of a notable group. This is absolutely not the case here; it's made to look like individual articles but is effectively a list article since you can't separate them out. Since they're used only as decorations and the images are not the subject of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a list. It is an article about Scouting in a particular state. I believe that each council is in itself notable, but I was on the losing side of that discussion in 2006. If it makes it easier, I'll break California into 24 different articles. That should make this discussion moot. --evrik(talk)03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. None of the individual troop divisions appear to have this, and ergo if you try to split them off, they will be deleted or remerged back to here. This gives you no allowance to use their logos on the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources? You're creating an artificial standard. I can guaranty that each of these councils get a lot of press. There are many stub and start articles that exist and are given time to grow and expand. Of course, Scouting in California is not a list, nor is Scouting in Vermont, etc. Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America is a list. There is a clear difference. --evrik(talk)21:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. A long standing guideline on inclusion metric. It is not a question that the issue of scouting in the state of California is a problem (the article isn't going to be deleted), but the individual divisions, must less so , and thus you are effectively listing them in this article. They would never stand on their own per notability guidelines. As that is the case, there is zero allowance to use the images without any discussions of the importance of the images from sourced materials, per NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you say, "They would never stand on their own ... " you really have nothing to back this up. This is just Wikipedia:Because I say so. Since you mention WP:N, I will add to what I said before. While each of the councils separately may not be prominent, they are in fact notable. Most have decades of existence, and have had years of press. Many of the larger councils have already been broken out. It wouldn't be that difficult to break them all out. Such is the case with Scouting in Washington, D.C..
Wikipedia:NFLISTS is in fact a content guideline, which is why it was posted here. This brings up another point (again). There are more than 50 of these articles. Each state is slightly different. California just happens to be the largest of them. This is a prime example of arguing the exception to prove the rule. Let me recap:
As the California article is not a list, nor is Vermont or any of the other states then there is an allowance to use the images. --evrik(talk)02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is an objective measure, significant coverage in secondary (non-primary, non-first party sources). The sourcing giving on the CA list page has just enough to establish that scouting in CA is a notable topic, but none of the charters have such sourcing; we would need sources outside of the scout organization and from local press to even begin to consider notability/stand-alone articles for any of the individual charters. Since you can't support individual articles for the charters, you are listing them in one large one, and thus this makes this a list article in terms of what WP:NFLISTS covers and its spirit as well. You simply have no reason why each chapter needs to have its non-free badge illustrated on a page that covers all the charters - they are purely decoration as given. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it would be helpful if we used the same language. They are councils, not chapters. Each council has a logo, and that logo found in the CSP, represents the individual nature of that local group. Thus was addressed by Gadget850 earlier.
Objective standards can be applied subjectively, as in this case. Now, maybe one day I'll have the time to fully expand all the articles to FA status, but that's not today. The charters, well, now you're just creating hurdles. The fact the councils exist is prima facie evidence of the charters.
You keep making up requirements for splitting up the articles. I can, in fact, build suitable articles that establish notability. What I was working on was cleaning up the state articles first. Let's set that aside for a moment.
Yes, a number of articles were consolidated. This does not make it a list. It makes it a large article, not on charters, but on the councils, their camps and their histories. You have never addressed the fact that there are more than 50 articles, you keep focusing on one state. Is Vermont a list article by your standard?
To start, the Vermont article is also a list - or at least an embedded list - just as the California one and likely (from spot checking) all 50 states. You are just listing out charters and their factual information but without any other context. This is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form and thus to which NFLISTS applies (whether a full list or embedded list). Again, the images are not providing any context per WP:NFCC#8 and thus are inappropriate. And no, just because something exists (and you can prove that it exists) doesn't make it notable - at least to meet the requirement for having a separate stand-alone article. If this could have been the case, there might be an argument to use the patch/logo within the state articles, but that condition is simply not met. I will note that Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, ergo WP:NFCC#8 is again not met on these other state pages. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep saying things like this, "is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form," but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable. As for their existence, the thing speaks for itself, and with that goes notability. Since you keep ignoring WP:Lists, your arguments are really more Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
How on earth is Scouting in Vermont a list? It is a recitation of facts. Yes, it is in need of editing and expansion, but it is not a list. Yes, most of the state articles are in need of work, which is what I was in the process of doing when the California article got tagged. I would like to expand the articles so they get beyond the barebones recitation of dates and other factual information. Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list. You can't use the page that is a list to prove that a dissimilar page is a list. In fact, comparing the two pages shows that Scouting in California is not a list. The arguments of seven years ago have caused these articles to languish as no one wanted to attempt to improve them. There is some irony that as soon as improvements started being made they started attracting attention again. It’s almost as if people prefer bad articles. It’s really tough to focus on improving the articles when so much time is spent discussing that this is a list: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, but this is not a list: Scouting in California. --evrik(talk)16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these councils have more than just factual information. I agree that the topic needs to be upgraded, cleaned and better sourced but it is not a list, it has a lot of context. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These articles "list" out each of the state's various scouting charters. It's a list. It may not use bullet points or a table or any similar structure, but it is a list.
Given that you just affirmed that Scouting in Texas works without images, and all of the other state scouting articles have pretty much exactly the same format and type of content (a brief history for the state, then a list of the various charters for both BSoA and GSoA), then you have just proven to us that Scouting in California (or any other state) does not need to use images. Remember the Wikimedia Foundation has required us to minimize the use of non-free work to maintain a free encyclopedia. Frivolous uses of images like this are exactly against that. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). As stated earlier, since the California article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Once again, you're wrong on the facts. There is no "listing" of the state's various scouting charters. There are no organizations called the BSoA and GSoA. The page(s) doesn't use bullet points, or a table or any similar structure, so it's not a list. It is a description of the scouting activities in the state. For comparison, there is a list here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America.
I did not affirm that Scouting in Texas works without images. Please don't play gotcha and twist my words. In fact I said that "Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list." Scouting in Texas needs to be expanded and a great deal of work needs to be done. The other articles do follow a similar format, but that is because of the efforts of the wikiproject to standardize them.
The problem is what you have said is not true. You cannot use the Texas article (a poor article and a list) to say California is a list. While they follow the same format, the California article is greatly expanded. The article is a honest effort to write about a notable subject and is far from frivolous. The fact is, you have chosen to ignore Wikipedia:LISTS and its guidance. Instead you keep reciting the same statements and playing word games, Wikipedia:Because I say so.
Let me repeat something,
Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable.
Exactly. LISTS is actually rather vague as to what defines a list - it doesn't require bullet points or a table, just that you are enumerating on a type of element. And going by your own words, if you think Scouting in Texas is a list, I do not see how it is any different from Scouting in California or other state scouting articles in that nature when you look at the structure. Even if you talk expansion, you are listing out each charter one-by-one - that is a list. It's not necessarily bulleted or formatted in that fashion, but it is an embedded list that qualified under NFLISTS, and thus making the use of images without commentary inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Transformers books is a list. It says so in the title. There is also only one image used at the top of the article. When you say, "When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X." Could you please cite the policy that says so? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:LISTS. Right now, you are both making it up as you go along. You have your conclusion, and are now adjusting your facts to substantiate that conclusion. Even if that policy exists, that doesn't mean that it is applicable in the case. Scouting in Texas is a list because it does little but state the relevant information. The California article has much more depth. Also, it is not an embedded list. The examples on that are pretty clear.--evrik(talk)16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware, LISTS is just a manual of style, and not policy. What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists (which is effectively what you have in these scouting articles) are subject to NFLISTS as well. We've been in this situation with many other list articles, we're not inventing something new here. It's just that you're looking for exactly what never has been spelled out - for lists or for non-free content in lists - explicitly.
But even then you have yet to show how NFCC#8 is met. The images can be omitted and the article is fully understandable. NFCC#8 failed, NFLISTS or not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am aware that LISTS is a manual of style. It is however, the only Wikipedia document that defines what is a list. You may want to lessen its importance, but that is a fact. Using your logic, NFLISTS is not policy either, but is instead a “content guideline.” I’d like to quote the top of the page on NFLISTS, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” What I am finding in this discussion is a lot of rigid and dogmatic thinking and little common sense.
I am sure that you have been through this with list articles, but Scouting in California is not a list article, nor is it an embedded list. While you keep saying that it is, when you look at LISTS, there are clear examples of what an embedded list is. When you say, "What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists are subject to NFLISTS as well." Could you please document in policy, manual of style, or content guideline where is actually spelled out? To date you have refused to do that. Otherwise, you're just making it up. The images lend more understanding to the article. In fact, since the article in question is not a list, then NFCC#8 does not apply.
You are listing out each charter within the state. It is a embedded list. LISTS does not explicitly outline the only type of lists that may be considered within its bounds, so just because you don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS doesn't mean it's not a list. You are listing out each charter, it’s hard to call that anything but a list.
And you cannot prove that NFCC#8 is met. I understand the article just fine without the patch images, since there's zero discussion of the importance of the images with regards to each charter. So even if you ignore NFLISTS, NFCC#8 still needs to be met. In fact, there is zero exemptions from NFCC - whether a list or non-list article. Every image has to meet all 10 points, and NFCC#8 outright fails for these. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never listed any charters. While you may say I am listing charters, you are not correct. What has been done is describe scouting in the state, highlighting the history and the organizations within the state. While there is a description of each of the councils (what you call a list, or listing) it is not a list. You and Werieth are the only two people so far that have expressed that opinion. Yes, because I don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS means it's not a list. I have granted that Scouting in Texas is a list, but solely to show the difference between the two articles.
The members of the Scouting Wikiproject have worked hard to make sure that all the images used in scouting related articles meet all ten points of NFCC. I believe that the images significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding, so that would cover NFCC#8.
I suggest this as a compromise: Californa will be considered an article, Texas will be considered a list. Pennsylvania will be given a period of time, say one month, to be expanded otherwise it will be treated like a list and the images removed. --evrik(talk)21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not acceptable. Everything in the CA article under the section "Boy Scouting in California today" is an embedded list since you are listing out each charter. PEr NFLISTS you can't use images without significant discussion about the images. It doesn't matter if you can't find anything on LISTS that looks like what you have, as LISTS does not specify "these are the only things on WP we consider as lists".
But ignore the list factor. NFCC#8 is a problem. Because there is zero discussion about those images, their removal does not impact my understanding that there are 24 various charters across the state and they have various camps and the like. NFCC#8 is two parts, while the first part - helping the reader to comprehend the topic - is an easy concept to met, its very difficult to see how the read must see these images to understand the topic. Hence they are simply not appropriate as they fail NFCC. The reason this is connected to NFLISTS is that this is what commonly happens with list-type articles that try to use images in bulk - they are there under a claim to improve understanding but show no claim to being required to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, list article, not list article, shouldn't really matter. The NFLISTS and whatnot just cover some basics, but the spirit of it does seem to more come down to NFCC#8 - what's important is how the images help the article. If they're not really adding anything much to the article itself, 'improving understanding' as the claim apparently goes, then they shouldn't be included, and they don't really seem to do much of that to me, at least in the California one. Were they free images there wouldn't be any reason that I can think of not to include them, especially since they are like logos, but unlike more standard logos these don't appear to be so important to the outwardly presented identities of the listed things themselves. -— Isarra༆18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i am traveling and will have limited online access until Tuesday. I, of course, disagrees that the California article is a list or an embedded list. That overly broad standard that you are applying cannot be fairly applied across all of en.wiki. The images do add to each section as they help illustrate the individuality of each council. I don't see any consensus here either. Opinion seems to be split. I am interested in developing some sort of compromise or consensus. I would be willing to add a discussion in each section describing the CSP. This is a standard that could be applied fairly to all the articles. See you Tuesday. --evrik(talk)
There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --evrik(talk)04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether it is a list or not is not the issue. Those images are unallowable as they all fail NFCC#8, since there's no discussion about the images and the article is readable without them. All they are, that you can justify, are pretty pictures, which means they fail as decorative elements. There's no other position we allow here. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional charter
The BSA was granted a congressional charter under 36 U.S.C.§ 30905: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."[12] The charter was used as evidence by the BSA in Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, which was ruled in favor of the BSA.
Thus, in addition to standard copyright, the BSA has other rights granted by congress. There are no time limits on these rights.
And poking around, this same issue came up in Girls Scouts of the United States of America v. Hollingsworth. 1960. 188 F.Supp. 707. Both cases involved trademarks, not copyrights. But the charter doesn't specify, and copyright laws were much different in 1916 when the BSA charter was granted and in 1937 when the GSUSA charter was granted (36 U.S.C.§ 80305).
"Fair use" is something a copyright holder can't deny to users. Nor does that impact our determination if the work is non-free. We'd need the BSA to grant a free license (as outlined by WP:CONSENT) to use them without question here, otherwise we need to apply more restrictive usages. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use and non-free are different. Most any image can be used as fair use, which is why we don't use that term anymore when considering intellectual rights. The question here is whether the images are free,, in which case there are no restrictions, or non-free with restrictions. Normally the older images would have an expired copyright, but the charter grants rights beyond copyright law. In my opinion, no BSA image can be considered as free. This needs review by counsel. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law trumps any rights the BSA may have. The Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America case had to do with trademark, not with copyright. This is an exceedingly important distinction to make. You will note that 36 USC § 30905 does not contain any language with regards to copyrights. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation got mad at Wikimedia for using its logo and ordered Wikimedia to remove it. The Foundation's then counsel Michael Godwin denied the request. See ["Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row"]. If a particular badge of the BSA is, for example, older than 90 years (1923 being the cutoff) they can not claim copyright; it has expired. There are a variety of other ways in which copyright could have expired. This chart from the Cornell Copyright Information Center explains it all. If rights are expired for a particular badge, there is nothing that the BSA can do to prevent a legitimate, non-trademark infringing use of the badge. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that Wrenn was a trademark case. The FBI is not covered by Title 36. My statements are not about the use of the emblems, but about the discussion that certain emblems are free due to copyright expiration. And yes, the charter does not have any language dealing with copyright, but it also does not mention trademark, and both Wrenn and Hollingsworth were trademark cases. Again, this needs professional review. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course welcome to get professional input from an IP lawyer. Regardless of that though, the norm for handling such cases is usually guided by the Cornell chart I linked, not by an assertions of restrictions of use. As I said, copyright law trumps such restrictions. If it's public domain, there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here, just as in the FBI case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here" I have never stated otherwise and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. My point is that there is no such thing as a free BSA emblem or badge regardless of age. Thus tagging older emblems as free is wrong and tagging others as non-free replaceable is useless. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. If a given BSA badge was first published before 1923, it is now irrevocably in the public domain. That, for our purposes, is free. There might be restrictions on usage due to trademark issues, but those have no application here except that we typically add a {{trademark}} tag to the image. Such images WILL be marked as free if we can prove they were first published before 1923. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. The charter states "emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" which means it applies to both both copyrights and trademarks, and it afforded those protections before the applicable trademark and copyright laws were ever implemented. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget, I'm quite sorry but you are quite incorrect. A charter for an organization does not trump copyright law. If what you say were the case, then all marks of the Boy Scouts of America would be protected under copyright in perpetuity. If that were the case, they'd have no need to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Yet, they have. A search of the USCO's online catalog finds 96 entries. Don't believe me? Search it yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the BSA also registers their trademarks with the USPTO, and Wrenn was a trademark case that invoked the charter. I can't presume to know the intent of the BSA's licensing division that oversees this, but such registration allows others to see their copyrights and trademarks. You can search TTAB on the USPTO and see where the BSA has brought opposition to a conflict in trademarks. So, simply because the BSA complies with copyright and trademark registrations does not mean that they are the only rights. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRADEMARKS, not COPYRIGHTS. Again, BSA's charter can not trump copyright law. They can and most likely do protect their trademarks in perpetuity. This has no impact on our ability to use the respective images here. If, for example, they are public domain we tag them as such and add {{trademark}} to the image description page. Regardless of their trademark rights, BSA can not prevent us from using the images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT WE CAN'T USE THE IMAGES. (all caps on purpose since I have made this same statement before and it isn't getting through) It does prevent any image being marked as PD regardless of age. Since this has become a circular conversation, the best course of action is to simply delete any and all questioned images. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an image is public domain or not has absolutely NO bearing on whether it is trademarked or not. There are plenty of things which are ineligible for copyright but are protected by trademark. For example, see the Coca-Cola logo on the right a logo ineligible for copyright but eligible for trademark. The Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain. This does not affect its status as a trademark, nor does its status as a trademark prevent it from being public domain. There is no overlap here. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into legalities here, but I will say that if an image is commons-compatible there should be no issue with using it and that if it's not, we can use it under proper non-free guidelines. I know many want free images only, but such is not the case as they are still allowed under proper usage. PumpkinSkytalk00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BSA has rights afforded by common trademark and copyright laws. They also have rights granted by Congress in 1916 in the form of the congressional charter. Trademark law has demonstrated that the charter applies to traditional trademark law. There are no known copyright cases that have applied the charter to copyright, but that does not mean that the charter does not apply to copyrights.
