Wikipedia:Non-free content review

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

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)

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)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

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)

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)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

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.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Wikipedia first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Wikipedia. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide",[1] that Microsoft released with the Beta [2] "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see [3] and [4] for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #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. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, [blockquote], or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Masem: NFCC#1-replaceable as a free version can be created.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Masem. And the gif image is terrible. --95.69.98.119 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 28#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif. Cloudbound (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... [editors] who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik ^(talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
              • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel _Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people made up their minds from the moment this was listed here. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try and reformat the article, but it was reverted by another editor. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik ^(talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik ^(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I've added sources. --evrik ^(talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • You can't use the Pine Tree Web one as it is clearly citing Wikipedia, making it WP:CIRCULAR. The other (reading Google's translate) has little to speak directly about the logos and also being a blog raising questions of reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, you're right. I found another source and will look for others. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

KOFY-TV

I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG

I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:

1. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
2. 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
3. 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
4. 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
5. 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
6. 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
7. 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
8. 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
9. 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
10. 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
11. 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
12. 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
13. 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment

• Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
            • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete from Waterboarding: This isn't even a photo of the act, it is a painting of it! Anyone can make a painting of it. A painting by someone else would give exactly the same understanding. A clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

This violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the BSA Brand Identity Guide, I misidentified this emblem: File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg is the 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'. I will fix this.
• The emblem is currently used at:
  • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America): should use the proper 'Boy Scouts of America universal emblem' (Second Class Scout emblem)
  • Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • February 1910: not needed
  • History of the Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): I am fairly certain there is a training emblem; else the Trained emblem can be used.
    • File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg moved to File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • Proper version of File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg uploaded
    • Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • History of the Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • February 1910: image removed
    • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): image removed; will replace with proper emblem once I find it
    • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now uses proper File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
    • --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and in particular WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, wait, it's an American painting. Maybe that makes it PD due to failure to comply with copyright formalities, although I have no idea how to prove that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have had to be registered (falling into the 1950-1963 period where registration was required in the 28 yr term), but there's no easy way to search for this. It would make sense to consider it non-free until it can be found. As for its use, it's clearly fine on Milton Avery's page (an artist's work) but the other uses are suspect - there's not much establishing this as a major work that needs to be seen to understand those topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Avery is an important artist from the mid-20th century and this is a fine example of his mature work...Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a point made on the various "History" articles or the Landscape Artwork articles. It's included and Avery's name-dropped but there's no rational why this piece is more important than any other piece in the same family (contemporary western landscape artists) that we could probably find free replacements for if we're trying to demonstrate this period. Again, same probably with painting articles before - I know that the traditional way to present this in textbooks outside of WP is to show many many examples and let the work speak for itself, but we have a stronger requirement here and that method simply doesn't work. This is not to say that we need to remove those images "now" but just that the language can be improved to make them fit better to describe the importance of AVery's work. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do a copyright renewal search use: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I read somewhere that less than 5% were ever renewed in the 28 year window. Look at 27, 28, and 29 years after first publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in the 78-on copyright office search but I didn't look at the pre-records. I also note that Avery appears to be covered by the ARS ([5]) though that doesn't necessarily mean every work he did is covered. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem: If it was first published in a book or a newspaper, then I believe that you usually need to search for the book title or the name of the newspaper instead of searching for the name of the painitng. This is one thing which makes it difficult to search for renewals of paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding additional text as time permits...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Isobel (song)

I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last cover, the one that is a simple label, may be free - its text + simple shape and fails TOO. But 4 is still too many. One of the covers is clearly duplicative (there's a small change in the photo), not enough enough to justify it. The alt. art is reasonably fair to include per past discussions on regional variations. The music video image needs a lot better justification to keep. It's a Gondry video who is known to be visually abstract but the image doesn't correlate this to the article. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Book articles don't get multiple cover images. The article The Quest for Kalevala only has one cover image, not seven. Why are music products different? The main difference with music products is that cover images of music products provide less identification than cover images of printed publications since music more commonly is distributed without illustrations (for example on radio). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion within the last two years where the album project said that one additional cover if it is in major retail region and significantly different from the main release (eg: differences between EU and US versions) is appropriate but that's about all the allowance allowed if there's no further discussion on the cover images. So there's still a problem in this article, but we'd otherwise have to re-address that alt art consenssus. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@masem - it does 'correlate' - its from the video -look on youtube 2:23Sayerslle (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it appears in the video doesn't make it appropriate to include as non-free media here on WP. We need better correlation - specifically sourced discussion - in the text of the WP article that explains about the concept, creation, or the critical reception of the video in a manner that provides contextual significance. As I noted, since directed by Gondry who is known to be a master of the visual element, I am sure there is something that can be found for this, but that has to be found and included, otherwise, the image is just presented "here's a snap of the video, enjoy" and that flat out fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the whole song is explained by Bjork in the long quote there from 'eurotrash' - so in the still you can see what she is talking about She was born in a forest,- there it is behind her, the trees - between the land and the sky , as Basil Fawlty says, and the plane was a moth - She decided to send to the world all these moths that she trained to go and fly all over the world- so the text has explained the concept - so something has been found for this Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just explaining what's in the video isn't sufficient; the understanding of the video is not improved by having the image there over the existing text. We need something that expands more than just that that would make the image essential to add. I will also note, as a separate, that while there is quoted material in the article and the likely source is there, there must be an inline citation to that source material to keep that quote, otherwise, it can be considered a copyright violation; this is a separate issue from the non-free aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

well. its clearly not 'essential' - none of the images surely are 'essential' - just makes the articles more interesting to look at imo - what do you mean there must be an inline citation - it is sourced as it says at the start of the quote -to the eurotrash programme - do you mean it needs ref tags somewhere in the midst of the quote - what difference does that make? - i'm out of my depth here - I don't know all the rules clearly. btw- this is off-topic but can you tell me quickly if linking to youtube videos is frowned on at all at song/album articles? or inadvisable in any way, or is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