"The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."
It is my opinion that all BSA images are non-free and non-replaceable. Attempting to tag BSA images as public domain is wrong. If the number of non-free images crosses the undefined bright-line, they they must be deleted. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk12:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see copyright law in the US. I point out that it starts with nearly the exact same language - "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" - yet copyright is a time-limited privilege from that. The same extends to copyright that the BSA may have - ergo BSA emblems and other works can fall out into the public domain after sufficient time has passed. The congressional charter does not give them perpetual copyright to their works. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state that the rights afforded by congressional charter do not apply to copyright law? Just because no one has invoked the charter in copyright law does not mean it could not happen. Would you have considered the charter to apply to trademarks if there had not been legal precedent? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short of hiring an IP lawyer to review this topic for you, is there anything we can do to satiate your concerns over these badges and their copyright status? Since we are not going to be hiring an IP lawyer to do this, we have to operate from best knowledge and practice here. That practice dictates that copyright law, as outlined at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, is what applies. The BSA charter does not affect copyright law in the U.S. The absence of any case regarding BSA and its copyrights does not prove it owns copyrights in perpetuity. So, what's it going to take? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, and just wanted to add that I do believe that the primary reason that language is in the charter for BSA is that normally works of the US Government are in the public domain to start; this language is only clear to say that the BSA can take advantage of copyrights for their works, and thus are not public domain on creation though may fall into that with time. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Government? The BSA is and always has been a private corporation. The BSA deliberately sought the congressional charter to preserve their rights: trademark and copyright laws were very different in 1916, and the charter gave the BSA the tool to preserve their intellectual property. The history is pretty interesting. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still. I have a very difficult time expecting the gov't even in 1916 to grant indefinite IP protection. There is completely counter to the aspect of copyright. Unless one can affirm differently, we should assume normal copyright protection exists and that some of these older images will have fallen into the public domain. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images others have been arguing as PD due to age/copyright expiry, but you are stating must be treated as non-free due to this charter. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget850 has claimed that all BSA-generated images will always be non-free because of the congressional charter that gave them such rights. The rest of us are pointing out that copyright on BSA images will eventually go away and become public domain after normal copyright terms, which would make some of the oldest BSA images free (and thus not subject to non-free requirements and perhaps simplify some of these discussions). --MASEM (t) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm assuming you were talking about the above Eagle Scout medals that have since been deleted under the claim they are in the public domain and thus a non-free photograph of them is free-media-replaceable. If your claim about perpetual copyright is true, then they would never be PD, and the non-free photograph would be acceptable. But most here are claiming that that perpetual copyright simply doesn't exist and thus the medals are PD and a free photo can be made of them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted them as non-free non-replaceable and crossing the fuzzy bright-line of too many non-free images in the article. I am presuming that zero is an acceptable number. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In closing: I remain convinced that the logos of the BSA and other organizations are protected by the congressional charter, regardless of age. Considering such images as public domain is wrong. I am open to reconsideration upon the advice of an IP professional. --Gadget850 (Ed)talk13:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 was a creative commons image when it was uploaded. Then the licensing was changed. For several reasons, I think it should be a free image. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some problems with that image. The image is not a logo, as is claimed by the uploader. It's a pennant. The uploader does not claim that the photograph is his own work. My assumption is that the photograph of the pennant came from BSA and that the uploader chose to upload it as if it were a logo to use the fair use rationale. Instead, this appears to be a replaceable fair use case. RyanVesey19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a logo, nor an emblem or badge. It certainly doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright. The issue would be in the provenance of the image. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, the uploader was confused. Thy claimed both fair use and CC. It looks like a photo of an pennant made in 1927. I'll ask. --evrik(talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm turning back Gadget850's last edit to that file page. It is not a logo, it is a pennant. It was made in 1927, and the Shenango Valley Council went defunct that same year. I have searched the database and I can see nothing to say that copyright was ever claimed by the local council on that pennant. --evrik(talk)21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for deletion as replaceable fair use. Someone can find the pennant, presumably in a museum somewhere, and take a picture. I've also tagged it for deletion because it doesn't meet criteria 8. RyanVesey22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is still replaceable. It doesn't matter where you move it, unless you take a picture of the pennant yourself, or find one uploaded under a suitable license, it can't be used here. RyanVesey21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
These images are used in Roy Lichtenstein and other articles whose subjects are not mainly images themselves. I wonder whether rationales are valid and whether commentaries are sufficient enough to justify use of these images. --George Ho (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lichtenstein is an important 20th century artist and it is imperative to have the few images used in the biographical article, to educate readers as to what those visual artworks look like...Modernist (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely reasonable to use a few (a few) NFC images for an artist as representatives of their work, as long as the specific examples are called out as demonstrating why they are examples (the work the artist is most noted for? etc.) This is no different than providing a few samples of music for a musician/band as representing their work. How many is allowed, its hard to say, however. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not; Bedroom at Arles does not fully represent Lichtenstein's career - leaving out his most famous pieces that relate to Pop Art. I agree with User:Masem however; we've tried to limit the imagery there to 3 important paintings demonstrating his pioneering work in both pop art and appropriation, and we have included 1 industrial commission done late in his career...Modernist (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Lichtenstein's work actually. At is Lichtenstein's; In is van Gogh's. By the way, I'm withdrawing review on one image. --George Ho (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The use of Bedroom could be a bit stronger, but the text does describe how he applied his style to famous artists, with that being one example against the Van Gogh, so edging on allowance there is fine. (Drowning Girl + Wham, no question that they are well-discussed). Again, we don't use numbers, but 4 non-frees on an artist of this many works and of this fame seems completely reasonable. And no, I'm not saying "4 images" is a number test to apply elsewhere. It just "feels" right given the point of NFCC in balance with whom the artist is. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Lichtenstein article is already reviewed and resolved, and that Arles image has passed NFCC, let's discuss other images that are used in non-Lichtenstein articles, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Whaam! at History_of_painting#Pop_art seems reasonable, since the text describes the relation of the image to a specific comic-book panel (a predominantly visual medium) and describes how it represents "recognizable imagery". All these visual characteristics are best understood through images rather than text.
Drowning Girl: - at Pop art is the only image at the "United States" section. Maybe any one of his works could be used there, but this one is mentioned in text and references to " thick outlines, bold colors and Ben-Day dots to represent certain colors, as if created by photographic reproduction" require an image to illustrate them for reasonable understanding.
- at Western painting#Pop_art. Here is not essential as there are three other images for por art; although is the only one representing comic-book style and again the line "thick outlines, bold colors and Ben-Day dots to represent certain colors" is mentioned. I don't think it's against NFCC#3a, and it certainly passes NFCC#8.
It would fail NFCC#8 - while the event ccan't be recreated, it's not a difficult scene (a baseball field littered with trash) to envision, and thus fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NFCC#8 (Contextual significance), as a historic, unrecreatible, example of the application of the Infield fly rule. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the rationale needs to be improved a bit, but the image needs to stay. Reality check; this event can not be recreated, and the fact of the field being so littered with an obviously full stadium in attendance is a very remarkable event in baseball history that text alone can not convey. As this search of Google News shows, the event is highly significant, and the image is directly relevant to the prose in which it is displayed. The overly strict interpretation of NFCC policy being attempted here is absurd on the face of it when taken in context of the mass use of non-free images elsewhere. I don't mean to advocate a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but rather that our common practice is not anywhere near so restrictive that we can't allow this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question I'm still somewhat of a n00b on NFCC, but does the fact that the following hook was just on the front page through DYK mean anything to the event's significance? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for NFCC#8 is not that "you can understand what's written without the image", is that the image's omission hampers it because the image increase readers' understanding. The image describes the public's reaction better than a thousand words; if you've never seen a littered sports field, you wouldn't understand from text alone how people can quickly make it unplayable. Diego (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 says a non-free image can only be used if it's omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. My opinion is that even without the image, the article would still be understandable. But well, that's of course just my opinion and others are free to disagree with me. If the consensus is to keep the image, then I will accept that. -- ToshioYamaguchi11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally a picture of trash on a stadium's infield. There, I just replaced it with free text. End of story, the image fails NFCC#1. (This is not saying that the fact that the trash disrupted the game isn't important to state in the article, but it does not need to be illustrated. Readers are smarter than that.) --MASEM (t) 14:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's the trash in the stadium that was on October 5 2012 at Turner Field as reported by reliable sources; thus making it significant per NFCC#8. Readers from a different culture that have never been in a stadium and never have seen spectators throwing things at the field can get information from that view that is not available in your sentence and is relevant to what happened that day; Wikipedia should not be written with a western culture bias. Images that are important to show how something happened are the reason why the exemption doctrine policy was created. Diego (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All ten points of NFCC have to be met. I agree that NFCC#8 is (at least in part) met because the effect of debris on the field is discussed. But NFCC#1, free replacement, is just as important, and there is nothing "special" about that image that the text line "A baseball infield covered with trash thrown by fans" cannot replace. Note that there's nothing in that shot that 1) identifies the field clearly as Turner Field (I'm sure fans can tell but not the average layreader) and 2) identifies it as from a baseball game (there's a line marker and some grass and dirt but that could be a football field, for example). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we know for sure that the images come from the TV broadcast as in happened. This allow readers to verify that the spectators' reaction would necessarily stop the game, by estimating how much garbage reached the field. The purpose to include images in Wikipedia is not only to say what happened (which can always be explained in text) but how. To serve that verifiability purpose, we would require a reliable source describing the density of debris that was enough to stop the game - wait we have one, it's the broadcast image. Diego (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree that there is a difference between, say, if one wrapper landed on the field and temporarily stopped the game, and a dense field of debris that took much longer to clear, the latter being more of interest to the game's notability. But, importantly, there are plenty of other sources that state that it took 18 minutes to clear the field before play could resume after the game (eg here), and it doesn't take much to envision how much debris cluttered the field that required an 18 minute cleanup job, in light of the statement "...while angry fans pelted the field with cups, bottles and other debris." In other words, we can show that was a trash-covered field via free text; the screenshot is not the only source that explains this. NFCC#1 still fails. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the original uploader, I would have appreciated of being informed both of this discussion and the image's removal from the page for Infield fly rule. I'm disappointed that this is the first I'm hearing of this. Regarding its former use on the page infield fly rule, I had a talk page discussion regarding it, and it was agreed that it was notable in the context of fan reaction in regard to the reaction by fans of the perceived misapplication of the rule. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the image appears to violate Microsoft's permission. See {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}, in particular #5 where it says "Do not use screen shots that contain an image of an identifiable individual." This image contains 9 identifiable individuals. I'm not saying we can't use the image because of that; rather, that using {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} as the license is most likely inappropriate, and {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be a preferable license. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if MS is trying to cover the issue of personality rights with that requirement. That said, are any of the people in that shot "recognizable"? I mean, I'm sure we spend enough time, someone can name who they are, but we're not talking about an easily-identified person like a celeb or politician. (Also, I wonder how other sites get around that then since I've seen that Metro-style used all over the 'net for Xbox and Windows Phone reviews). As to the uses, I think that if rationales were added they could be justified (given the dramatic shift the interface has over past iterations, its use in History of Microsoft Windows and Start Menu would make sense, in addition to of course the basic allowance at Windows 8. I'd be iffy for the Metro article since there's already one of the phone with the similar interface. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different read on it; that identifiable means if a person's features are clear enough to be recognizable, not whether they are a celebrity or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I don't know for sure, but I would definitely play it safe to find an screenshot without the face images (if one can be had...) --MASEM (t) 22:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, people generally seem to slap Commons:Template:Personality rights on photos if you see the face of a person, although I suppose you could sometimes tell who the person is even without seeing the face. I'd say that these people are identifiable: if you know the people on the photos, you'll be able to see that they are the ones on the photos. In some cases, e.g. File:11-05-19-landtag-thueringen-making-of-01.jpg, you have to zoom in quite a lot in order to tell that the people are identifiable. Another thing: "Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content." Were all photos taken by Microsoft? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) I have uploaded a new version of the image without the profile image of an individual. (I would think the person in the News tile cannot be identified due to his face cover). This is the default Start menu experience on a PC running Windows 8. This means that it is also different from the three-tile width layout seen on a tablet running Windows 8. I also feel that this is more encyclopedic, as it represents better a Desktop system experience, being more of a reference system of Windows 8. Please advise on whether the non-free media data has to be updated as well. Optakeover(Talk)05:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded my third version with definitely no identifiable faces. Sorry for the repeated uploads, I am just trying to make sure there are no loopholes. Optakeover(Talk)05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just uploaded a fourth version with no third-party material. I'm not sure how far we can push the interpretation of the clauses in the Microsoft's conditions, so please advise. Optakeover(Talk)05:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. But fair-use rationales are easy to write. The guidelines on the use of non-free images doesn't say the limit of the number of articles the image is used on, though I assume that it should preferably be a small number of articles only. But if there are missing fair-use rationales for the respective articles, I don't think that it is a major problem requiring that the image be removed, for example. But since personality rights were brought up, I think it made sense to mention about it. I suggest that the revision of the image at [13] should be used, since you don't seem to have any worries about third-party material used on the image (my concern is the info on the Market tile, which is pulled from syndicated news sources, and the travel tile). If you think it is okay, I will upload a completely new image this revision, with an even smaller res (now 800*450, going for 600*?), and I'll write the fair-use rationales for all five articles. Optakeover(Talk)14:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still probably too large (you can always call out what the text is on the image description page). A 1/4-size (1/2 in each direction) would do the same job.
"The largest dimension should be at most around 300–400px." The largest dimension is currently 600 pixels, which is much more than "300–400px".
"The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." The purpose is to show small images in articles, the largest of them being 300 x 169 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) Well, my opinion is that the text of the tiles should be at least barely visible as it provides some context on the kind of features available on Windows 8's Modern interface. Understood on image size. I will resize it as accordingly. As for the number of pages it is used on, I am of the opinion that the image could probably be removed from History of Microsoft Windows, but I think the rest should stay, especially on Microsoft Windows. I feel it is important in Start Menu as it will illustrate how it is different in this version as compared to the traditional Start Button and Menu, and in Microsoft Windows for the same reason, as the article is about Windows, and the image is about a major revision to Windows.
As for question about the article name being "Microsoft Windows 8" instead of "Windows 8", because it's a fair use rationale for a specific article and that specific article's name is Windows 8, it passes Wikipedia's FUR. The only concern is with the article's name itself, as according to the license conditions, the use of Microsoft's trademarks must conform to their guidelines of their use. However, according to [14], all is good. In the page,
Properly Identify Windows Products and the list of Microsoft products in the list doesn't mean that all names used in Wikipedia must be used similar to the names as written in the list (e.g. Windows XP operating system, as opposed to just Windows XP), as the list is just meant to give an example of the products covered by the guidelines of the page. But,
Do Not Shorten, Abbreviate, or Create Acronyms for the Windows Trademark states that names shouldn't be shortened, like Windows8, Win8 or W8. Since Windows 8 is the name of the article, I think that it passes. Optakeover(Talk)15:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a completely new image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_8_Start_Screen.png to further comply with Microsoft's use of trademarks, as the previous file name didn't have capitalized letters for Start Screen. Resolution now conforms to rule of thumb, but use on articles have not been ironed out yet. Image descriptions, NFURs and related templates has been copied over to the new image. Optakeover(Talk)15:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First as a piece of advice, you can always upload a new image that is designed to replace an old image over the over image. (If you go near the bottom of the file page, there's a "Upload a new version of this file"; it will not overright the licensing/rationale, and simply replace the existing uses.
Copying over rationales like you did to satisify NFCC#10c is reasonable to start, but per NFCC#8, it is very difficult to accept that the image is being used for the same purpose on all 5 pages, and we would reasonably expect a more detailed rationale for each. For example, its use at Windows 8 is basically to demonstrate the appearance of the software, presumably as a lead/infobox image, which is generally accepted for an article on software. But its use at something like the Metro design is different - it's not to show W8, but to show how the Metro design is structured, with boxes and readable text. This is where the question of "do we really need this image 5 times" is being asked. Remember that we're seeking minimal use (via NFCC#3a) so we want to be sure its being used where it is absolutely necessary, and only on those pages. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, I'd like to ask for consensus regarding which specific articles the image should only be used on. I'm tired now and I'm nursing a headache, so I'm done for the night. I'm still okay having it on four pages: Windows 8, Microsoft Windows 8, Metro (design language) and Start Menu but if anyone objects, I won't fight it, because I think I'm not too picky on the article selection already. But once we do reach a consensus, I would appreciate if someone would edit the fair-use rationales, do the removal of the images on the articles to be excluded, and to delete the deprecated image. Oh, and I uploaded a completely new image because I realize I couldn't change the file name. I'm not sure if I made a mistake on that, but that's what I gathered when I tried to do so. I uploaded a new image to coincide with Microsoft's guidelines for trademarks, as I felt a properly capitalized Start Screen is compliant. Optakeover(Talk)16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claes Oldenburg seems to have a thing about copyright. However, this photo of a 3D object looks to have fair use under US law for educational purposes. Possibly it could be reduced in size a bit, but it is OK with the current tagging.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this image's use on the Nude photography article violates the non-free content criteria. First, to address criterion #1: there are plenty of free nude photos we could use without having to resort to using a copyrighted one. Second, to address criterion #8: there's no contextual significance here. The image's absence would not significantly detract from the educational value of the article.
Finally, there's this passage, from WP:NFC#UULP: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) is an article about the photo, so it seems like that's the only article that should display the image.
(And in light of that passage, I'm also concerned about this photo's use on the Charis Wilson article, which is about the subject of the photo.)
There's a pretty lengthy rationale regarding its use in the Wilson article and why it is integral to that subject. I don't see cause for concern there.
I agree that it's not doing much in nude photography, at least given the current state of the article (further expansion may change that), and that article already includes public domain (pre 1923) examples, of which there are many more in existence. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the Wilson article has nothing to do with the quality of the rationale, and entirely to do with the passage I quoted from WP:NFC. (There's also a slight question of relevance; since the image doesn't show Ms. Wilson's face, it doesn't do much to illustrate her biography.) PowersT18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't included to show what she looked like, but to illustrate the reason why she is notable. It is unquestionably the most iconic image of her work with Weston, which is why it (and not a face shot of her) accompanied most media reports of her death. Colloquially, I think it serves pretty much the same function as a book cover does in an article on that book—a reader will see that and go, "oh yeah, that photograph." There's no free substitute for that that would have anywhere near the relevance. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the image is "Nude (Charis, Santa Monica)" but isn't in use on Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) but is elsewhere? On that basis, I'm afraid it ought to be used on Nude (Charis, Santa Monica) but not elsewhere. The guideline is there because you can link to the article about it, where they can seen the photograph, rather than using the image itself. Thus, as I understand it, it is a straightforward application of the principle. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 20:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The separate article on the photograph didn't exist at the time I added this to the biographical article. Yes, Grandiose, that is the current policy language; I don't agree with it, but that's apparently the way it is. So according to that, it should be moved to the article on the photograph (which an editor apparently removed it from because it was lacking a NFUR for that article, rather than writing a rather obvious NFUR) and that article merely linked to in the biographical article. A larger version should be uploaded as well. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve the Nude photography article as an artist and photographer. The topic of the article should now be clear, it is photography of the human figure as a fine art genre, not just photos of naked people, so the statement "there are plenty of free nude photos" is mistaken. Any visual arts article needs an illustration within the article, not just a link, and it would have to be one with a fair use rationale, since the medium was not established as a fine art until after 1923. The very early Stieglitz in the article is hardly sufficient, given its poor quality. The 19th century photo is "French Postcard" quality, but illustrates that period. I have tried to expand the article to show Edward Weston's significance to the genre, but I am not an historian.FigureArtist (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better, and historically more important photo by Stieglitz, one of Georgia O'Keeffe pre-1923; but I continue to maintain that the article needs some example that is more recent, and the Weston is the only image currently available.FigureArtist (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a PD photo for historic value, and can find a freely licensed artistic nude of more recent vintage for a modern take, then I should think that sufficient. It certainly becomes much harder in that situation to justify violating copyright. PowersT17:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find someone to donate a free image. The discussion here is clearly against having such fair-use images. I remember uploading a nude by an amateur photographer about a year ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks that an amateur photo can be used to illustrate an article on Fine Art should not be making any decisions regarding the subject. When policy issues stray into matters of essential content on the arts, the verbally talented should defer to the visually intelligent.FigureArtist (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree here with FigureArtist, in that the article is not about "photographing people in the nude" which could be done by free amateur photos, but "nude photograph as an art genre" which is documented. While I won't comment on necessarily this specific photo (in light of the other discussion, in which a question of whether free acclaimed nude photos might be better replacement for non-free ones), it is clear that we can't use amateur photos for the same discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was an example if (s)he does not like the replacement I added, which is a) free and b) from a noted photographer. What is perfectly clear is that the image is not discussed in this article at all but used as an example. For this use there are numerous free images which could replace it. As for whether or not nude photography as an article should be limited to "fine" art (which is inherently subjective anyways), that is an issue for the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that example of "fine art" nude photography, if they are going to be non-free, need discussion in the text - again refering to the section below on the Nude (art) page, if there was a fundamental shift in nude photography post-1923 that only non-free fine art examples could demonstrate, we would need discussion of that change in the text to even considering allowing it. Now, from that section below, there is an argument that nude art (photography or painting) has come to ignore body shape, eg allowing more obese models to pose, a change in the mid-20th century. Great, but lets source that before include a non-free example of that. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between Fine Art and amateur efforts is not "subjective" any more than any other professional judgement. As in NPOV there is no claim to objectivity, but the necessity of providing citations for opinions. I make supported statements regarding the establishment of photography as a fine art medium only in the post-1923 era, and the place of Edward Weston's work in that history. Stating that another photo is 'just as good' merely because it was an 'image of the day' on WP is subjective. I removed that image since (1) the status of the photographer, Arnold Genthe, who did mainly glamour portraits of movie stars and other famous people, has no comparison to Edward Weston called "one of the most innovative and influential American photographers" in our own article. (2) The Genthe photo is a recreation somewhere between 1911 and 1942 of a process used mainly at the turn of the 20th century. Technically interesting, but meaningless in the history of Fine Art.FigureArtist (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The distinction between Fine Art and amateur efforts is not "subjective" any more than any other professional judgement." - This coming from a field known for having artists pass off work by monkeys as their own (to critical acclaim). Wine tasting is another similar "professional" field in which experts have been repeatedly bamboozled.
As for the image, no image is better than a fair use image. If it's out, I have no issue with the article. If it must be in, be sure to provide contextual significance per NFCC #8 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to state that individual conduct can be taken as a valid characterization of an entire field of practice and study? I have been an artist for more than forty years, and do not know this monkey story. I will take it as an urban legend unless a source is given. (What wine tasting has to do with this discussion I cannot imagine.)
No image is better than a bad image, but the article remains crippled without some example of the topic, which did not exist until the 1930's, as I have said above.FigureArtist (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on original images states: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy". This would exclude uploaded images as illustrations for visual art articles, since claiming the status of art would be original research unless supported by a citation that the image has passed some test, such as being in an art museum. The test I propose for the article Nude Photography is that the image or the photographer has their own article in WP which substantiates their status. All of the photographers mentioned in this article have their own biographical articles. If anyone knows of a free image of a nude photograph by any photographer currently in WP as an art photographer (not fashion, glamour, porn, or other commercial work), then it would pass the test. It would appear that the NFCC policy is being strictly enforced for biographies of photographers since their articles rarely have any of the artist's own work. So the consensus is that WP's converge of modern photography is fine without photographs, the non-free content policy being more important?FigureArtist (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These animated GIFs directly capture animations and cutscenes from the above game. NFCC is pretty clear about non-free screenshots, but seems to me to lean heavily against animated non-free anything. In any case, these animations are not just a few seconds, but are fully 10 seconds long, and depict some subscenes in their entirety. The game is out of production and informally considered "abandonware", if that matters. Discuss?. --Lexein (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Animated GIFs are fine - I would think of equating them with video files since they are "multiple screens". To that extent , however, they should not be very long or comprise all the animation elements. And importantly, the computer animation itself needs to be discussed. For example, one example that I believe is accepted use is File:Cabanela dance.gif used on Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective as the animation style was critically praised - the GIF is one small animation sequence out of several for that character, ~5 seconds long, so that's all appropriate. GIF animations of near-entire cutscenes? Probably not, and even if the game is abandonware, someone owns the copyright or we have to have explicit notice it was put to public domain. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I'm seeing no discussion by RS of the animation or the cutscenes, and no mention of such critical discussion in the GIF rationales. Oh, and it's also hellaciously unsourced. I'm leaning toward keeping the cutscene one(trimmed), and use a still or two in place of the animation one, since it's semi-obvious that characters will be moving, and the field will be scrolling. I am, however, not going up against the game-articles cabal alone. --Lexein (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The animated gifs are necessary per WP:NFCC#8. I definitely wouldn't have understood what the "Cinematic Soccer" scenes are without the comparison of the two cutscenes, and the article makes a big deal about Captain Tsubasa 5 having a different style than the predecessors. That the complete cutscene is shown is not a problem per NFCC#3b, as it's still a small part of the whole videogame, and I don't think that each cutscene has been individually copyrighted. Being abandonware is irrelevant to the discussion; a NFC rationale is still required. Diego (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif seems unnecessary. While the image caption explains what is going on, the significance to the rest of the article (or even the section this file is appearing in) is not apparent to me. I think the other image is worth keeping. A stronger integration into the article (via introduction of explicit references in the article text to the image) might be desirable. -- ToshioYamaguchi23:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) False source info provided, actually sourced here; 2) Not low resolution; 3) Not specific to the subject of the article (a generic logo rather than specific to Honda's F1 team) therefore fails to identify subject of the article. User has a history of uploading unfree and flat out copyvio files, both at his present incarnation and his previous sockpuppet accounts. Pyrope22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any trademark registration is irrelevant as trademark restrictions are non-copyright restrictions and thus irrelevant for us. See Commons:Commons:Trademarks. Very simple logos are ineligible for copyright and are thus in the public domain, although different countries define "very simple" differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Havana (film)
I am questioning the use of the following files in the Havana (film).
I don't think these meet NFCC#8 "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
If it is decided that though do then NFCC#3a will come into play "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
They also have identical rationals, yet none of them meet the descroption provided. I have concerns over the source description. They all say "Digital capture from the film "Havana" (Production Featurette)." The fourth one is obviously a screen capture, but the other three are not scenes taken from the movie. They may be from a "making of" extra feature, but considering they are all appear to be copy pasted rationals then I think that might be suspect. AIRcorn(talk)08:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationales are the same as the screen snaps serve an identical purpose. They provide the reader an insight to the production of the film by illustrating the director on the set, the set construction, a view of the main production set and also the transformation from a constructed "street" into the identical scene in the film.
The photos enhance the article considerably and are unavailable from any open source. The justification in adding them is sound and the addition to them is very reasonable. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 is definitely met. The fact that the city should be recreated for the film because of the US Embargo is a big deal in sources and reflected in the Production section (see [15], [16]). I agree that NFCC#3a is relevant and not all images are needed; I think the best way to illustrate this is to keep image 3 to illustrate the construction of the set, and image 4 to show how it looks onscreen. I'll fix the "purpose" rationales to support this use. Diego (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can live with two non-free ones describing the development of the set. Still not really comfortable with the sourcing for number 3 as it is definitely not a screenshot from the movie. Maybe the uploader could clarify how he got them? Not sure what is meant by they "are available from any open source" either. AIRcorn(talk)23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review is requested for use in Fred Rogers only. On Fred Rogers, this image's use violates WP:NFCC #1, seeing as there are several free images already in the article that adequately illustrate the subject. RJaguar3 | u | t19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is reasonable here. The only one that is a near-equivalent replacement (considering age) is File:Fred Rogers.jpg, and there's something about how he's posed there that it is not obvious that it is Fred Rogers (eg it looks like a different person). Given that Rogers' claim to fame is pretty much MRN, I think the non-free of him with the miniature set is completely in line. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph is not of Araksi Cetinyan. It is actually of Günseli Başar, the 1952 Miss Turkey and Miss Europe, who is not deceased. Images of Gunseli can be seen here, along with images of her from the Miss Europe pageants for 1952 and 1953, both showing that the photograph is of Gunseli - same hairstyle, same dress, same make-up, same face. The real Araksi is presumably one of the women in the photograph on this page - although all very pretty, none of them are similar in appearance or dress to this photograph that purports to be of her. It seems very clear cut, although there is this which identifies the image as Araksi - yet a commenter points out that it is Gunseli. It seems a clear cut case of mistaken identity here. As I understand it, we do not allow photographs of non-deceased people but User:Ronhjones has suggested there may be some justification for keeping this as it shows the subject at the time of her beauty-contest winning notability, which a more current photograph would not illustrate. Mabalu (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very obvious to me, but then, my speciality is dress/fashion history, and it is clear to me that the photograph does not show a 1920s beauty queen. Everything about it screams 1950s to me. Plus, I think the Miss Universe pages are pretty conclusive, whereas all the links you show clearly have a common root - they are all based on the same article and source. The Google Image search for Gunseli provides lots of images of the very lovely Ms. Basar from sources such as this - the presence of lots of extra photographs showing the same woman identified as Gunseli is more compelling evidence to me than a single image identified as someone else. A similar search for Araksi brings up only Gunseli's image and lots of pictures who are clearly or demonstrably not Ms Cetinyan. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another source here - this is a completed Ebay auction for a 1952 magazine with a photo of a double page spread devoted to Ms Basar. I know the picture is too small to see the details, but you can still tell it's the same person. Mabalu (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts, though obviously one use within Ek Baap would meet requirements with proper rationale. The caption on the Ek Baap article in the second use can be applied in the infobox to serve the same purpose (id'ing the various actors). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that second image on the election page is a non-free derivative work (Even though its on commons, claimed to be an original work). Both agree that both images are not needed in the decorative fashion they are used in. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the terms cited there refer to the physical reproduction of the banknote. The images I have uploaded were images already on the internet and is used only to illustrate the article. They are images of the banknotes themselves and not a reproduction of it. I was just wondering if I have tagged them correctly?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of unclear what reproduction in any form means, but I interpret it as also covering reproduction by means of photography and digitalization. The terms don't say explicitly (or even implicitly) that it is meant to apply only to physical reproduction. The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee seems excessive to me and probably in violation of NFCC#3a. -- ToshioYamaguchi13:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full document of the Monetary Law Act and the title adjacent to Section 58 on pg 26 and in the contents says it is an offence in the Mutilation and defacement of currency notes, but this is neither. Taking an unaltered photograph of the banknote is not defacement. (In my opinion) The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee shows the progression of the banknote over time and there exists only one copy of each note, (not supposed to be of excessive use). Also I am planning to create an article on each of the different denominations, therefore each image will be restricted to two articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Section 58 (d) explicitly says that reproduction in any form of any currency note is an offence. Aside from the section of the Monetary Law Act we have the issue with copyright. The banknote design is likely subject to copyright, regardless of the applicability of the Monetary Law Act. -- ToshioYamaguchi16:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of issues...
Some of these images are hosted on Commons. The images thus hosted need to be handled there. Of note; Commons:Commons:Currency does not contain a specific exemption for Sri Lanka. Given that it does not, Commons does not have a stance indicating such images are free license or public domain. As such, they should be deleted from Commons.