First, let me give you some help: Reference this article from Salon: [6], which specifically has the following quote (among others): "Certainly the fragile quality of light in “Isobel” recalls silent films.". There's enough in that article that can now be used to explain the visual nature of the video, thus making the inclusion of the image appropriate, and meeting NFCC#8. (There also may be other articles, but I hit on this one first) But that has to be included. As for quotes and citations, see WP:QUOTE on why we need to cite quotes, and WP:CITE for basic citation needs. On using YouTube videos, you need to be careful to make sure the video is actually copyright-allowable on youtube (normally: uploaded by the person that owns the copyright). That's more described over at External Link guidance. But to get to the point, the music video image certainly can be kept, since the Slate article, at minimum, supports the reason to see the video image. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - the quote was cited though, to the eurotrash programme - but I think I get the idea more with the text discussing, not just the narrative, but the 'art' of the video , - though the salon quote is pretty pseuds corner-ish imo - the light seems to dim and swell from moment to moment, almost as if the film stock itself possessed a beating heart (!) - i'll read the guidelines. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the cite, we'd want something more explicit (if its a program, the program season/episode information, so that it can be verifieid). As for the Salon quote, while a lot of the comments it makes are fluffy, it does establish - for purposes of NFC and Wikipedia - that the video gives off an old-school silent-era film quality which is something that is not easily described by text, and thus why I suggest using that to support the image. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Alagoas.jpg

This file is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

• Brazilian monitor Ceará
• Brazilian monitor Pará
• Brazilian monitor Piauí
• Brazilian monitor Rio Grande
• Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
• Pará-class monitor

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It also fails WP:NCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's the complete text of #3:
          • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
          • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
        • How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche

I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for interpreting your post differently. Although I would have liked to keep the anthology-like presentation of songs highlighting a particular period — as copied off Rush (band) — it's true that Queensrÿche hasn't been "relevant" for over 15 years. So I have narrowed it down to their two Grammy-nominated songs, and I think it will be good to keep in the two versions by the currently existing bands, as it helps people identify a distinction between them as long as they're still around. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the statuette and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, so we need a free licence from the photographer regardless of the copyright status of the statuette. See {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo part is not necessarily replaceable, depending on where the statuette is located. If it is a non-public place, then it is not easily replaceable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Commons file has a correct copyright tag (for the photo part), then the photo part is replaceable by cropping out the statuette from that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't solve the problem with the trophy, since all that would remain were the poster with the Yahoo logo, which is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the statuette. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I perhaps misunderstand what you said? Do you mean we should crop out the Yahoo logo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Clear violation of WP:NFG where the user refuses listen. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Question: Please explain why WP:LOGO should not be applied. Oh, and I did include commentaries on the images, so WP:NFCI #8 should also apply.
  2. Comment: "user refuses listen" is blatantly wrong and sounds very rude. I asked twice for a discussion before the removal of any content [7], [8] but can't find any contributions of User:Werieth on Talk:Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere. --jergen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No where on WP:LOGO does it say galleries of non-free files are permitted. There is/has been zero sourced commentary about the designs of the logos. WP:NFG is also listed as reasons to not include said images. WP:NFCC#8 hasnt been met. These logos are just used as eye candy. PS When working with NFCC, like copyvio, and BLP, the default is removal until consensus for inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To meet NFCC#8, we generally require sourced commentary, and not just discussion of what the logo looks like, as to establish contextual significance. Any image can be discussed without sourcing, and this sometimes is sufficient, but here as there's nothing else to make the need to show the logo important, it's not sufficient. Something along the lines of documented design choices or reasons to change, for example, would be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is indisputable that the presence of the logo's increases the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The only thing we can discuss is how significant the increase is and how harmful the omission would be. And how to weigh this to the other factors. --Egel _Reaction? 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is in fact easily disputable if omission harms the reader's understanding, as if there is no contextual significance, then the image absence does not harm understanding. Yes, they are related to the topic, therefore they do meet the first part of NFCC#8, but the topic about the scouting organization does rest on knowing the various logos used, in the present version, and thus beyond the main, current logo, are otherwise nice but decorative images and fail the second part. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then we are more in agreement than I thought. The arguments are correct, but the conclusion is not consistent. The logo is a significant part of the identity of a Scouting organization and therefore can tell a lot about the organization in question, if you know where to look. So there is contextual significance, so the image absence does harm understanding. As far as I can see, all the logos are the current versions. --Egel _Reaction? 14:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • One logo is fine for exactly the purposes you state - it is in fact the allowance we give for an stand-alone article on a notable organization. But any additional logos (for historical logos or subsidaries of the organization that do not have stand-alone articles) need justification for their inclusion, such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one. If that information isn't in the article, then the logo image is not necessary to comprehend the article and can be removed appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Where can I find the part "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one."? --Egel _Reaction? 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's what "contextual significance" means. Not just displayed, but discussed to some depth in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "how the design was made or why they moved to a newer one" has a low significance / urgency in the context of the discussion of the organisation as a whole. That are subjects to discus in a sub-section such as "History of the logo" of the section "History of the organisation" when the organisation has its own sizable article, in contrast with only a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. The logo itself has a high significance / urgency in the context of the information about the Scouting organisation as a whole, as explained above, and should therefore be included even if the organisation only has a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. We should use the opportunities that the rules provide us and not go invent ourselves stricter rules, for whatever reason. NFCC # 8 is clear to me: you can only use a logo when it is necessary for a good understanding of the organization, so for bands sometimes, often for companies and for Scouting organizations almost always. An explanation of the elements of a logo is needed because not all readers have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the logo. The explanation is not needed to provide contextual significance, because that is already present. --Egel _Reaction? 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one." is a nice rule of thumb (and nothing more) for some classes of images but not for the current main logo of a Scouting organisations. Review should done on the basis of the official rules, not on the basis of self-invented rules of thumb. --Egel _Reaction? 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I added the images back in, again, to keep the bots from tagging them for deletion. This, in essence, is the same discussion we had earlier (and still open on this page) about the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Savez_izvi.C4.91a.C4.8Da_Bosne_i_Hercegovine. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have sat this one out for a while solely because I didn't want to engage in yet another pointless debate. I want to note that Werieth is engaging in the same bullying tactics on Jergen used against me. Also, the demand that images be not placed in the article until this discussion is over is simply that, a demand. It is not actual policy and is made up. --evrik ^(talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually see the bottom of WP:NFCC the burden Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to ensure that it comply with policy. Unless there is consensus for usage it doesnt meet WP:NFCC and thus needs removed. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I should now also note that in placing the images back in the article to prevent them from being tagged by he bots and then removed prior to the discussion being over (which could take months), I have now triggered edit war with Werieth. Update I have added all the images back in ansd set them up so someone who speaks Danish, or is familiar with the images can write a description which will justify their being used in the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That was just reverted. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You dont include media, and then wait for justification for its usage. You have justification and then include the media. (You have things backwards) Werieth (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg

Use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No reference to this badge in the article text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just looking it seems the 723 communication as a group is actually being discussed in an entire section as are two other groups with their badges as well. First, I do not see any issue with contextual significance, which is the criteria in question. It makes no mention of any requirement that the badge be discussed in the article or section as the image is being used as to identify the select group it represents and wore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept that there are cases where the use of a non-free image for identification is acceptable, such as corporate logos at the top of the article about that company. I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article. Therefore, all the badges in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada)#Histories and crests of the old units should be removed. I do not question that those uses might be appropriate under fair use, but I don't see how they satisfy NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article.". Its Criteria 8. Contextual significance. The image may be used as it passes that threshold of context to the subject and is being used to represent the group as it was designed to do. It would significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to an understanding of the topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that a removal of this image from the article would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. There is absolutely no reference in the article to the image of this badge. The use is just for identification, which is usually only appropriate at the top of articles about the specific entity in question. Thus this use is a blatant violation of NFCC#8 and should be removed. The reader gains nothing through the presence of this image other than "Mhm, that squadron had a badge and it looked like this." Not having that short Aha moment wouldn't harm a readers understanding at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy should be backed with a link to such policy. There is none. It is not a blatant anything or this would be speedy deleted. Deletion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Using a non free image to identify a subject is allowed. There is no guideline that it be the user box only. It is used as a visual means of identification. That is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no Toshio. Stating that it can be used in the infobox is not a limitation to use only in the infobox. You overlook the full view of our policy on logos.

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Furthermore, sections should be regarded in the same manner as an encyclopedic article if a full article has not been created and use of portraits to identify subjects is common on Wikipedia and does not violate image use or non free content guidelines. However we do need to clean-up and fix issues on that page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use."

I understand the distinction, not how that relates to some perceived need to minimize non free use. There is a Wikipedia criteria for minimal use but that is in relationship to a subject not the project overall, which seems to be the point you are making. I know of no such need to minimize use of non free content unless it does not actually pass our policies or is a violation of copyright. The reason Wikipedia may use non free content is precisely because of fair use.

• "NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that".

What you are suggesting here is not accurate. You are stating that if a non free image can be removed and the subject still understood than it is a failure of NFCC#8. No. The actual criteria is: "'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". What that is saying is, if the addition of the non free image will significantly increase an understanding of the topic it may be used. It isn't about any understanding. Its about THAT understanding. So if the image is added because it does in fact add a significant understanding of the subject (in this case, a visual identification of a company and/or infantry type logo for this particular government agency or branch of the Department of National Defense within the country of Canada) then deleting the image would decrease that visual understanding.

• "The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that."

I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that we should be concerned project wide to an overall, overuse of non free content, but that is not part of the deletion discussion to say it is too many for Wikipedia for the individual argument. You have told me what you believe NFCC#8 means but I have challenged that interpretation. I am not attempting to upset or agitate anyone to make a point here. Unfortunately, in this discussion, you are taking the extreme when you say that by losing the logo identifying the squadron, that you lose nothing. That is simply not accurate, any more than removing the logo from any article that represents a company or team loses nothing. It may or may not be in one's view, but it passes criteria as a team or corporate logo for identification and I see no actual guideline or policy limiting the non free image to the info box only.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what I told you about NFCC#8 is the test used for many years now - we have to minimize non-free content in this way as its use is supposed to be exception and far less than fair use allowance would let us use (That's why its important that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project). If we can drop a logo and still understand the topic, it fails NFCC#8. We do make the case that if the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association as how it is meeting NFCC#8. But any other use requires explicit meeting of NFCC#8, meaning that contextual significance of the image of the logo has to be shown. Just displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP, and will fail here. This is a standard case where the images would otherwise be deleted without question, and no one has made a case that seeing the images is necessary to meet both parts of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that this has been dealt with properly if this is standard, but I would argue it really isn't. Could you provide a link to the policy or guideline which states that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project? I continue to state the obvious: your interpretation of a failure of NFCC#8 is incorrect as the policy is written. I also wish you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that you refer to with "[I]f the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association" as well as "displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP." I am unfamiliar with these.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First point, NFC rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", as well as from the Foundation's resolution "Such EDPs must be minimal. So NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work. Second point, NFCC#8 has two clear points (spearted by the comma in that). Let's put it another way. If you never knew that those logos existed and you read that article, is your understanding of the topic harmed? I'm sure it's not as as enhanced if the logos were there ("Oh, how nice, there's a logo"), but you certainly having lost anything. And if the logos were key to understanding the topic, there would likely be sourced discussion about the logos towards that purpose. That's NFCC#8 applied across the board. I will note that while NFCI#2 does allow for logos, this is assuming all other NFCC parts are met, and we're still failing NFCC#8 here. I point to the footnote of NFCI#1 where we do allow non-free images to be used in infoboxes without any other commentary about the image , and while that is written towards cover art, it is implicitly applied to logos as well. I will point out per WP:LOGO: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." --MASEM (t) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(As a note of process, Amadscientist dropped a note on my talk page that they had a response to this but lost it in pending edits and may not be able to retype it for a day or so, so this convo is still pending). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

As a free encyclopedia and an open source, freely edited project, our goal is freely licensed content. As free as possible. Public Domain is preferred but we are allowed to use images with various licenses as well. When using an image in any article for any reason, we should always use the freely licensed alternative when one is available, however if an image has significance to the subject and can be demonstrated, it may be used per our non free content criteria.

The Rationale section at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is basically a disclaimer/explanation/mission statement. It is not, for example, part of the policy or criteria. Also, it is not a part of the individual discussion or reasoning for an image itself.

Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.

How we do this, is to encourage the use of content with a free license (public domain - no restrictions) or, at least, CC 3.0 attribution license which is the license for use of Wikipedia's content, requiring attribution of the author or photographer.

• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

This portion explains that, to keep Wikipedia from possible legal issues, we limit the amount of non-free content. We do this in a stricter manner than US Fair Use case law (as there does not appear to be any actual Fair Use laws) as well as copyright law. How we limit the amount of non free content is set forth in the criteria and policies. Some ways we do this is to limit where non free content can be placed as far as article space only, no use is sandboxes, essays, talk pages etc.

• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

This is stating that we actively strive to only use what is needed per consensus using the policies and guidelines. (let me save this and continue before I crash)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say "NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work", what you are missing is that each article may not be of a single subject. Non Free Content Criteria is aimed at the subject and assumes an article, but in no ways limits it to a full article use. So, while the use of multiple Non Free images is not ideal, it is not a violation of policy or guidelines. In this situation each image identifies a separate entity and subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Give me a little while more before responding to get the rest in)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Full non free image use criteria check

(some bolding for emphasis and separation of text for individual clarity with bolded comments and numbers have been replaced with bullet points)

1. No free equivalent.Y Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.Y (no free image available and cannot be created)

(This portion does not apply as it cannot be transformed or replaced) Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

(This portion is not criteria, but a gauge for editors when uploading. It is not separated into A, B, C because it is not a part of the requirements, but suggestions on how to determine such. While the "test" is in two parts, a yes to one or the other is not an automatic exclusion. "Probably" is not absolute here, which is why it is not a required portion of the criteria)(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

• Respect for commercial opportunities.Y Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

• 1. Minimal usage.Y Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. (This section does not require that the full work not be used. only that it only be used is a portion will suffice. A portion of this image would be confusing and would not suffice) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

• Previous publication.Y Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
• Content.Y Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
• Media-specific policy.Y The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
• One-article minimum.Y Non-free content is used in at least one article.
• Contextual significance.Y 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. (As I stated above, the context is that this is the symbol of this entity, squadron or team. The visual identifier does increase the readers understanding of the group by showing the image that is its official seal or logo. Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone)

• Restrictions on location.Y Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
• Image description page.Y The image or media description page contains the following:
  1. YIdentification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
  2. YA copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
  3. YThe name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

I am off for a while, so I leave this discussion with that. Ultimately, this is up to the closing admin to decide if any consensus has been formed from the strength of the arguments made and whether or not no consensus would mean the image would stay or not etc.. Thanks for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguably all your points are correctly take except NFCC#8. The way NFCC#8 is read is not how you describe it, at least towards the second part: "Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone." There is a lot of NFCC that are removed from articles (I point you to our FFD logs) where if this was the reading of NFCC#8, we'd be keeping tons of images, because of course removing the image will be detrimental since you can't replace the visual representation with text easily for all of these. But that's not the metric. We are looking for discussion about the image - the whole contextual significance part. Again, take the example if we never had those images in the article, and consider the text that is presently there. My understanding of the topic has not changed one iota without those images because the images are not discussed at all in the current text. Because my understanding has not been harmed with the absence of the image, NFCC#8 fails. This is the baseline test used across the board, logos are not exempt from this.

Now, I will stress again that consensus has determined that when we're talking about the top-of-the-page infobox about an entity, published work, or similar work, where a single identify image would be used in the infobox or at the very top of the page to represent that entity, then the test for NFCC#8 significance is different in that as long as the topic has merited its own stand-alone article - reading that there is likely going to be a good deal of text about the entity or work, that the contextual significance is there due to the implicit aspects of identification, branding, and market associated with the topic when it itself is discussed at length (read: the footnote of NFCI#1). This is the only time that one can present a non-free image without discussing the image itself to meet NFCC#8. In the case of these images, the specific divisions do not have notability on their own and thus there is no implicit allowance for a logo without discussion about the logo image in order to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem trying to push his deliberate misunderstanding of policy again. The requirement to pass NFCC #8 is not and never has been (about from a few weeks about six years ago) whether the image is being discussed in the text.

The requirement is whether it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic -- something significant that would be lost if the image was not there.

The issue for the community to decide is whether or not the understanding the image provides is something significant, in the context of the topic of this article -- is it somthing highly relevant, or is it merely tangential?

That's what the arguments need to address. I have to say I think people trying to establish these images are more than tangential have got quite a challenge on their hands. But there is no policy requirement that they absolutely have to be discussed in the text. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the second part, whether omission of the image harms understanding of the topic. This is why generally (considering IAR) if the image or concept it shows is not discussed in any form in the text, omitting it is not affecting the reader's understanding of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. See 15:59 above "something significant that would be lost if the image was not there."

Omitting an image affects the understanding you would have with the image -- that's what can be lost by omitting the image. Policy is quite clear, intentionally referring to understanding about the topic, not understanding about the text. This has been gone through so many times, why do you insist on flogging this dead horse? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy is not to protect the inclusion of non-free images, it is to be able to make the exception for their inclusion. I've looked, and that's clear throughout the early stages of NFC's development (pre2008). (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 is a good example) that it is able when the exception is made to allow non-frees, and why NFCC#8 is written as it is - "significance" and "omission" are equally weighted tests. The only "protection" that applies to NFC is how we are encapsulating fair use law within the requirements of NFC to help protect the Foundation. Mind you, I am aware that there are editors that would want to be overly aggressive in removal of non-frees where they are appropriately being used and in that sense we have to make sure NFC is being treated fairly both ways (for inclusion and for removal); but we should not be calling NFC as a means of "protecting" the inclusion of non-free images. The Foundation asks us to treat these as exceptional as part of their free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(And to add, I see you were a part of these discussions then in 2007-ish, but in reading them now, I'm not seeing where you're getting this interpretation from in term of "protecting" non-free use, as well as the omission factor. All the discussion there seems to emphasis on discussion of the image in the text, or in limited cases what has become NFCI#1 + #2. It's consistent with how I'm arguing this.) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC cuts both ways. It's there to protect appropriate content, as well as to remove inappropriate content.