The issue of the Sri Lankan government's stance on reproduction is immaterial. They can not prevent the use of images of their currency under terms of Fair Use in the U.S. Similarly, the FBI attempted to stop Wikipedia from using its logo because such use violated their usage restrictions. They were soundly rejected by Wikipedia counsel and the logo remains in use.
The important question at hand is whether the images are free license or not. We can't presume simply because they are on the Internet somewhere that they are public domain. We must have proof they are free license or public domain. We do not have such proof. As such, all images much be used under terms of WP:NFCC on Wikipedia.
If we upload images for every box where an image should be, this article would be hosting in excess of 100 non-free images. This would make it the highest article user of non-free content on the project by more than double the current highest user. Currency articles and their use of non-free images have been debated a number of times. It is a divisive issue, with no agreement.
However, an article hosting such an extreme use of non-free images needs extreme justification. Simply showing the progression of designs is not enough. If there are no secondary sources supporting the notability of design changes and thus supporting the prose of the article, there is no reason to have a particular set of images to depict the change. Mere existence of the change is not enough for inclusion. It must be sourced. As the article stands there are exactly three references which would notionally "support" more than 100 non-free images? No, this is an utter failure. Baring the introduction of a huge number of secondary sources, these images must go.
Agree on the key point, irregardless of the Sri Lankan law, it cannot affect US fair use allowance, as long as the use falls within normal fair use guidelines. Further agree that if the plan is to have individual articles for each denomination of currency, this overall page may not use images of every bill; I can reasonably access one representative front/back from each series to demonstrate what the series looks like, but not of every denomination. Non-free use in this article needs to be cut back. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously approached the TV project on screenshot removals on pre-2008 articles on tv episodes (read: before the Foundation Resolution was in place), and seemed to be "yea, we sorta need to flush those out" response. I note that I've been plot-editing TNG episode lately too and many of them have superficial screenshots as well, I would not be surprised to see these extended to the other Trek series. As we do have an active Star Trek project, WP:STARTREK, it may be good to get their help in pruning these out. I'll drop a note there and at the TV project about this. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just being a central plot element is not sufficient if there are no sources to describe said scene as a central plot element. This is why we are usually looking for critical commentary specifically on that scene, or production information about the scene that would aid the reader in understanding. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A) some of these have valid use (I was looking at one that shows the nature of the aliens in a given episode, something text would be hard pressed to convey and it was the only image in that article) others may not. A mass nomination like this where the case for each will be different is unwise. I'd suggest instead nominating 3-4 a day for a while after checking each for meeting NFCC. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a deletion discussion. It's a review of use of the images. Because they have a similar quality (episode screenshot across a series), highlighting them all at the same and discussing which ones to keep or not is fine; after which proper FFD would be followed for those deemed inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot. Thanks. Just followed the link and assumed I was at FfD... Oyi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
No worries; I would definitely be concerned of a large mass nom without prior discussion about it (see my comment below). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-free TV episode screenshots are sometimes OK, but usually not. I think that it would be better to nominate the files individually at WP:FFD and not all at the same time since it's easier to discuss something if there aren't a hundred discussions running simultaneously. I haven't checked whether any of these images look OK or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the last time that a set of TV screenshots were mass-nomed at FFD and the backlash from that, it is better to figure out which ones we clearly should keep first and then follow with FFD of the rest (pointing to this discussion) to go forward with the proper removal, basically giving a two-gate review before any are actually deleted. (And I've already altered the Trek project and TV project on this discussion). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mass nomination is going overboard. Many images are important--or relevant--to the Voyager TV episodes. And its is indeed better to figure out which images are keep (and which are superficial) before going out and filing a mass deletion and facing another huge angry backlash from the Trek community on wikipedia. These 2 images here: File:ST-VOY 3-3 The Chute.jpg or File:ST-VOY 3-17 Unity.jpg would clearly be relevant to the Voyager episodes since they illustrate what is going on here in their shows. --Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, those two are exactly representative of what needs to go. Both articles consist purely of plot renarration, which in most cases means there couldn't possibly be a reasonable case for any image at all – if there is no analytical commentary in the article, there is nothing that an image could legitimately serve to support. Also, both images illustrate plot elements that could very easily be described through text, and especially in the case of the second, the image does literally nothing to even make the plot element understood (you need the text to understand what the image is, not the other way round). We've had dozens and dozens of FFDs on these kinds of things, and these are exactly the ones that always, invariably, get deleted. Fut.Perf.☼08:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is there a mass review of images if someone is determined to file a mass deletion. The point of a mass review is to locate those image which are clearly junk. Wikipedia went through that process in 2008 when 20 useless images were deleted. I stress that we must look at each and every image and see how it is used in the Voyager article to consider if it makes sense before considering a mass image deletion as in this case. That at least would be fair. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're here. The results from this talk page will not directly lead to deletion; instead, let's assume one image is said to be unnecessary - the image would be removed, a bot would tag it orphan, and likely in 7 days would appear at FFD (another review point) to make the last determination. But here, we have no rush compared to the other processes, and so this is the time to alert the various projects (note: I have), and get them to help determine which ones should be kept and improve any rationales for them. We want every image to be looked at and reviewed, but since the problem persists across the bulk of the Voyager episodes, we should consider the rest in bulk. Note that that set in 2008 doesn't appear to be part of any organized effort, and certainly in August 2008 there wasn't any larger scale effort. Again to summarize: we want each image to be reviewed now leisurely before the faster-paced FFD process is started.
Also, note that for TV screenshots, just being relevant is not a reason to keep. We need sourced discussion about the scene used in question, most of the time. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The TV wikiproject was notified two days ago. Has anybody seen any positive response so far, as in, people from that project actually going round improving FURs for those they think should be kept, and removing others from articles? I'd say, give them one week. If I don't see constructive activity on a significant number of the images listed above by that time, I'm prepared to speedy-delete the whole lot. Constructive activity means: either orphan the image, or improve the FUR to one that is (a) individual, not boilerplated, and (b) clearly describes, in concrete, individualized terms, why this particular image is necessary to make that particular article understood properly. Currently, all these images have entirely boilerplated generic pseudo-rationales, which are ipso facto invalid, so they are all subject to speedy deletion under CSD#F7, a week from being identified as such (which is now.) Fut.Perf.☼08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its very strange. Most of the images have different contributors. And Masem very cordially writes that "This isn't a deletion discussion. It's a review of use of the images." That's very respectful. And yet Fut Perf clearly says he wants to delete all the images or have people give complete and immaculate rationales for them when he knows fairly well that most people have not seen all of the Voyager episodes and cannot simply give a 100% valid rationale for each and every image in 1 week. I wonder if Fut Perf is a fan of Voyager. This does not sound like a sincere way way to start a discussion....when he already wishes to file a mass deletion and is dedicated to do just that and doesn't care to wait to see how the discussion will develop. This is how we respect other people's image contributions? If Fut Perf respected other's contributions, he wouldn't have said what he just said. I suggest that someone else more neutral such as Masem go through each of the above images, see how they are used in the Voyager episodes and decide on a case by case basis whether to file a deletion rather than take the Easy Way out and file a mass deletion as Fut Perf wishes. Masem, at least, hasn't shown any pre-determined bias on this review, which is Not, unlike Fut Perf's wishes, a mass deletion. Look. I don't have the time to give rationales for all these images since I, too, haven't seen them all, work in real life and, yes, many Voyager episodes were not good. (And some of Thealok's pics aren't good either) But if Fut Perf hasn't seen any of the episodes, which I suspect, its just better to let a viewer or fan like Masem decide which images are critical/pertinent to a Voyager episode. These are just my thoughts. Thank You --Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What on earth has being a Star Trek "fan" or not being one to do with our ability to judge proper NFC usage on these articles? No, I'm not a Star Trek fan, and no, I haven't seen those episodes and I have no interest in seeing them. But that's beside the point. Non-free images are supposed to be helpful for exactly those readers who haven't seen the episode, and their FURs and the articles themselves are supposed to make it clear how and why they are significant. If I, as a reader who hasn't seen the episode, can't recognize the explanative value of the image on seeing it used in the article, then that in itself means that either the image use or the article itself, or both, are crap. Deleting these images en masse is not an "easy way out". It is a final way out, after seeing this problem festering for years and years, seeing editors in this topic domain piling up bad images in dozens of articles, again and again, despite multiple warnings and explanations, and seeing the relevant wikiprojects doing absolutely nothing to stop this abuse of our policies during all this time, despite being clearly aware of the problem. No, I am not demanding that everything should be cleaned up within a week, but I do expect to see at least a significant sign of good will until then. Somebody at least making a start. Fut.Perf.☼10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please heed Admin Masem's comment that this is a discussion at present. What do many 'reputable' scholars say about wikipedia--when they sneer at us. That it is a place of disorder or chaos. Some articles are top of the class and others are bottom of the barrel. Everything depends on the articles' contributors. A picture can be important since we can get people to contribute more often to an article if there is a visual reference. I understand your frustrations but please don't place a personal arbitrary deadline of 1 week on such images. Maybe Cbbkr can improve several Voyager article's more. I just notified him about this discussion but he has been away for 2 days now. I say let Admin Masem decide which images to keep and improve with a better rationale and which are just junk and file an image deletion. That is fair comment, I think. I have to go now. --Artene50 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(There's nothing special in my contributions due to being an admin - I'm just participating as concern for NFC, and avoiding a problem that came up about 1.5 months ago with Simpsons screenshots. If these are to be deleted, I won't be doing that step due to involvement). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to add one thing, just to understand my place here: I've gone though many of the Trek episode articles and have had to do plot trimming, and while I haven't run through Voyager eps in a while, my recollection is that most of them have superficial use of screenshots just to fill an infobox, with little justification why to use that screenshot, notably as most episodes have little reception information (I think we run on an assumption that all Trek episodes are notable but people need to look for these sources. But that's another problem). Were I to be BOLD, I suspect I'd only leave a handful behind in removing them from episode articles. I will note that on two other present shows that I work on, Doctor Who and Fringe, we don't add (or revert additions) of screenshots unless we have found sources to justify a screenshot use. Unfortunately, most of the Trek episodes, like with older series, were created before 2008, where, while we had the basis of NFC, we didn't have the weight of the Foundation's non-free use resolution behind it, so per-episode screenshots were common, and this is what we're struggling with today. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Masem. That is the problem with some of the Trek articles. Some are very good and some are bottom of the barrel. I uploaded images between 2010-2012 mostly and tried to upload relevant images. Most of the pre-2008 images were uploaded by Thealok in 2006 before he left wikipedia the same year. Some Voyager articles like Remember have a third party source. I'll ask Cbbkr if he can improve the narratives of a few shows but all I can do is 1-2 shows because I work. Which of the above images would pass NFC today? One can't say without looking at how the images are used in an article but a mass deletion doesn't really address this issue at all. One shouldn't throw out everything if you want to remove say 15 or 18+ or so useless images. And for someone else to say 'this isn't a discussion, I will impose my own solution of a mass deletion doesn't seem right either'. This is a discussion about which images to single out for deletion, not a mass deletion. That is the point and I have no problem with this. Please analyse the images as they are used in an article to see if they are merely decorative or are significant to an understanding of an episode or its premise. And file an image deletion on those that fail this test. Thank You, --Artene50 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is a problem that most of the Trek episode articles lack sources outside of the links to the Trek wikis - this "suggests" there's a notability problem but I think I would be hard pressed to send any to AFD given that likely source do exist. (EG for TNG, AV Club has run through the series, and the new Blu-Rays provide new commentary). But without sourcing it is hard to justify images, and while we can certainly wait on the image getting up to snuff, our non-free content policy and the Foundation require use to be a bit more pro-active there. Personally - not trying to be mean here - a slash+burn to remove any image not immediately having some possible discussion should be removed from any episode that is unsourced, if only so that when the episode does become better sourced, there might be a better image to use for that episode based on that source (completely hypothetical case, for Voyager's premiere which is using a shot of the Caretaker, maybe reviewers were found to be more impressed when Kim is shown to be "marked" or some other scene, which would make the image of that scene the appropriate one to use.) Again, I stress that right now at NFCR we should be asking people to note ones that have some reasonable potential to meet NFCC, such that we can then remove the rest from the articles, and then let normal orphaning and FFD process follow as a second check before outright deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These all need to be gone through on a case by case basis. I'm going to straight-up delete the clear offenders while leaving the ones that have the potential in the near term to be properly defended. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is what I'm just saying. Some of the images use can be defended and some would fail NFC today. Please don't file a mass deletion on them all without going through their use on a case by case basis. That's prejudging the outcome of this discussion. --Artene50 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since it has been pointed out above that those images need to be judged on a case-by-case basis, lets start with the first one: How does the use of File:An Omega Particle.png in The Omega Directive satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Note that WP:NFCI#5 says that film and television screenshots should be for critical commentary, which is completely lacking here. Thus this seems to be a complete failure of NFCC#8. -- ToshioYamaguchi10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that a better approach would be for any image that an editor thinks should be kept (because I think there's general agreement that the bulk of these are failures), to say "let's talk about this one"; get the ones that have a likelihood that editors want to keep than to waste time on the more obvious cases. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images to be kept
Please list any images to be kept in this subsection, using the following format (simply paste the following into the edit window, a notice in the edit window indicates where to list the image. Thank you.). -- ToshioYamaguchi13:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
====[[:File:Example.png]]==== This image should be kept because (give reason here). ~~~~
This image should be kept because it shows the stolen timeship which would cause the end of the 29th century in a time inversion. It is the basis for the Voyager episode Future's End. Without this timeship, there would be no premise for the Voyager episode and a single image helps viewers understand what this ship looks like. Future's End was a two part series of Voyager, too and the existing article has 5 references from Star Trek.com (CBS) --Artene50 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced. What matters is not how important that plot element is for the episode. What matters is how important the visual details are for understanding the plot element. The article doesn't talk about the details of the visual design of the ship. To understand the plot, a verbal description (a small spaceship approximately the size of a 20th-century fighter plane with delta wings) would be entirely sufficient. Fut.Perf.☼08:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, without any sourced commentary about the time ship, it's not really necessary to otherwise understand the episode. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Voyager producers never talked about the ship's technical details--just that it was a timeship from the 29th century which was faster than Voyager. I suppose it will have to be deleted then, so decided to ask for an uploader deletion since I can't think of a reason to keep. --Artene50 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image should also be kept because it establishes with one screenshot that Chakotay (the Number 2 officer on Voyager) is on a planet populated and run by deassimiliated Borg drones--people who have detached themselves from the Borg collective--in Unity Its very useful in showing immediately the situation that Chakotay is in. Before, these people presented themselves to him as just the planet's colonists...but now, Chakotay learns the shocking truth. --Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image doesn't "establish" that he is "on a planet populated with deassimilated Borg drones". The only thing it establishes is that somebody (can't even figure out it's Chakotay) is in a dark room with some gloomy-looking people. The image is no help to understanding anything. Quite to the contrary, I need the text to help me understand what the image shows, rather than the other way round. Fut.Perf.☼08:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is pertinent since it shows that Not All is What it Seems at the place that it is living on. The people who rescued him are not merely innocent settlers of the planet that his spaceaft carshlanded on but deassimiliated Borg drones who have detached themselves from the Borg collective. I chose this screencap to show Chakotay viewing this scene and learning the awful truth for the first time. Its not decorative and any Trek fan would know that people he was viewing were not ordinary inhabitants of the planet. Fut.Perf. notes that he needed the text to undetsatnd the scene but if anyone had viewed this episode, they would know that this was Chakotay since he was wearing a red shirt and his ship had crashed on the planet. Chief of Security Tuvok's uniform in contrast is yellow and black. --Artene50 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't writing articles for Trek fans but for the general reader. Given that we have separate articles that show what Borg are, and who Chakotay is, there's little need for an image that has no additional discussion outside the plot; the reader can still understand that this involves Chakotay and Borg drones from the text. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a visual image of the Borg Drone--the title of the episode Drone--called 'One' who was created from Seven of Nine’s nanoprobe technology. Its a good visual illustration for this episode--direct and to the point for this new creation. --Artene50 (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help me to understand anything, beyond what Borgs look like (for which we have an extra article, with its own illustrations.) Same for the other character shown. Fut.Perf.