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24#New_Criterion_8 is a useful reference, showing some of the alternative wordings that were rejected. The point is that it is useful to think about what is gained by adding the image, what is lost by taking it away. "That understanding" it seems to me plainly means the augmented understanding of the topic with the image, that has just been the focus of the previous part of the sentence. It's hard to logically construe the phrase in any other way. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.

But getting back to this case 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) and the three logos at the bottom, if we applied what was the consideration in at least 2007 - whether there is significant discussion about these entities in the article that would allow for an image for identification. That's a fair question for consensus to decide on - in other words, I wouldn't dismiss the images just because they are logos used in an article but not about the entity of the article, but whether there was enough discussion about the entities in question that necessitated the logo (of course, barring any on-point discussion specifically about the logos themselves). In this case, I'd argue that these don't provide that - the three sections in that last para are likely pulling information from primary sources (there's a few sources listed but the details in the article text aren't fully backed by these - but I'm not questioning validity here), and thus fails the significance test; that is, there is not enough present in these sections that necessitates the need to visually connect the topic to its logo. (Or reiterating points from the 2007 discussion, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it needs a visual identifier). But that is a point of discussion, as long as it is understood that the reason to keep the images is not just because they illustrate those groups, but because consensus has decided that there's enough discussion of those groups that illustrating their logo would be appropriate under NFCC#8. And I would argue that this is a border-line case here - if there was just a bit more sourcing and text to help place the groups into a broader context instead of just much of the internal aspects, I probably wouldn't be complaining about the logos there. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just got back from vacation. I see the discussion has continued. I will read through more thoroughly but did glance some mention of the archives and consensus discussions of the past and the fair use policy of 2007 (the year I began editing actually). I am going to run through these archives and if I think this merits further eyes, this may have to go be for the village pump. I know all of us as editors like to believe we understand the policies and guidelines, but here we clearly have issue with some of the definitions to be used and whether or not the wording can be construed in any particular manner. Having taken part in a number of fair use image discussions myself, I will attempt to check on some of the consensus results pertaining to images, logos as well as text to see how things have been handles in those discussions and if they have any bearing on this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK, what does the Foundation have to say about the subject. It was brought up earlier and when doing a search for NFCC#8 discussions I fell on the foundations policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

Resolution

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

(Lists resolutions 1 through 6. Of interest to this discussion in particular is the specific wording in resolution #3, which reads (bolding for emphasis):

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

I do not believe I am stretching an interpretation of that to say that our Exemption Doctrine Policy SHOULD allow identifying protected works such as logos. Am I wrong here? Now, there is a good deal of reading and the debate goes back a good deal of time but I can surely quicken the research by attempting to work backwards as the 2008 debate I came upon obviously may not been settled to that extent, however...another important aspect of this discussion is also showing a change in wording that I think needs to be addressed as to whether that is where the policy has been somewhat confused here when discussing NFCC#8.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion was also interesting and I can't help but be slightly confused with Masem's take on the NFCC#8 discussion and when it was nailed down and why. I would also just say that I think I would have to side with one of the actual editors involved with that consensus than one who was interpreting it, let alone one who's interpretation I saw as being very different from an actual reading of the discussion. First, the specific wording was nailed down on July 22, 2007 and was edited into the EDP as having consensus from the talk page [9]. What was not nailed down and was removed later was the line "Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

Remember that some parts of what the Foundation's resolution is is guidance, not requirements. If we were to interpret the Resolution, the bolded section as you highlighted, exactly, then the German wiki would run afoul as they don't allow any non-frees, when the argument you're making is that they are required to for, in this case, identifying works. Instead, the statement says that one way that they would agree that non-free exceptions could be made would be for identifying logos - whether the project chose to allow it, and to what degree, is up to the project. So we can be stricter than the Foundation in that respect. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Masem, but you are incorrect. "should" has specific context. I am sure you have been in policy discussions were the difference between "Should" and "Could" have been picked apart. "Should" is guidance to attempt to allow it and "could" is only suggesting it as an option...period, with no strength behind it other than a suggestion. Also, I am sure you understand that individual Wikipedias cannot override their country of origins laws themselves where their servers may be located. English Wikipedia observes US law as our servers are in the US. In theory sure..we can be stricter however, that is not the case here. Our policy on logos spells out their exception for use and the policy itself does not state a limitation to info boxes and as I asked, how does that effect articles with no info box?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if what you say is true, then the German wikipedia is violating the Foundation's "requirement". Heck, even commons would be do by that logic. It's not, you're completely misreading the statement. And remember, this is what the Foundation said, nothing on en.wiki can change that. The "should" is implying that if a wikiproject opts to include non-free, then the exceptions it allows "should" be of these "high value" media, which includes identifying images. We aren't required to allow identifying images, just that this is an example that that Foundation believes merits exception for use if a project determines that to be the case. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Before we get to deep in arguments I haven't stated, lets remember that there isn't a violation of the Foundation's resolution for another country to remain within their laws and I hope you understand that the foundation itself is asking that we consider these particular things mentioned when determining our standards. That is the discussion and debate. Not what Germany does.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, you made a statement that says we have to allow logos because the Foundation says so. That is absolutely not what the Resolution says. It uses the example of logo for identification as one possible reasonable allowance if the project chose to include it. Nothing strong that requires us to allow logos, as you stated. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I find nothing in any of our non free content policy or criteria that limits the use of non-free-images to article info boxes only and prohibits them from section use to identify the subjects of individual sections. In fact, from my understanding a section can grow substantially to develop into its own article and then have the use of such images in an info box...if an info box is used. Since info boxes are not required could there really be such a guideline limitation? If so, is this realistic?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at the talk pages, not just the main page changes, around 2007 (Archive 24 I think it was, but see the discussion about). NFCC#8's wording was written in considering allowing top-of-page infobox identification or when the topic was of significant discussion in the body of a larger article to allow identifying images (cover art and logos were combined in this discussion). It wasn't written in any more explicit because it was presumed at the time that was obvious.