☼08:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cite shows the Borg Queen and Jean Luc Picard as a Borg drone but this drone was not created by the Borg. It was created specifically in Voyager by an accident--by Seven of Nine's Borg nanoprobe technology. Surely, this single image is a pertinent illustration of this episode which I am concerned that Fut.Perf. may not have seen since he has not seen this TV series. Its not purely decorative. --Artene50 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image could be kept because it is a striking image of the wormhole through which Voyager sends a message to a Romulan captain in a Romulan vessel through a probe in the distant Alpha Quadrant in Eye of the Needle. I say it may be kept this is a suggestion just for this particular image as it is almost literally an eye of the needle view of the Alpha Quadrant where Voyager's home, Earth, is located. --Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the article contained non-trivial, well-sourced, real-world critical discussion of the technical or aesthetic design aspects of that "worm hole" simulation. Which, of course, it doesn't. Like almost all the others, the article consists only of plot renarration. Plot-only articles can virtually never sustain a reasonable non-free image claim. Fut.Perf.☼08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image should be kept because it is the first visual appearance of the real Marayna, a lonely sentient alien, who previously only appeared in Voyager's holodeck program in the episode Alter Ego. This article has at least 3 references from the star trek.com website which is run by CBS. In the screencap, Tuvok meets Marayna and has to reason with her and ask her to release Voyager from her control or risk seeing the death of his ship and his crew in a nebula that Marayna also controls. So, yes, the screencap is notable. --Artene50 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screencaps are never "notable". Article topics are. Don't tell us what's happening in that scene; tell us why it's in need of visual illustration to make the article understood. Do we need a visual illustration of what that particular alien looks like, out of the myriads of aliens that have been designed for the series? Possibly, if the article contained non-trivial, sourced, real-life analysis of the design choices made in creating that mask. Which, again, it doesn't. Fut.Perf.☼09:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that sometimes a visual illustration of what a particular alien looks like--out of a myriad of aliens--is helpful and sometimes it is just junk. But you haven't seen this particular episode, Fut.Perf., and you don't see how the alien Marayna infiltrates Voyager's holodeck program and disguises herself as just part of one of the 'extra' holodeck characters in a Hawaiian setting that capture the attention of Harry Kim and then Tuvok. She can use the Doctor's transponder to beam down out of the holodeck to Tuvok's quarters and later seize control of Voyager's computers and stop its engines. Finally, she can even make the nebula that Voyager is investigating suddenly increase in activity--thereby threatening the safety of the ship all because Tuvok rebuffs her request to see her. This shows that she is not your day of the week forgettable alien and if I was an ordinary Trek viewer, I'd prefer a scene where I could see who on earth the real Marayna since its pertinent here. This article has sources to startrek.com which is run by CBS and is a WP:RS. Thanks, --Artene50 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just go off your assurances the character/scene/setting is notable. We need to have sourced commentary about the character or scene to make that connection. You can't state that importance in the article yourself (that would be original research) and without that discussion in the text, we don't need the image to understand the article. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the justification is pretty clear--to illustrate his style in his most famous work. It also has a very low resolution. I'm not seeing how 8 and 3b aren't met. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, unless the work itself in connection to the artist is of critical discussion (eg using sound clips to describe a musical group's style, using representative paintings that are highlighted as exemplars of an artist's work), we don't reuse art from an article about the work on the article about the creator. The article is referenced, but not that specific line that discusses the style, so it is hard to verify if this is considered a critical comment on his style (which would help satisfy #8) or just an WPian's appraisal which would fail #8. (The 3b aspect is easy, as the image is too large per normal resolution guidance). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to me to show a representative of an artist's work, so the reader can see and judge for themselves his/her style. It adds to reader understanding about the artist in the most direct and obvious way. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no sourced discussion of the artist's style (which I'm not saying doesn't exist for Kuijpers, but its presently not shown here), we have no reason to show an image to show what that looks like to the reader, particularly when they are one link away from seeing it on a different article. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not true. In my view, gaining an impression of the artist's work is something that absolutely fundamentally adds to reader understanding of the artist, regardless of whether there is textual discussion. And I don't find the "one click away" argument convincing either -- if something is worth including in the article, then it's worth including in the article - full stop. We should aim for our articles to be self-standing and self-sufficient as far as possible, because we have no idea how they may be reused (eg saved to disk, or printed out, automatically extracted, or otherwise selected, with no guarantee the other article will also be available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
But our non-free content mission is against that, and that's policy. Again, find/affirm sources that describe his art style in context as a BLP, and the image (outside of its size) is probably fine. The artist is searchable but I'm not having luck on page translations to determine if this is the case, and its possible the sources exist already to show this. But in the general case, if an artist or other creative person/group are notable for an article but lack any sourced discussion about the style of their creative output, there's no benefit to the reader to show that, otherwise its assuming OR that the reader needs to see the art to see/hear that. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what policy says, in black and white, is that the image should add to reader understanding about the subject of the article. This image manifestly does just that. And making that assessment ultimately doesn't rest on me finding sources: it is a judgement the policy commands me and the community to make, as editors. WP:OR applies to theses and propositions advanced by the article. It does not apply to talk pages, or editorial judgements, or community consensuses. Contextual significance is a matter for community assessment, which is not something to which the WP:OR policy applies. I put it again: that to me it seems blindingly obvious that showing an artist's style adds something absolutely fundamental to the reader understanding of the subject, when the subject is an artist. And I imagine most of the community would find it similarly blindingly obvious, too. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going on that logic alone, I can justify the inclusion of any non-free image because I talk about it (without sources) in the article and say the reader needs to see it to understand it. It has long been policy and practice that sourced discussion of images are required in such cases like this as to meet NFCC#8, as to say that "If our reliable sources think it is necessary to highlight this factor of this creative person's work, then we can justify using non-free to show accompany that." If no sources discuss the creative person's style, then we have very little leg to stand on to justify its inclusion - there are exceptions, but not always. This is necessary to reduce non-free use otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. A blanket statement of the kind you propose has occasionally been suggested at WT:NFC, and always been rejected. There are some particular specific categories -- for example high-value agency photographs -- where we require commentary on the image itself, and for that commentary to be properly sourced; but the requirement is not a general part of NFCC #8. (As witnessed, for example, by our preparedness to include album covers, company logos, etc without comment, because of their manifest revelance). IIRC in the very early days of the NFCC, there might have been a requirement for direct commentary on the image added for a few weeks, but it was removed again after consideration of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley. But the basic position has always been that NFCC #8 requires a judgement on whether the image adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and that that is a judgement for the community to make based on whatever common sense and context and background it wishes to bear -- there is no requirement, not stated in the NFC nor out of it, for a "smoking gun" source to be found saying "this image is significant".
If we have an article on an artist, for the reader to properly understand the nature of the artist and their work, it seems absolutely plain to me that it is manifestly relevant to show some example of what that artist's output looked like -- quite apart from whether or not the artist's style has attracted any particular comments. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the readers wants to understand the artists work, the reader can click on the wikilink to the works article and view the image in that article. Also, I don't see how it adds to the readers understanding of the work if there is no (preferrably sourced) commentary about what aspect of the artists style the image depicts. -- ToshioYamaguchi20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because readers have eyes. You don't have to drag them by the nose and say "you can see this" and "you can see that" and "you can see the other". Jheald (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with images illustrating an artist's style in an article about the artist's style, but this article only mentions his art style briefly (saying that he uses the clear line style). Also, I'm not sure if a cover illustration is a good idea for illustrating an artist's drawing style, unless you are specifically discussing cover illustrations. On a cover illustration, a lot of the page is typically covered by logos and text, so it is harder to see the actual art in the thumbnail in the article. Single panels from a story serve this purpose better. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's long been guidance at WP:COMICS, where the image policy in fact goes back substantially before WP:NFC, to prefer exterior matter over interior panels unless illustrating points specific to those panels, on the basis that you have had to pay to see interior matter, but the exterior matter is what you could see on the news-stand, and what tends to be circulated in promotional material, and so may be less economically significant a copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, if we are going to demonstrate someone's already-notable art on their bio page, reusing an image, while not completely avoiding NFC issues, would be better than uploading a new image of just one part of their art. But if there's sourced justification to use a more detailed closeup of the art, that's reasonable. That's simply not the case here (yet). --MASEM (t) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if an image of the style is to be used there, there should be a specific reference in the article to that image highlighting how that image demonstrates the specific style. Otherwise, I don't see how the image is helpful for a readers understanding of the article, if the reader doesn't already know what that style is. -- ToshioYamaguchi09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have maybe edited half a dozen articles on illustrators at one time or another. In each case, I think the article probably had an image of the illustrator's style. Toshio says that an article needs to say how an image demonstrates the specific style, if a reader is going to get any understanding out of it. But that's simply not true. Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them. For example, suppose you have an illustrator -- are the works they are celebrated for loose watercolours, hard-edged realism, Quentin Blake-style cartoons, ligne claire, 80's-style airbrush, Tenniel-style Victoriana, or something else again entirely...? Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin, perhaps the most famous example of ligne claire, and see for yourself that, no, it is not quite the same. Seeing the image therefore, even without commentary, gives you a much better idea of what the artist actually did -- which has to be something absolutely fundamental in an article on an artist. One can see immediately, for example, that what Henk Kuijpers did was rather different to say Action Comics 1. It's not a question of sourced commentary, it's a question of giving the reader a better understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8) -- exactly as showing a characteristic work on an artist's page does. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them." .... "Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin."
Anybody seeing the image might interpret the artists supposed intention behind the image differently. What we as Wikipedia editors think the artist was doing is irrelevant, we'd need reliable sources to support such claims. Also I am not aware that there is a consensus that such a use of a non-free image is acceptable (I don't see it at WP:NFCI). -- ToshioYamaguchi11:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive the figure of speech. I wasn't talking about the artist's intention, I was talking about physically what sort of work they produce. And that is exactly what seeing the image shows you. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if the image is to show the characteristics of the style of Kuijpers works there needs to be more discussion of this style in the article and a reference to this specific image explaining how that image is representative of that style. -- ToshioYamaguchi12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without jumping in the middle, I just want to say that "manifest relevance" is a darn fine bit of reasoning here, just as it is with album covers (more so actually IMO). You can't understand what an artist _does_ without seeing the art. Period. It clearly meets NFCC#8 by definition. And nothing other than a sample of their art (or more than one in some cases where they have a wildly varying style) can accomplish that same thing. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a larger, sourced discussion about his art style, certainly NFCC#8 is met. But we can't justify that based on a single, unsourced line, which could just be an OR statement by a WPian to try to justify their use. It simply doesn't qualify for the more rigorous nature we expect from NFCC#8 (in particular the second half about omission making the article difficult to understand - the importance of the artist is understood without the image, as there's no significant discussion about the art style).
I will stress one thing: despite the language barrier on searches, I do suspect there is additional sources to be used for this artist, and from those a few more words can be added about his art style as to secure the appropriateness of the image in this article. That it, I would urge those trying to keep it to find these sources (the name generates enough hits) and justify the art style appropriately, instead of fighting against standard expectations for such images. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're re-writing NFCC #8 in your head again. It doesn't say that "omission would make the article difficult to understand". It says that the additional understanding of the topic, which the reader would have with the image, would be lost without it.
For an example see, eg Quentin Blake, and then look at a Google image search [17]. I submit that you gain more real understanding about Quentin Blake and why he is celebrated by seeing any single one of these images than you do from the entirety of our shockingly image-less article. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The image simply sits in the article without being discussed. Thus I do not see how the presence of the image in the article significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The claim that the reader gains significantly from the images presence on that page is unfounded and the article is still understandable, if the image were removed. -- ToshioYamaguchi17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Toshio points out, no, that is actually what NFCC#8 says - it is a two prong test. It is nearly always easy to prove the first part that the picture helps, but the second part regarding omission is where, if there's no detailed discussion of the need for the image - nearly always required sourced discussion to avoid OR - then NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that NFCC #8 doesn't actually say what Toshio claims it does. What it actually says is
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
(emphasis added).
So it's not a question of whether the article is still "understandable" without the image. The question is whether not having the image is detrimental to the understanding the reader would have gained had the image been there.
And no, you don't always need to have detailed discussion of an image for that image to add something significant to reader understanding of the topic. As for example here. Knowing the sort of work an artist does adds something absolutely fundamental to what you understand about the artist. Jheald (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that your claim contains a flaw, since it actually says:
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Yes... And the point that has been consistently been put is that to know what kind of work it was that the artist made is perhaps the most significant increase in understanding that it's possible to imagine about the artist. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that NFCC8 isn't a bright line. I'd say it is _well_ over the line here and I'm somewhat surprised others disagree. But matters of opinion are sometimes that way. What seems black-and-white to one person isn't to another. I don't think arguing back-and-forth is going to solve that. If you don't believe having the art of an artist visible adds significantly to the understanding of that artist (and not having it therefore detracts) you're just not in a place that I can vaguely understand. And apparently you can't understand me. So we're stuck and more words aren't going to change that. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To step back, a key facet of US Fair Use law in determining if a use of the work includes the idea of a transformative nature; the phrase "criticism and commentary" that we banter around comes pretty much directly from why fair use is allowed. ([18]). As we are purposely stricter than Fair Use law, this concept is still embedded within NFC policy, even if not fully listed out - this is why, for example, we highlight the need for "critical commentary" within NFCI - which I know is not exactly the same as the fair use phrase, but its origins are there.
To this point, this is why NFCC#8 - which is pretty much our guide to assure the transformative nature is met - nearly always (with very limited exception) - requires sourced discussion of the article in question. WPians cannot provide criticism and commentary without violating OR so ergo it has to come from reliable sources. This is the metric used in practice (effectively, WP:FAC being the ultimate point of review without consideration to delete) and has been the way for years. I don't question that a reader can be helped by seeing the artist's work to understand the artist's style, but without sourced discussion, the omission isn't hurting the article, particularly if the reader is one click away from the work in question. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley. Commentary on the image is not a pre-requisite for U.S. Fair Use.
In any case, the context of being used in as part of an education article, for an educational purpose, is transformative -- it's a very different context from that for which the image was originally created.
NFCC #8 is quite carefully drafted, both in what it requires and what it does not. "Significantly aiding reader understanding" is a good and appropriate test -- good for WP, and good in the context of one of our articles for U.S. law. This image is passing that test.
Such images, as you confirm, plainly help our readers -- so omitting them plainly harms what the article might be. In the specific language of NFCC #8, its omission is detrimental to the understanding that it would give readers if it was there.
Finally, I think WP:FAC is a red herring. An article on an artist probably deserves to fail WP:FAC if it doesn't discuss the artist's style. But we're not talking about whether this article is up for FAC -- we are talking about whether it (and articles like it) ought to have an image to convey an understanding of the artist's work. The test for that is not that an article has to be FAC standard, it is that the image has to pass NFCC #8 -- which this does. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC case in point is the one for Pink Floyd which passed recently (last few months). Prior to FAC the article included pretty much every cover of their albums. The FAC discussion on images was centered on how this is just not acceptable, and with the end result being the album covers that were considered to have sourcable discussion w.r.t. to the band were left - eg for example Dark Side's iconic prism. The point here is that FAC understands that sourcing style and the like needs to be present before images about the creative person can be included. Remember, if no RS talks about the person's style, but otherwise is sufficiently sourced, we as WPians can't fill in that gap, but at FAC this wouldn't be considered an impediment.
You can't use the same argument on NFCC#8 to satisfy both parts. I will agree the image can be of help to the reader, but I still understand, with what text is presently there, that the guy is a comic artist, with or without the image, ergo the image is not necessary. Since it is impossible for a WPian to expand any more on the art style without evoking OR, we need sourced discussion to make seeing his style necessary to understand the article. I'm going to keep stressing: this has been a long-time standard for creative professionals, to require sourcing of style or the like to be able to include non-free works representative of them. But I will further stress: I think there are sources out there that would then otherwise make this whole argument moot, I just can't break the language barrier for them. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "you understand that the guy is a comic artist". But what kind of art did he produce? There's a clear difference between Henk Kuijpers and Action Comics #1, or Quentin Blake, or even Hergé -- that much better understanding of what kind of art the artist produced is what the image contributes, without any further commentary -- and that is why it passes NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If no RS talked about the quality of the work, just saying he did comic art is sufficient for our readers and the picture is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not sufficient. If through the art we can give our readers a better understanding about the artist, namely a better idea of what he did, then that's a usage that policy -- NFCC #8 -- says is absolutely justified. Why sell our readers short, when policy says show them the picture? Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't have a free content mission with non-free exceptional use, I would totally agree that yes, we'd plop an image of the cover of the comic the guy created on the article about the artist, absent any text discussing the art, and be done. But we have a require to minimize non-free use to exceptional uses. The logic that the image helps the reader to understand the article in the absence of sourced discussion is a slippery slope that would allow for any crafty-enough editor to include any piece of non-free where they want. We have consistently required (with some IAR, but not many) sourced commentary to identify when an exemption can be made, as to avoid this slope. In the current state of this article, this image is not one of those exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Slippery slope" is the last defence of scare-mongering. NFCC #8 has been what it says from the start, and there has been no slippery slope. Anyway, the proper place to meet a 'slippery slope' is where images do not add to reader understanding, not to delete images which do add to reader understanding "just in case". Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the question at hand is if it meets NFCC#8, not if it meets fair use requirements. If you'd like to debate the fair use issue as a separate notion, I'm fine with that, but let's settle the NFCC stuff first. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since NFC is purposely stricter than fair use, we have to meet fair use irregardless. It cannot be treated as a separate notion. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's quite relevant. NFCC#8 is designed to meet the transformative nature of US fair use law by seeking commentary in the article using the image to justify its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tedious. NFCC #8 tells us to ask a direct question, framed with an eye to US fair use law: "Does this image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?" You've now agreed that it does. That should be an end to it.
Instead you seem to be claiming that, due to some super-sekrit protocol vouchsafed to the enlightened, the plain meaning of the black-and-white text of NFCC #8 is quite misleading, and that what is required is a quite different test, which NFCC #8 specifically (and intentionally) does not call for.
Why you think that should have any credence I'm not quite sure. But let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR decision that you claim has re-written policy in this area (without actually bothering to re-write the policy). Otherwise all of this wordage is no more than an ode to a small lump of green non-policy you found in your armpit one midsummer morning -- and worth as much. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, NFCC#8 asked two distinct questions:
"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,..."
"and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The first question is always the easiest to meet and nearly always yes if the image is relevant to the topic; and it certainly holds in this case. That's rarely the problem.
The second is where most people have a hard time justifying. Yes, the metric "would be detrimental to understanding" is a negative, and typically difficult to quantify to proof, but in so many past image reviews (FFD, FAC, etc.) a grey line test applied nearly in every case is if there is discussion of this image in the article in question - if there is this discussion towards the image, lacking the image would harm that discussion to not see it right there, and one could argue NFCC#8 would be met (There's other aspects here from other NFCC points, but that's trivial right now). No, this test is not stated because it doesn't always apply in all cases and may not be the only test, and it is highly subjective, but this example (a picture of the creative output of a creative person in the article about that creative person) is one where this has always been used. Now, that discussion itself is usually easy to provide (as is the case right now with the unsourced statement about the line art style), but that then links to our OR policy; if the text of discussion in question fails OR, then the text itself should be removed, and suddenly you don't have that discussion. Hence why we always come back to "sourced discussion" as the requirement to meet the second half of NFCC#8.
To take it another way, on the second point of NFCC#8, the single unsourced line about his style gives me enough to understand his style for the amount of context the article gives me, that I don't need an image to understand his importance as a comic author. Therefore, with the omission of the image, my understand is not reduced, and therefore NFCC#8 fails. On the other hand, if the style line expanded to include more detail on his style, comparison to others, influences he borrowed from, and so on, I could see that lacking the image would harm my understanding. But to create those statements, we would absolutely need sources as it begs OR; a WPian could not write that without introducing OR. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're going round in circles. We've been through all this already. NFCC #8 doesn't say "detrimental to the understanding of the discussion", or "detrimental to the understanding of the text". It could do, but it deliberately doesn't. What is says is "detrimental to that understanding" -- meaning detrimental to the understanding you would have, if the image was there.
Now, the article could present either
that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist; or
that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist, and show the reader what his work looked like.
Which gives the reader a better understanding of the man and his work? #2. Significantly. And that is the test that NFCC #8 lays down.
Again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted, so we can assess the quality of the discussion there. Because the plain reading of NFCC #8 is clear: what matters is what improves reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are just flat out wrong; hundreds of FFD and FAC prove that out. The "that understanding" is reference to the topic without the image, not with. With what is given on the page, without the image, I understand everything that is said, and thus no image is necessary, because there is no text given to understand why I need to appreciate his art style. You're trying to change policy to justify something that has long been practice. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
-- i.e. the understanding of the topic the reader would have with the image
There's simply no other way to read that sentence.
"its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic the reader would have without the image" simply doesn't make sense -- because you can't do something detrimental to understanding by taking the image away if it's already not there.
The meaning of NFCC #8 is therefore quite clear.
So again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted. Because WP:NFC is a core policy, and deviating from it should not be undertaken lightly. Jheald (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point. Because there is not verified (sourced) commentary about the artwor, there is zero need to see the artwork to understand the significance of the artwork given that there's no significance to this given in the article. The topic as presented is complete without the image. You cannot use the argument "an image is worth a thousand words" to justify NFCC#8. I'm in completely agreement that if we were at Wikia or any other site outside the Foundation's Resolution, we would of course use the image because it falls within fair use (assuming our purpose was educational). But that's not the case here.
And now here's the sad part because I said that sourcing would be everything. When I jump to the Franka article, there's a source, [19], which has this line "Henk Kuijpers is a realistic comic artist who works in a Clear Line style with a great sense of detail, especially in his backgrounds". Now, I can't judge that source as the best reliable source (I would believe it is given its a European antiquities dealer cataloging things like this), but all that we needed as I said was a source that stated that, and now I can fully support the cover image to demonstrate this. That's all that was needed, as I've been saying. I'm sure there's more sources that can be used, but at least now there is relevance to show the reader, while discussing the artist, an example of his art and now I can argue that omission would be harmful. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just this article, it's the articles on endless other artists too -- where by failing to show any idea of the art which makes them notable, we are systematically failing our readers.
Plus, in my view, half a line of text is a pretty poor fig-leaf.
The fundamental significance of an image like this is not that it relates to half a line of text. It is that it helps you to better understand the topic of the article -- namely the artist, and what they did -- text or no text. And that is the test that NFCC #8 sets out.
NFCC #8 doesn't talk about the topic "as presented" being complete. It asks: does an image add significantly to the reader understanding of the topic? And, would taking the image away be detrimental to that understanding?
The answer is yes, it would be detrimental, because the reader would then have so much poorer an idea of just what it was that the artist produced, and was known for. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that line of logic would allow for any non-free image to be used if it only helped comprehension. Take the Voyager screenshots above. Clearly every image can be claimed to help understand the episode, but very few are actually discussed short of text. But your logic says they should all be used. Nope, not going to happen. "Critical commentary" has always been a practical but unstated metric of validating NFCC#8, and why it appears in NFCI as when we readily accept uses. It provides a semi-objective starting point for NFCC#8 compliance. The need for critical commentary is also resonated in NFC#UUI of unacceptable uses that we don't just use images because they would be nice illustrations. This is a metric is used at FFD, it is used at FAC, and there's little room for any practice outside of these approaches. I'm not reinterpreting anything - this is just the norm for this. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not arguing for the Voyager images to be kept -- only if they significantly add to reader understanding. That's the test for NFCC #8, to be assessed by the community.
There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that an image is not expected to add anything particularly germane or significant, unless it specifically clarifies critical commentary.
There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that the image generally will add something significant, even if there is no commentary on the image.
And there are the remaining cases, where NFCC #8 has been left to speak for itself -- for the community to decide as and when, on the merits of the case, without WP:CREEP, and without making it harder to improve the wiki.
There is no "practical but unstated metric of requiring critical commentary" -- that's not the way policy works. Especially when that requirement (which was once added to NFCC #8 for a week or two) was specifically removed to allow NFCC #8 to better reflect the flexibility to do the right thing of the U.S. Law.
Instead NFCC #8 is quite plain: does the image add sufficiently significantly to reader understanding, which the community is to decide. For an image added to an article on an artist, to show the kind of work that the artist did, the answer to that is routinely going to be "yes". Jheald (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that an image without any commentary like in Henk Kuijpersadds significantly to a readers understanding of the article. Yes, the article looks more colorful and might be more pleasant to the eye, but this doesn't convey any trustworthy information to the reader. The reader can interpret the image in any way he or she wants in the context of the article, but that is just like any other unsourced statement in Wikipedia: it is original research. -- ToshioYamaguchi22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing for the slippery slope between showing a representative image of an artist's work without any non-OR discussion about it, and the use of a screenshot of a TV episode without any non-OR discussion about it. From NFC's POV, they fail in exactly the same way. Toshio's hit the nail on the head when it comes to NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept. Because adding to reader understanding is what we're here to do. That is what NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. For example, if the image shows some particular striking creature effect. But a random image from a random episode is going to have a much harder time meeting that criterion than a representative image from an artist's work, which is pretty much always going to meet the criterion.
But that is the call that NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. The material is verifiably by the artist, or from the episode, so this isn't a case of the article being used to advance some novel thesis or proposition. Rather, it is part of the normal editorial judgment of what verifiable material to include in an article, and what not to include. WP:OR relates to the content of the article, and the theses and propositions it develops. WP:OR does not relate to editorial judgements, talk page discussions, discussions about significance and other meta-level discussions that are discussions about the content of the article, and what it should be, rather than being the content of the article. File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg is not advancing some contentious thesis or proposition about the artist, it is merely being what it is, allowing the reader to see for themselves what his work looked like. Jheald (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept." is screaming to be gamed and is the start of a slippery slope, and why we don't let that arguement fly to justify NFCC#8. This is why for most images that fall outside of NFCI we consider the presence of sourced commentary as a starting point. Yes, I don't deny there's probably exceptions to that determined by consensus, but look at any FFD or FAC that involves these types of cases, and you'll see editors looking to only keep images where sourced discussion exists. To flip this around, if we truly have a notable creative person who's notability rests on their creative product, I do find it hard to imagine that zero sources would exist that discuss their creative product critically as to allow non-free image use. However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use - as otherwise it would fail NFCC and we're supposed to remove this within 7 days (unlike where with notability, we can take time to judge that fact). So it is not the issue that we would never accept non-free images of a creative person's work on the article on the creative person, but instead that we need to have that meet NFCC before it can be used. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use" -- No. You're pulling policy out of your armpit again. That is not what NFCC #8 requires -- and e.g. here is a DRV and a deletion discussion which upheld that. What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding. That is the test laid down by NFCC #8. "Sourced discussion" is not the test. I am sorry for you if you find that personally inconvenient, but you can't just dream up your own criteria because you find the actual policy inconvenient. WP:NFCC is not just a charter for deleting images. It is also a commitment to preserve images that advance reader understanding sufficiently to justify the copyright taking. That is what NFCC #8 tells the community to make the basis of its judgement. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding."
I don't know where you got this from. Anyway, that is not what the policy says. All that NFCC#8 says is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The requirement you give here doesn't exist. -- ToshioYamaguchi09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.
If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.
Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.
I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.
I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk)(COI)21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Wikipedia:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.
(ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.
(iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times [20]), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.
Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.
The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- ToshioYamaguchi15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)
The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.
Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.
But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk)(COI)16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all rather humorous
Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Wikipedia has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.
The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. [21][22]. Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.
The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.
So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it [23]. Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.
As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.
VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This could maybe go either way in a court. Since it is so easily replaceable, wouldn't it be safer to simply tag it as replaceable and get it deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been argued extensively in the past. First, the logo is in fact copyrighted and Prince has registered it as such, whether we choose to think it is past the threshold of originality or not. This is noted in the second paragraph of this section. Two, see this prior discussion. Three, the logo has been stripped from inappropriate locations many, many times. It always gets restored. Four, there are two rationales for the use of the image. Just in Love Symbol Album and Prince (musician) alone there are five uses. I.e., three rationales short. It doesn't really matter. The image will be used anyway, regardless of the arcane NFCC policy. That's what the common practice has been for years now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two uses in Love Symbol Album follow the above thread, so they'd be okay. Two of the three uses in Prince are appropriate - the "AKA" infobox section and the discussion about the "name" change that is discussed int he article, but the third use, again, to call out to Love Symbol Album is excessive. The other uses fall into the YYYY in music articles, and I can see only two fair uses - in the year where Prince changed his name to that, and the year when Love Symbol Album was released - and even this last one, I'm hesistent to say is necessary, given the 3rd use on the Prince article above. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am really unsure about this one. I think US copyright office normally refuses copyright protection for logos that can be easily described by a short text. I am unsure how to describe this one. It seems to be essentially a blue half circle with a bit cut out at the top and two quarter circles attached to the bottom ends of the first circle so that they meet in a single point at the bottom. It possibly could be described more accurately, but since such a description is possible in only relatively few words, it appears to be simple and thus ineligible for copyright protection. Just a guess on my part though, I am not a copyright lawyer. -- ToshioYamaguchi13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both images are needed as they depict two different portrayals of the subject matter; something which is a key and pivotal point of the article itself. As such, both images represent different significant information related to the articles subject matter and just one would not be able to convey the equivalent information. TunaStreet (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're talking about a live action show that doesn't involve extensive makeup, the images of the character would not be expected to fall too far from their actresses that play her. One image is justified, but the second can be replaced by a free image of the second actress without loss of educational value. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image is claimed to be the uploader's own work ("own photo taken at site"), but under magnification you see what looks just like a colour print raster, strongly suggesting this image was scanned from a publication in print. The presumption must be, therefore, that this is non-free content. --Lambiam16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the summary "Hari Singh own photo taken at site for Sikhiwiki.org scanned" I'd be prepared to accept that as face value, absent of evidence of previous publication. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This really belongs at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. However, I concur that it appears to be scanned. That doesn't mean it's not the uploader's work. However, I did find this, indicating the image belongs (and is copyrighted to) a person with the pseudonym "jeevan21" which is not the same as the uploader here. However, that upload postdates the upload here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshots of websites
I noticed recently that {{Infobox website}} displays an initially collapsed screenshot of the website. As most websites are copyrighted, we are both saying (under NFCC #8) that the image is so critical to the reader's understanding that we need to have a fair use screenshot, but the screenshot is so unimportant that we can show it as initially collapsed. Please see Template_talk:Infobox_website#Collapsed_screenshots and opine if desired. Thank you. --B (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excerpt from famous music review
Hi, I am fairly new to the NFCC policy, but when I uploaded this image, it seemed like it may have been consistent with NFCC #8 ("non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.")
this particular image is taken from a famous review of Illmatic in 1994. Here, for the first time, a debut artist was awarded the coveted '5 mic' rating. This review has historic value for hip hop music, given the prestige of The Source at that time. As you can see, this particular publication is very important to the topic - important enough to receive its own section in the article. Lacking visual commentary, however, I fear that readers could potentially be confused as to what the '5 mic' rating actually is.
Why? The 5-mic rating system is entirely unique to The Source. It is fair to assume that many readers won't be familiar with it, especially those who unfamiliar with hip hop journalism. And while the 5 mic rating is parallel to the the traditional five-star rating scale used by other music publications, it shouldn't simply be conflated. It just seems to me that a reader (absent some visual representation) might potentially confuse something like a '5 mic' rating with a '5 star' one - if it's only expressed using text. A visual symbol, on the other hand, could help make the distinction a lot clearer -- especially for an article like Illmatic, which contains so many other reviews and ratings.
So in terms of relevance to NFCC #8, I feel having a visual representation of the '5 mic rating' would help to avoid any confusion -- by visually delineating the difference between "5 mics" and the traditional "five-star" symbol used by other music publications. Without this, I feel the reader's understanding might be obscured.