Realistic, there has to be some line to separate out just dumping logos into article just because you can force them into infoboxes, and actually having the logo serve a visually important function in contextual significance. The top of page of which the cover art/logo represents has been unstated as unquestionably allowable because it makes sense - if you have a stand-alone article on a topic, meeting notability guidelines, there will be plenty of discussion about that topic, and thus the identifying image fits. Any other use where the image isn't itself the subject of discussion will likely fail NFCC#8, though that's not immediate. If we're talking about a logo of an entity in the context of a larger article, we have to determine if there's sufficient discussion about that entity to merit the logo. Just because an entity is talked about and it possesses a logo doesn't mean the user needs to see the logo to understand that part of the topic.

Much of this is unstated, but it was apparently because most editors recognized that identifying works were only appropriate at the top of the article. Even the ALBUM project, when it comes to album covers and alternate covers, has guidance to limit the number of alternative art covers used. So we never needed to be more explicit about what cases identifying images could be used. The most recent change in this direction may have been the addition of the footnote on NFCI#1 after we had an RFC to affirm that the use still made sense, and you can see by the RFC's listed - at least applied to cover art - that top-of-page identification use was the only clear matter. Logos would not get an exception from the same. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem, could you link to that discussion please. I know I ran across an RFC last night while researching this. I am truly reading all of these discussions and there are many, including the lengthy discussion of July 2007 where the specific context, reasoning and wording for our policy were hammered out, a very detailed discussion on a proposed change to NFCC#8 in 2008 and at least one other possible RFC that I saw that had not yet been closed and no consensus formed from what I saw. Let us continue to work through this if possible, but I respectfully reject any interpretation that relies on "unwritten rules". This policy has withstood debate since its inception. Even Wikipedia:Verifiability can't say that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP policies - including NFC - are based on descriptive measures of what is done in practice (and not prescriptive, putting out rules that don't meet practice), so there are effectively unwritten rules; identification images have long been of this nature. The RFCs in question are listed in the footnote for NFCI#1 (there's three of them). --MASEM (t) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no unwritten rules that apply in this discussion as you are really discussing unspecified considerations that in truth have little relevance if no argument can be advanced using a specific policy or guideline as the reasoning for the decision. That is just basic. And the point is not as much to get you to change your view, but to simply defend mine and others positions over the last 6 years in regards to the use of non-free logos to identify the group or organization that it has context to. This applies to the article in general and there is no policy or guideline that prohibits it....in fact the actual template for logos has specific instruction for use in the article or a section.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Cart before horse; our policies follow practice including unwritten statements (or those that may be long-term patterns in XFDs and other areas that simply haven't been well documented) I will continue to point to removal of logos through FFD as justification to remove these. Further, just because we have a template doesn't necessary mean its use automatically makes the images right; there's already a new question about these "free pass rationale" templates if they have a valid use or not.

Ignoring cases where the logo itself is the subject of discussion, there's clearly a range of allowable uses of a logo alongside text discussing the entity it represents: we have no problem when we have a standalone article on the entity for using the logo at the infobox. On the other end, just because we namedrop an entity doesn't allow us to use the logo. There's some point where using the logo alongside such text but without discussion of the logo becomes reasonable, below that where it would not be appropriate. That line typically has been when the entity has sourced discussion about it, as if it could have a standalone article if one so chose. This is not an absolute line and its one determined by consensus, but I can't write that down because it's been a defacto point for FFD in the last several years. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's another analogy referring to a horse that may fit here but it doesn't have to do with a cart, but a stick...(a little humor).

With regard to our policies following practice, that is not entirely correct as that assumes that we just make decisions based on what "we" have done in the past. The entire basis of changing consensus relies entirely on the fact that a consensus can change, for whatever reason. "If" the current consensus is what needs changing....as I said, I don't believe there is a consensus for a number of your points. You claim there is a consensus that the use of non-free logos is limited to info boxes. Yet still have not explained how such a requirement is possible when info boxes themselves are a matter of consensus as content and not every article will have an info box. While you continue to use the wording in one section of the policy that refers to info boxes, you do not explain how such an exacting and precision use of the overall policy isn't inappropriate. Your explanation to the Foundations very position and guidance seems to be dismissed with comparisons to other Wikipedia. I can't speak for other Wikipedia but, in the English Wikipedia, we are actually trying to comply with the wishes of the foundation that funds our volunteer work and gives us something to donate to. Whether that is images, text, research or copy editing, it takes work to do these tasks and we have extensive written guidance. In an open discussion we speak of all our written "rules" and we might consider unspecified considerations as they come up, but we don't say there are unwritten rules that dictate our actions to interpret what almost all our guidelines state to be an excepted use of non-free logos to identify the subject in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the Foundation's resolution - in fact, I fully stand behind it. I have been pointing out that their resolution does not require use to include logos for non-free exceptions, and instead only says that this is a reasonably type of allowance for it. (It is important to remember that the Resolution was written after our NFCC policy was mostly in place and basically a response to it to standardize the en.wiki approach across all its projects. I am not excluding logo use in articles that don't have infoboxes; it's completely reasonable that if an article doesn't employ an infobox that a single lead logo image used for identification is acceptable for the same purpose. You notice this isn't spelled out exactly and this is exactly the type of unwritten consensus and practice that we have throughout the project. Most people involved in image maintenance recognize this and thus why we never have had to spell it out exactly, because its common sense. That's an example of why policy and guidelines are all descriptive and not prescriptive - we can only change when consensus changes, and as these practices have gone out for years, there's no need to change. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing that anything is required. It isn't important to remember when the resolution was written in regards to when the NFCC policy was put in place. Look, I really believe you are working with a false assumption. I feel you are confusing that something may not be spelled out directly as having an "unwritten consensus". Masem, you could use that excuse to argue either direction, but the truth is, we have enough guidelines that do spell out directly other uses that allow the end result to be, using non free images in sections as identification of the subject, without comment about the image itself. You have to demonstrate some guideline or policy which supports your position and I have to say...saying there is unwritten consensus is just a weak argument. It really is. I have demonstrated that the actual full guideline, including the lead (which is a summary of the entire policy) does permit this use, that the NFCC policy does not exclude it (in this case) and that there is sufficient contextual significance to use the image as identification of the subject as that is the purpose of the logo. There is no "common" sense here. Non Free guidelines must comply with US Fair Use law for a reason. For the proper use of non free content. We make up our own guidelines in a manner stricter than US law to comply with a minimal use as well as other considerations and the community has spent countless hours discussing the issues in great detail. The resulting guidelines and policies, as well as a change in the upload process, adding more detailed instructions for use, making it more difficult for non free content to be misused, along with our templates with full use instructions, are all that result. Unwritten consensus? We don't use such on Wikipedia. It isn't a consensus if it isn't discussed. Is there a culture of acceptance to such things. Yes. Is that right? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely easy to upload and use non-free content that fails to met our policy because some of the policy requires human review (NFCC#1, #3, #8), so until someone recognizes the problem, non-free can be misused. Even now, there's question whether the non-free logo rationale template is really appropriate since it takes the work out of thinking about why one needs to use non-free within WP. And again, I stress: our policies and guidelines are meant to be descriptive of practice so if practice and consensus change but the policy/guideline isn't updated to match, that doesn't change the fact that practice/consensus works that way. Ergo WP does indeed work on "unwritten rules" particularly if no one feels the need to update the policy/guideline to reflect the process better. In the case of logos, its been well established in practice that the only real acceptable place is when the logo is being used to identify, as an infobox image or top-of-page on an infobox-less article, the topic the article is about. (WP:LOGO even supports this: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria")). There is some limited allowances for using logo without commentary if there is another entity discussed in depth in the article in question, but most other times, just because an entity that has a logo is mentioned in an article, using its logo to identify it fails the requirement of being contextually significant (in other words, the overall topic is normally understood without seeing the logo of the subsidiary entity). Again, stressing: for any image, not just logos, a non-free picture to illustrate a topic but without discussion of a picture - unless it is the identifying image for the page topic - nearly always fails NFCC#8 - this is how this has been interpreted for years, and the policy and guidelines all point to that, even if you don't believe it explicitly says that. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, since an info box is not really a part of an article structure it cannot be assumed to be a part of the article in terms of any requirement. That being said, articles and sections are pretty much considered the same in regards to many guidelines and policies as a section may well be long enough for its on article. Images are used in section space as they would in any part of the body of the article. An image being used to represent the subject would be placed in the lead section. That is the separation in an article, not the info box. But some articles are not long enough to have a TOC and don't have a separated lead. How would you handle that? It is very much like a section of an article. But what is most important is that there no guideline that states that the image cannot be used in a section and the lead summary of the WP"Logos it states the content guideline as:

Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. There are three main concerns with logo use. First, they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria. Second, logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns. Third, there are editorial issues about adhering to a neutral point of view and selecting an appropriate logo and representation. The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Nothing in the criteria says anything about placement in the info box only, and the information in the body of the article is to allow use in info boxes, not to limit them to that. Portraits are not restricted to the info box. They may be used in sections. Non free content may be used in sections. There really is absolutely no reason non free logos cannot be used in sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NixonandMeir.jpg

Query, This is sourced to an official archive, Is this an official State Department photo, if so it could be freely licensed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say anything without more thorough research, but if the image is from NSA archive, then the publication on the site given in the source link might be the first publication ever, in which case it would be copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if the photo was taken by a gov't employee, then that would make it PD-Gov; on the other hand, if it was a press photo published by the US Gov, that still makes it copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The image shows high-ranking Israeli and American politicians, so it was presumably taken by someone working for either country's government. If it was taken by the US government, then it is in the public domain. On the other hand, if it was taken by the Israeli government, then it is presumably not in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• I was unable to find this image at the Nixon Presidential Library archive or at NARA. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:Glenane.jpg
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster

An editor has removed these images from the page on the grounds that they are not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Having read the guidance I believe he is wrong and that the inclusion of these files is both related to the text and adds significantly to the readers knowledge when researching the army regiment.