Unfortunately, I don't think this logic applies, at least for its use on a song/album article. Just doing a quick check of sources shows that the Five-Mic rating itself is a noted feature of the magazine, so highlighting that is fine, no problem, and in fact can be stated as a "coveted" review. However, once you say that in text, then the visual aspects of how a 5-mic rating are shown isn't necessary on an individual song/album article, as by stating the prestige of getting five mics, you've distinguished it from other, less impressive 5-star rating systems so the conflation you anticipate is not there.
That said, you may (I'm not 100% convinced but you could justify it better) be able to use that image on the article about The Source. You just need to boost that section in that article to explain how the five-mic rating was coveted, etc. from other reliable sources than The Source itself. (Again, my quick check of sources show that that is certainly something that can be done). It's still a weak rational because the image of five iconographs of mics in a row isn't too hard to envision, but its a far better shot there than on any individiaul song/album page. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Please note, that every album on Wikipedia already features a "professional rating" box that contains visual symbols, corresponding to each of the major music publications. Judging from these other pages, I would say that readers generally expect to see some visual representation of a rating -- and not just text. Confining a rating a to text might seem feasible enough or even acceptable, but for most readers, it makes an article appear a lot more credible to include rating-symbols whenever possible. It gives ratings a certain profile within the topic, and it helps raise awareness about important jouranlistic distinctions in terms of how albums are evaluated. .
I think there's genuine enyclopedic value in including this image, for the sake of enhancing a reader's understanding of this topic -- and avoiding potential confusion. In the case of Illmatic, the absence of visual symbols makes it extremely vague to distinguish between 5 mics and 5 stars - especially because under the 'Professional Ratings' box, The Source is listed alongside Allmusic and The Rolling Stones as conferring 'stars' That alone invites the possibility of confusion. It would be helpful for readers to know that while the two rating systems are parallel, they are not the same. The star system is quite universal, but mic ratings are a lot more obscure, and I only want to help "increase [the] reader's understanding" by offering some sort of visual commentary that will familiarize them with it.
You make a really good point though: Having to explain a rating system for a reader is far more relevant for a wiki page dealing with the publication itself - rather than a particular album. Fair enough! But we should also remember that ratings have the potential to be relevant not just to the publications themselves, but also the albums that receive them -- especially when the legacy of that album has been shaped by the acclaim it received.
In this specific context, we are not just referring to a generic system of rating (which, in the grand scheme of things, is only a mundane concern), but we are citing a specific historical and symbolic moment that shaped how this album has been perceived. That's why I specifically chose to excerpt the review itself (or at least a segment of it) - rather than just include a generic logo of 5 mics. The review itself -- which of course, prominently features the 5 mic logo -- is fundamentally intertwined with the legacy of this album, in terms of its history, scholarship, and memorabilia. Most documentaries that allude to Illmatic will also mention this review; one major book even includes it in its appendix; and the review itself has even been featured in a recent deluxe edition of Illmatic, as part of a collector's set.
To sum up my logic then: Understanding the rating is secondary to understanding how this rating impacted the album's legacy - but in order to understand the album's legacy, you have to understand the rating, and if you don't, you will only have a partial grasp of Illmatics significance.
Again, I'm not that well-versed in NFCC. I must admit, much of this is new to me. But logic wise, it seems that the concerns I've raised fall under "significantly increase a reader's understanding" and "ommission...[being] detrimental to the understanding" Furthering the understanding of Illmatic (which is the stated goal of NFCC #8), requires an explanation of its critical reception (by taking steps to clarify the differences between each of the publications, and assigning greater weight to to ones that are 'coveted', 'prestigious', or quite simply 'unique'). Including visual commentary is the best way to enhance a reader's understanding, and it also helps to avoid potential ambiguities by making it significantly easier for a reader to distinguish the '5 mic rating' from other publications. Omitting a visual commentary, on the other hand, makes it harder to do so, and might potentially detract from a proper understanding of the album's historical and symbolic significance. Chubdub (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're entering an area where you are putting a lot of undue weight on one single review over the others. This is not to call out the Source's rating (being the first 5-mic to a hip-hop) as being unimportant - it seems, on my reading, to deserve that section that is there. Just that the importance of the 5-mic compared to other 5-star ratings as to require a picture to show that. I understand that in that field that a 5-mic Source review is considered far more prestigious than, say, 5 stars from Rolling Stone or a similar publication, and the fact its one of the few such works to get one should be called out. But at the same time, it is just another review that uses a 5-star-like system. It is just that the Source appears to be a bit more critical compared to other works. This concept happens all the times in other areas - for example video games , the area I work mostly, there's a few publications that are known to be tough reviewers and getting a perfect score on whatever scale it is is something to call out in prose, but in terms of a score relative to others, its just listed there (though these sources still use numbers or a plain 5-star system).
There's also another problem with the image, in that we also have something here that is easily described by text: that is, the 5-mic you have shows, pretty much what one can envision when you say something received a 5-mic rating: a picture of a microphone, repeated 5 times over. While there could be argument on NFCC#8 being met (as you are trying above), this aspect fails NFCC#1 since simply saying "the source gave Illmatic a 5-mic rating" describes exactly what that picture shows. And even moreso along that line, that picture doesn't help the reader, who may be unfamiliar with the Source and their 5-mic scale, to understand the importance of the Source's rating system over anyone else's. There may be other graphics that show this, but this is really something that can only be understood by text - and that means prose is the way to go. So I really don't think you can use this image on this page. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't want to belabor the points I've made already. I just feel there's some genuine encylopedic value to including this image. I think you're right to point out that the caption is basically redundant - might we simply change it into some more in-line with NFCC 1? Chubdub (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "[t]o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have File:1929RoverLightSixTM6124.jpg on commons which is virtually the same vehicle in colour even. Do we need a fair use b/w just because it shows a road and people for five articles? It is used in a gallery in two articles which is also a no-no, I think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it was, say, the photo of the car after winning that race (the first rationale listed), there might be reason, but all the uses seem to be "I want to illustrate this model of car, but this is the best I can find due to age). The free photo is sufficient replacement and this should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Scrabble. The NFUR states "The image is used for identification and clarification in the context of critical commentary of the work from which the screenshot is taken. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. Commentary in the article about the screenshot itself: Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original work, a single frame, being of comparatively low commercial value." The section of Scrabble (Scrabble#Television game show versions) where the image appears does not have such critical commentary; the image appears to merely show the logo decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC #8. RJaguar3 | u | t19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the show had its own article (assuming notability) it might be reasonable there. But the show doesn't appear to be notable, and just to show its title card on a larger subject is inappropriate. Agree it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.
This may need a split up into multiple discussions. The files fall in multiple different categories.
Eagle Scout images
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)#History of the medal contains a list of medals. File:Eagle Scout medal THF1.png is apparently a photo of a medal from 1912. As the medal was published before 1923, it is unquestionably in the public domain. However, as this is a photo of a 3D object, the photographer gains copyright protection to the photo (per Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet). There are 5 additional medals there, and those are very similar to the first one, so I would say that those also are in the public domain per {{PD-ineligible}}. Also, most of them were published before 1978, so unless there is a copyright notice, the medals are in the public domain for that reason. Thus: all medals should go away as replaceable fair use: someone else can take freely licensed photos of the same medals. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation was just beginning, and the images were being tagged. I may have jumped the gun, but they are non-free and the number crossed a nebulous line. They could be restored if needed, but at this point I don't see that happening. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk17:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further down, there is a section titled "History of the badge". The first ones are probably in the public domain for failure to include a copyright notice or lack of copyright renewal. The rest might be fine per {{PD-ineligible}} as the changes to the earlier versions are trivial. Can we use {{PD-Art}} here, or are the badges too 3D for that? If the photographer gains copyright protection, then all need to be deleted as replaceable fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America contains a lot of badges and medals. However, the article doesn't tell when the medals were first published, and this information seems to be missing from the file information pages too (and I only checked a few of them). Some of them might be in the public domain for some reason, but it is impossible to verify without more information. The article would benefit from one or two badges but there is definitely no need for all of the badges per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. As there probably exist some free badges, everything non-free should go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images are non-free and non-replaceble with free images. Since this violates NFCC I have deleted them.
I disagree with their (premature) removal. This is somewhat like Blind men and an elephant in that the images added depth to the article that is not available with just the text. They tell the story the the 100 years of the badge's existence. They should remain in one form or another. --evrik(talk)14:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please put them back until the discussion is over. Very few people have weighed in, and I would like to get a print out of the page as it was yesterday. --evrik(talk)18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced these are replaceable fair use. Their removal was premature. I believe this whole discussion needs the revue of an IP professional. --evrik(talk)03:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the original badge images have fallen into the PD (due to their age), then someone can take a free photo or make a SVG-type replacement image and license it freely. The original images were scans from a copyrighted book - while the badges may no longer be copyrighted, the photograph/book would still be non-free for our purposes. Hence tagged and deleted as replaceable non-free is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I think that the images were deleted too soon (ahem, Gadget), is that we can no longer see the page and how the images looked. It would be nice to see what has to be replaced. --evrik(talk)15:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State articles
Scouting in California contains a lot of logos. How are these clubs organised? Are they operated by some kind of government (so that they might be covered by {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}) or are they private organisations? Also, how old are the logos? It seems that many of the clubs are very old. If the logos also are old, then some of them might be covered by {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Unless it can be shown that the logos are free, it is inappropriate to keep all of them per WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to echo what Gadget850 has already said, "Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations ... CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such." He also addresses the age issue. So the issue becomes, as has been stated earlier, are these list articles. No, they are not list articles, and it is appropriate for the logos to be used. This is an important issue to resolve a there are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles as Scouting in California, check out {{Scouting in the United States}} and the several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos.
As I wrote earlier to Werieth, Scouting in California is the result of a compromise in long running debate over the notability of individual council articles. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. In 2006, so many articles kept getting nominated for deletion that the members of Scouting Wikiproject decided to Gabriel Valley Council&oldid=37053167 merge the individual council and camp articles into larger state articles to stop having to fight over hundreds of articles. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept.
This is not a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. As was recently noted on the DYK page, "... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?" Each council is unique to its community or region, and this is reflected in the selection of a CSP. Each of the articles could stand on its own, but that then leads to the struggles in 2006 of having to defend hundreds of articles over notability. Allowing the images to remain in the state articles is a much simpler solution.
The Scouting in California is the largest of the articles. If you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact an doesn't look like a list at all. Some of these pages, like San Gabriel Valley Council have moved back and forth from their own articles to the "Scouting in California" article. Making a policy based on the California articles is not fair. An equitable solution might be to allow the one use of each image, either in a state or local council article.
This is a list article. I'm judging this on the fact that none of the sections show significant signs of individual notability, and thus none of them would ever be their own article. If that was the case, there may be justification to include the logo as part of significant discussion of a notable group. This is absolutely not the case here; it's made to look like individual articles but is effectively a list article since you can't separate them out. Since they're used only as decorations and the images are not the subject of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a list. It is an article about Scouting in a particular state. I believe that each council is in itself notable, but I was on the losing side of that discussion in 2006. If it makes it easier, I'll break California into 24 different articles. That should make this discussion moot. --evrik(talk)03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. None of the individual troop divisions appear to have this, and ergo if you try to split them off, they will be deleted or remerged back to here. This gives you no allowance to use their logos on the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources? You're creating an artificial standard. I can guaranty that each of these councils get a lot of press. There are many stub and start articles that exist and are given time to grow and expand. Of course, Scouting in California is not a list, nor is Scouting in Vermont, etc. Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America is a list. There is a clear difference. --evrik(talk)21:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. A long standing guideline on inclusion metric. It is not a question that the issue of scouting in the state of California is a problem (the article isn't going to be deleted), but the individual divisions, must less so , and thus you are effectively listing them in this article. They would never stand on their own per notability guidelines. As that is the case, there is zero allowance to use the images without any discussions of the importance of the images from sourced materials, per NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you say, "They would never stand on their own ... " you really have nothing to back this up. This is just Wikipedia:Because I say so. Since you mention WP:N, I will add to what I said before. While each of the councils separately may not be prominent, they are in fact notable. Most have decades of existence, and have had years of press. Many of the larger councils have already been broken out. It wouldn't be that difficult to break them all out. Such is the case with Scouting in Washington, D.C..
Wikipedia:NFLISTS is in fact a content guideline, which is why it was posted here. This brings up another point (again). There are more than 50 of these articles. Each state is slightly different. California just happens to be the largest of them. This is a prime example of arguing the exception to prove the rule. Let me recap:
As the California article is not a list, nor is Vermont or any of the other states then there is an allowance to use the images. --evrik(talk)02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is an objective measure, significant coverage in secondary (non-primary, non-first party sources). The sourcing giving on the CA list page has just enough to establish that scouting in CA is a notable topic, but none of the charters have such sourcing; we would need sources outside of the scout organization and from local press to even begin to consider notability/stand-alone articles for any of the individual charters. Since you can't support individual articles for the charters, you are listing them in one large one, and thus this makes this a list article in terms of what WP:NFLISTS covers and its spirit as well. You simply have no reason why each chapter needs to have its non-free badge illustrated on a page that covers all the charters - they are purely decoration as given. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it would be helpful if we used the same language. They are councils, not chapters. Each council has a logo, and that logo found in the CSP, represents the individual nature of that local group. Thus was addressed by Gadget850 earlier.
Objective standards can be applied subjectively, as in this case. Now, maybe one day I'll have the time to fully expand all the articles to FA status, but that's not today. The charters, well, now you're just creating hurdles. The fact the councils exist is prima facie evidence of the charters.
You keep making up requirements for splitting up the articles. I can, in fact, build suitable articles that establish notability. What I was working on was cleaning up the state articles first. Let's set that aside for a moment.
Yes, a number of articles were consolidated. This does not make it a list. It makes it a large article, not on charters, but on the councils, their camps and their histories. You have never addressed the fact that there are more than 50 articles, you keep focusing on one state. Is Vermont a list article by your standard?
To start, the Vermont article is also a list - or at least an embedded list - just as the California one and likely (from spot checking) all 50 states. You are just listing out charters and their factual information but without any other context. This is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form and thus to which NFLISTS applies (whether a full list or embedded list). Again, the images are not providing any context per WP:NFCC#8 and thus are inappropriate. And no, just because something exists (and you can prove that it exists) doesn't make it notable - at least to meet the requirement for having a separate stand-alone article. If this could have been the case, there might be an argument to use the patch/logo within the state articles, but that condition is simply not met. I will note that Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, ergo WP:NFCC#8 is again not met on these other state pages. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep saying things like this, "is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form," but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable. As for their existence, the thing speaks for itself, and with that goes notability. Since you keep ignoring WP:Lists, your arguments are really more Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
How on earth is Scouting in Vermont a list? It is a recitation of facts. Yes, it is in need of editing and expansion, but it is not a list. Yes, most of the state articles are in need of work, which is what I was in the process of doing when the California article got tagged. I would like to expand the articles so they get beyond the barebones recitation of dates and other factual information. Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list. You can't use the page that is a list to prove that a dissimilar page is a list. In fact, comparing the two pages shows that Scouting in California is not a list. The arguments of seven years ago have caused these articles to languish as no one wanted to attempt to improve them. There is some irony that as soon as improvements started being made they started attracting attention again. It’s almost as if people prefer bad articles. It’s really tough to focus on improving the articles when so much time is spent discussing that this is a list: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, but this is not a list: Scouting in California. --evrik(talk)16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these councils have more than just factual information. I agree that the topic needs to be upgraded, cleaned and better sourced but it is not a list, it has a lot of context. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These articles "list" out each of the state's various scouting charters. It's a list. It may not use bullet points or a table or any similar structure, but it is a list.
Given that you just affirmed that Scouting in Texas works without images, and all of the other state scouting articles have pretty much exactly the same format and type of content (a brief history for the state, then a list of the various charters for both BSoA and GSoA), then you have just proven to us that Scouting in California (or any other state) does not need to use images. Remember the Wikimedia Foundation has required us to minimize the use of non-free work to maintain a free encyclopedia. Frivolous uses of images like this are exactly against that. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). As stated earlier, since the California article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Once again, you're wrong on the facts. There is no "listing" of the state's various scouting charters. There are no organizations called the BSoA and GSoA. The page(s) doesn't use bullet points, or a table or any similar structure, so it's not a list. It is a description of the scouting activities in the state. For comparison, there is a list here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America.
I did not affirm that Scouting in Texas works without images. Please don't play gotcha and twist my words. In fact I said that "Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list." Scouting in Texas needs to be expanded and a great deal of work needs to be done. The other articles do follow a similar format, but that is because of the efforts of the wikiproject to standardize them.
The problem is what you have said is not true. You cannot use the Texas article (a poor article and a list) to say California is a list. While they follow the same format, the California article is greatly expanded. The article is a honest effort to write about a notable subject and is far from frivolous. The fact is, you have chosen to ignore Wikipedia:LISTS and its guidance. Instead you keep reciting the same statements and playing word games, Wikipedia:Because I say so.
Let me repeat something,
Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable.
Exactly. LISTS is actually rather vague as to what defines a list - it doesn't require bullet points or a table, just that you are enumerating on a type of element. And going by your own words, if you think Scouting in Texas is a list, I do not see how it is any different from Scouting in California or other state scouting articles in that nature when you look at the structure. Even if you talk expansion, you are listing out each charter one-by-one - that is a list. It's not necessarily bulleted or formatted in that fashion, but it is an embedded list that qualified under NFLISTS, and thus making the use of images without commentary inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Transformers books is a list. It says so in the title. There is also only one image used at the top of the article. When you say, "When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X." Could you please cite the policy that says so? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:LISTS. Right now, you are both making it up as you go along. You have your conclusion, and are now adjusting your facts to substantiate that conclusion. Even if that policy exists, that doesn't mean that it is applicable in the case. Scouting in Texas is a list because it does little but state the relevant information. The California article has much more depth. Also, it is not an embedded list. The examples on that are pretty clear.--evrik(talk)16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware, LISTS is just a manual of style, and not policy. What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists (which is effectively what you have in these scouting articles) are subject to NFLISTS as well. We've been in this situation with many other list articles, we're not inventing something new here. It's just that you're looking for exactly what never has been spelled out - for lists or for non-free content in lists - explicitly.
But even then you have yet to show how NFCC#8 is met. The images can be omitted and the article is fully understandable. NFCC#8 failed, NFLISTS or not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am aware that LISTS is a manual of style. It is however, the only Wikipedia document that defines what is a list. You may want to lessen its importance, but that is a fact. Using your logic, NFLISTS is not policy either, but is instead a “content guideline.” I’d like to quote the top of the page on NFLISTS, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” What I am finding in this discussion is a lot of rigid and dogmatic thinking and little common sense.
I am sure that you have been through this with list articles, but Scouting in California is not a list article, nor is it an embedded list. While you keep saying that it is, when you look at LISTS, there are clear examples of what an embedded list is. When you say, "What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists are subject to NFLISTS as well." Could you please document in policy, manual of style, or content guideline where is actually spelled out? To date you have refused to do that. Otherwise, you're just making it up. The images lend more understanding to the article. In fact, since the article in question is not a list, then NFCC#8 does not apply.
You are listing out each charter within the state. It is a embedded list. LISTS does not explicitly outline the only type of lists that may be considered within its bounds, so just because you don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS doesn't mean it's not a list. You are listing out each charter, it’s hard to call that anything but a list.
And you cannot prove that NFCC#8 is met. I understand the article just fine without the patch images, since there's zero discussion of the importance of the images with regards to each charter. So even if you ignore NFLISTS, NFCC#8 still needs to be met. In fact, there is zero exemptions from NFCC - whether a list or non-list article. Every image has to meet all 10 points, and NFCC#8 outright fails for these. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never listed any charters. While you may say I am listing charters, you are not correct. What has been done is describe scouting in the state, highlighting the history and the organizations within the state. While there is a description of each of the councils (what you call a list, or listing) it is not a list. You and Werieth are the only two people so far that have expressed that opinion. Yes, because I don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS means it's not a list. I have granted that Scouting in Texas is a list, but solely to show the difference between the two articles.
The members of the Scouting Wikiproject have worked hard to make sure that all the images used in scouting related articles meet all ten points of NFCC. I believe that the images significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding, so that would cover NFCC#8.
I suggest this as a compromise: Californa will be considered an article, Texas will be considered a list. Pennsylvania will be given a period of time, say one month, to be expanded otherwise it will be treated like a list and the images removed. --evrik(talk)21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not acceptable. Everything in the CA article under the section "Boy Scouting in California today" is an embedded list since you are listing out each charter. PEr NFLISTS you can't use images without significant discussion about the images. It doesn't matter if you can't find anything on LISTS that looks like what you have, as LISTS does not specify "these are the only things on WP we consider as lists".
But ignore the list factor. NFCC#8 is a problem. Because there is zero discussion about those images, their removal does not impact my understanding that there are 24 various charters across the state and they have various camps and the like. NFCC#8 is two parts, while the first part - helping the reader to comprehend the topic - is an easy concept to met, its very difficult to see how the read must see these images to understand the topic. Hence they are simply not appropriate as they fail NFCC. The reason this is connected to NFLISTS is that this is what commonly happens with list-type articles that try to use images in bulk - they are there under a claim to improve understanding but show no claim to being required to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, list article, not list article, shouldn't really matter. The NFLISTS and whatnot just cover some basics, but the spirit of it does seem to more come down to NFCC#8 - what's important is how the images help the article. If they're not really adding anything much to the article itself, 'improving understanding' as the claim apparently goes, then they shouldn't be included, and they don't really seem to do much of that to me, at least in the California one. Were they free images there wouldn't be any reason that I can think of not to include them, especially since they are like logos, but unlike more standard logos these don't appear to be so important to the outwardly presented identities of the listed things themselves. -— Isarra༆18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i am traveling and will have limited online access until Tuesday. I, of course, disagrees that the California article is a list or an embedded list. That overly broad standard that you are applying cannot be fairly applied across all of en.wiki. The images do add to each section as they help illustrate the individuality of each council. I don't see any consensus here either. Opinion seems to be split. I am interested in developing some sort of compromise or consensus. I would be willing to add a discussion in each section describing the CSP. This is a standard that could be applied fairly to all the articles. See you Tuesday. --evrik(talk)
There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --evrik(talk)04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether it is a list or not is not the issue. Those images are unallowable as they all fail NFCC#8, since there's no discussion about the images and the article is readable without them. All they are, that you can justify, are pretty pictures, which means they fail as decorative elements. There's no other position we allow here. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional charter
The BSA was granted a congressional charter under 36 U.S.C.§ 30905: "The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."[24] The charter was used as evidence by the BSA in Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, which was ruled in favor of the BSA.
Thus, in addition to standard copyright, the BSA has other rights granted by congress. There are no time limits on these rights.
And poking around, this same issue came up in Girls Scouts of the United States of America v. Hollingsworth. 1960. 188 F.Supp. 707. Both cases involved trademarks, not copyrights. But the charter doesn't specify, and copyright laws were much different in 1916 when the BSA charter was granted and in 1937 when the GSUSA charter was granted (36 U.S.C.§ 80305).
"Fair use" is something a copyright holder can't deny to users. Nor does that impact our determination if the work is non-free. We'd need the BSA to grant a free license (as outlined by WP:CONSENT) to use them without question here, otherwise we need to apply more restrictive usages. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use and non-free are different. Most any image can be used as fair use, which is why we don't use that term anymore when considering intellectual rights. The question here is whether the images are free,, in which case there are no restrictions, or non-free with restrictions. Normally the older images would have an expired copyright, but the charter grants rights beyond copyright law. In my opinion, no BSA image can be considered as free. This needs review by counsel. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law trumps any rights the BSA may have. The Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America case had to do with trademark, not with copyright. This is an exceedingly important distinction to make. You will note that 36 USC § 30905 does not contain any language with regards to copyrights. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation got mad at Wikimedia for using its logo and ordered Wikimedia to remove it. The Foundation's then counsel Michael Godwin denied the request. See ["Wikipedia and FBI in logo use row"]. If a particular badge of the BSA is, for example, older than 90 years (1923 being the cutoff) they can not claim copyright; it has expired. There are a variety of other ways in which copyright could have expired. This chart from the Cornell Copyright Information Center explains it all. If rights are expired for a particular badge, there is nothing that the BSA can do to prevent a legitimate, non-trademark infringing use of the badge. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that Wrenn was a trademark case. The FBI is not covered by Title 36. My statements are not about the use of the emblems, but about the discussion that certain emblems are free due to copyright expiration. And yes, the charter does not have any language dealing with copyright, but it also does not mention trademark, and both Wrenn and Hollingsworth were trademark cases. Again, this needs professional review. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk17:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course welcome to get professional input from an IP lawyer. Regardless of that though, the norm for handling such cases is usually guided by the Cornell chart I linked, not by an assertions of restrictions of use. As I said, copyright law trumps such restrictions. If it's public domain, there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here, just as in the FBI case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"there's not a damn thing BSA can do about a badge being displayed here" I have never stated otherwise and I don't know why you keep bringing it up. My point is that there is no such thing as a free BSA emblem or badge regardless of age. Thus tagging older emblems as free is wrong and tagging others as non-free replaceable is useless. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. If a given BSA badge was first published before 1923, it is now irrevocably in the public domain. That, for our purposes, is free. There might be restrictions on usage due to trademark issues, but those have no application here except that we typically add a {{trademark}} tag to the image. Such images WILL be marked as free if we can prove they were first published before 1923. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False. The charter states "emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases" which means it applies to both both copyrights and trademarks, and it afforded those protections before the applicable trademark and copyright laws were ever implemented. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget, I'm quite sorry but you are quite incorrect. A charter for an organization does not trump copyright law. If what you say were the case, then all marks of the Boy Scouts of America would be protected under copyright in perpetuity. If that were the case, they'd have no need to register their works with the US Copyright Office. Yet, they have. A search of the USCO's online catalog finds 96 entries. Don't believe me? Search it yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the BSA also registers their trademarks with the USPTO, and Wrenn was a trademark case that invoked the charter. I can't presume to know the intent of the BSA's licensing division that oversees this, but such registration allows others to see their copyrights and trademarks. You can search TTAB on the USPTO and see where the BSA has brought opposition to a conflict in trademarks. So, simply because the BSA complies with copyright and trademark registrations does not mean that they are the only rights. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRADEMARKS, not COPYRIGHTS. Again, BSA's charter can not trump copyright law. They can and most likely do protect their trademarks in perpetuity. This has no impact on our ability to use the respective images here. If, for example, they are public domain we tag them as such and add {{trademark}} to the image description page. Regardless of their trademark rights, BSA can not prevent us from using the images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I HAVE NEVER NEVER NEVER STATED THAT WE CAN'T USE THE IMAGES. (all caps on purpose since I have made this same statement before and it isn't getting through) It does prevent any image being marked as PD regardless of age. Since this has become a circular conversation, the best course of action is to simply delete any and all questioned images. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not an image is public domain or not has absolutely NO bearing on whether it is trademarked or not. There are plenty of things which are ineligible for copyright but are protected by trademark. For example, see the Coca-Cola logo on the right a logo ineligible for copyright but eligible for trademark. The Coca-Cola logo is in the public domain. This does not affect its status as a trademark, nor does its status as a trademark prevent it from being public domain. There is no overlap here. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into legalities here, but I will say that if an image is commons-compatible there should be no issue with using it and that if it's not, we can use it under proper non-free guidelines. I know many want free images only, but such is not the case as they are still allowed under proper usage. PumpkinSkytalk00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BSA has rights afforded by common trademark and copyright laws. They also have rights granted by Congress in 1916 in the form of the congressional charter. Trademark law has demonstrated that the charter applies to traditional trademark law. There are no known copyright cases that have applied the charter to copyright, but that does not mean that the charter does not apply to copyrights.
"The corporation has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts."
It is my opinion that all BSA images are non-free and non-replaceable. Attempting to tag BSA images as public domain is wrong. If the number of non-free images crosses the undefined bright-line, they they must be deleted. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk12:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see copyright law in the US. I point out that it starts with nearly the exact same language - "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following" - yet copyright is a time-limited privilege from that. The same extends to copyright that the BSA may have - ergo BSA emblems and other works can fall out into the public domain after sufficient time has passed. The congressional charter does not give them perpetual copyright to their works. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state that the rights afforded by congressional charter do not apply to copyright law? Just because no one has invoked the charter in copyright law does not mean it could not happen. Would you have considered the charter to apply to trademarks if there had not been legal precedent? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Short of hiring an IP lawyer to review this topic for you, is there anything we can do to satiate your concerns over these badges and their copyright status? Since we are not going to be hiring an IP lawyer to do this, we have to operate from best knowledge and practice here. That practice dictates that copyright law, as outlined at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, is what applies. The BSA charter does not affect copyright law in the U.S. The absence of any case regarding BSA and its copyrights does not prove it owns copyrights in perpetuity. So, what's it going to take? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here, and just wanted to add that I do believe that the primary reason that language is in the charter for BSA is that normally works of the US Government are in the public domain to start; this language is only clear to say that the BSA can take advantage of copyrights for their works, and thus are not public domain on creation though may fall into that with time. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Government? The BSA is and always has been a private corporation. The BSA deliberately sought the congressional charter to preserve their rights: trademark and copyright laws were very different in 1916, and the charter gave the BSA the tool to preserve their intellectual property. The history is pretty interesting. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still. I have a very difficult time expecting the gov't even in 1916 to grant indefinite IP protection. There is completely counter to the aspect of copyright. Unless one can affirm differently, we should assume normal copyright protection exists and that some of these older images will have fallen into the public domain. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images others have been arguing as PD due to age/copyright expiry, but you are stating must be treated as non-free due to this charter. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget850 has claimed that all BSA-generated images will always be non-free because of the congressional charter that gave them such rights. The rest of us are pointing out that copyright on BSA images will eventually go away and become public domain after normal copyright terms, which would make some of the oldest BSA images free (and thus not subject to non-free requirements and perhaps simplify some of these discussions). --MASEM (t) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm assuming you were talking about the above Eagle Scout medals that have since been deleted under the claim they are in the public domain and thus a non-free photograph of them is free-media-replaceable. If your claim about perpetual copyright is true, then they would never be PD, and the non-free photograph would be acceptable. But most here are claiming that that perpetual copyright simply doesn't exist and thus the medals are PD and a free photo can be made of them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted them as non-free non-replaceable and crossing the fuzzy bright-line of too many non-free images in the article. I am presuming that zero is an acceptable number. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In closing: I remain convinced that the logos of the BSA and other organizations are protected by the congressional charter, regardless of age. Considering such images as public domain is wrong. I am open to reconsideration upon the advice of an IP professional. --Gadget850 (Ed)talk13:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 was a creative commons image when it was uploaded. Then the licensing was changed. For several reasons, I think it should be a free image. Thoughts? --evrik(talk)16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some problems with that image. The image is not a logo, as is claimed by the uploader. It's a pennant. The uploader does not claim that the photograph is his own work. My assumption is that the photograph of the pennant came from BSA and that the uploader chose to upload it as if it were a logo to use the fair use rationale. Instead, this appears to be a replaceable fair use case. RyanVesey19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a logo, nor an emblem or badge. It certainly doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright. The issue would be in the provenance of the image. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, the uploader was confused. Thy claimed both fair use and CC. It looks like a photo of an pennant made in 1927. I'll ask. --evrik(talk) 03:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm turning back Gadget850's last edit to that file page. It is not a logo, it is a pennant. It was made in 1927, and the Shenango Valley Council went defunct that same year. I have searched the database and I can see nothing to say that copyright was ever claimed by the local council on that pennant. --evrik(talk)21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for deletion as replaceable fair use. Someone can find the pennant, presumably in a museum somewhere, and take a picture. I've also tagged it for deletion because it doesn't meet criteria 8. RyanVesey22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is still replaceable. It doesn't matter where you move it, unless you take a picture of the pennant yourself, or find one uploaded under a suitable license, it can't be used here. RyanVesey21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f3/20121026053548!Windows_8_start_screen.png){kind=link}
_-_Edward_Weston.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Edward_Weston.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_boot_screen.jpg){kind=link}
_boot_screen.gif){kind=link}