My comments on the users talkpage are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is not needed to understand the organization, it is being used decorative File:Glenane.jpg doesn't need to be re-included as it is already used in the article about the event. Finally File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg isnt referenced in the text at all, thus failing WP:NFCC#8 part two. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Werieth is approaching this in an encyclopaedic fashion. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is an historic record of a very simple application form to join a very complicated regiment and is very much referenced in the accompanying text. The attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment's base at Glenanne is "parented" at the source article and the file is very relevant to that incident. That it is repeated in a sub article is of no consequence in my view. File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster are posters commissioned by political opponents to the regiment and show historically how there was a campaign against the UDR. They are required for balance of opinion. In an article as sensitive as this which has been fought over many times, editors must get the WP:WEIGHT of opinion correct otherwise the article will not comply with WP:NPOV. The removal of these two political posters could affect the NPOV balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to add that I am currently engaged in a rewriting process of the UDR article, as can be seen from the many changes over the last week. I have not arrived at the "Political comment" section yet but when I do I fully intend to make reference to the poster images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has it right for NFCC, which these all fail. The application form is "interesting" but not the subject of discussion in the article, and thus the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed by its omission and it fails NFCC#8. The Glenanne photo is inappropriate since it is duplicating the use on the appropriate article for the attack (where the photo is properly used under NFCC), and does not here aid in the reader's understand of the regiment. You don't need to show opponent campaign posters to meet the neutral POV - you can explain in text that the regiment has opposition. Basically, just because something exists, NFCC does not allow us to use an image to simply illustrate this - we need contextual significant that none of the tagged images show here. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant "context" here is that the topic of the article is the UDR. An image does not necessarily need to be discussed, if in itself it conveys something important to reader understanding in that context, beyond what could just be conveyed in words. I don't see a lot in the File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg over what could be conveyed in words; on the other hand IMO the :File:Original Anti-UDR poster does I think have a power and a forcefulness as an image which goes beyond what a mere bland text description would convey, and which I think does usefully convey to the reader the viscerality of the opposition that there was to the UDR from some parts of the community, which is a key thing for the article to communicate. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If these files were deemed to be out of context for non free fair use it was incumbent upon Werieth to discuss the images on the article talk page firstly as per WP:IUP#4. Had this been done it was (and still is) possible to modify the text to bring the images into line with the guidelines quoted although I believe the issue is moot in this case. All of the images are being used in a correct historical context and add to the reader experience. This has been done in a clumsy manner at a time when the article is being rewritten and tightened up. I suggest the images be restored and a period of time given to allow me to fully comply with the concerns stated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective is completely against policy, you dont write and article so that you include media, you include media because the article requires it. Not the way you want to do it. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fundamentals for editing the wiki is WP:GOODFAITH. You have been shown it by both myself and Calil on this occasion. These images (barring File:Glenane.jpg) have all been discussed at length for around 10 years and always been agreed by editors as adding to the experience of reading the article. Your position of authority (whether official or self styled) also carries with it a responsibility. From where I'm sitting you appear to have neglected that in your lack of good faith towards myself and the other editors involved at Ulster Defence Regiment. To explain: it isn't a case of making the text fit the images - it's down to how the text is written and what emphasis is laid upon the images. If I have made errors in my editing which have orphaned the images then I need to be given the consideration of being allowed to correct that. As has already been pointed out; you should have been polite enough to raise concerns about these images before deletion. If you had examined the talk page you would have seen that extensive rewriting is going on. Yes it is sometimes necessary to delete text or images for the benefit of the article but in this case I do not agree with your unilateral declaration without discussion. Nor do I agree with your violation of the 1RR rule. As Calil has pointed out, you are not exempt from sanctions and as I have frequently reminded you, you should pay attention to ALL wiki guidelines, not just the ones which suit your current agenda. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have an "agenda", it may have been discussed for years, however I doubt those who where discussing it took WP:NFCC requirements into consideration (this rarely happens due to peoples lack of understanding NFCC). I have made no assumptions of bad faith, if anything I have taken a fairly neutral position in regards to the motivation of your edits. My actions have been fairly impartial in that regards. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling the partiality of your edits into question. What I'm saying is that you are a deletionist and in being so you are losing sight of other criteria which matter. In other words your agenda is to delete. Discussion is the most important thing on articles and you failed to consider how the incorporation of these images could be discussed. A proper discussion on the talk page could have avoided all of this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, I am not a deletionist, why have I uploaded over 200 non-free files if my agenda is to just delete? Werieth (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS just did some number crunching and Im actually in the top 300 uploaders with regards to the amount of non-free files that I have uploaded. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have put my opinion to you. It's all very well you citing WP:NPA to me btw but yet you've ignored WP:IUP#4, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:1RR. Do I need to remind you that editors such as I give so much time to Wikipedia and we expect to be treated with a little respect when there is an issue. I am in the middle of rewriting that article as I've said manifold times now. How do you think I feel when someone deletes images without a collegiate discussion? I'm sitting here surrounded by books reading to start editing constructively yet I've spent my day trying to make a case for saving these images? Yes, there was a better way to do it - discuss, discuss, discuss, then you can't go wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is a personal attack. WP:IUP#4 doesn't apply as I am not deleting any files (just removing a use). GOODFAITH isnt an issue here either as I never said you where inserting these files in bad faith. as for 1RR, see also Wikipedia:1RR#3RR_exemptions. I do tend to take all relevant policies into consideration when reviewing the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend it to be a personal attack. You should have discussed the removal of the images however. Politeness is a standard wiki protocol. You could see the article was being worked on and could have made suggestions regarding the images, I would have welcomed that. Your link to your exemptions only applies to WP:3RR. As you have already been advised by a sysop you are not exempt for WP1RR as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you are not familiar with articles concerning The Troubles it would be a good idea to read this and other associated material. I have told you a number of times I am prepared to consider the images more carefully when rewriting material which may have been part of the causality of their removal. It boils down to the same thing however: you have not taken my objections in WP:GOODFAITH. You have shown no consideration for the rewriting of the article and above all - you have failed to discuss before removing the images. Thereby creating an unwarranted diversion from the real work of refining the UDR article. As said before, all of this could have been avoided if you'd adopted a policy of discussion as recommended by the wiki.

I repeat my earlier suggestion of restoring the images and allowing me the time to reconstruct the text (which was originally totally inclusive of the images). This is not a question of making the image fit the article, it's a question of using available material in the correct place and in the correct manner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

/facepalm . You don't get it, Feel free to improve the article, I will not re-include media that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. As you have seen above there might be justification for 1 file. You again need to re-examine NFCC. You shouldn't change text to justify a file. Before you add the file, the article should have a requirement for the file. When using NFCC you should ask can the article be understood without this file? If the answer is yes, the you should really question whether or not the article really needs the file. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, with respect but in my view it's you who isn't getting it. This article has been fought over so long that some items have become orphaned. I have told you on multiple occasions that is being addressed but can only be achieved over a period of time. I have suggested that you return the files so that the text around them can be restored to include what made them relevant in the first place. Furthermore, and after consideration, I suggest you remove the File:Glenane.jpg file from the sub article Glenanne barracks bombing rather than the parent article. For the avoidance of doubt, the Glenanne Barracks was a satellite base of the 2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment and contained two companies of 2UDR - no other troops were present. This makes the UDR article the parent article. Again, pointing out that no disrespect is intended towards you or your efforts but when the text for "Recruitment" and "Political comment" is properly restored, the article will be crying out for the inclusion of the images so all you've done is highlight the need for this but the files will eventually be restored with full supporting text. It follows that this discussion is a waste of your time and mine - despite your good intentions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The image File:Glenane.jpg has now been removed from Glenanne barracks bombing and restored at the parent article Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces. As agreed by all this file is relevant and used properly with the objection being that it was used twice. Now it's only being used once. Fair?

For further reference: I am in two minds as to whether or not the article on the Glenanne Barracks bombing ahould be kept on the wiki as there is a separate article entitled Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment which I believe should incorporate the information, thus rendering the Glenanne article an un-needed repetition. All things in time however. The UDR article requires a lot more work before I will be free to address other issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The image was perfectly fine as an example of the damage from the barracks bombing, and NFCC#8 would have been met there. The link from the Regiment page to the bombing page would have been just fine and why the image wouldn't need to be on the Regiment page. (And I've no comment if the Glenanne bombing page should be merged into the Attacks page, but if they are, that still makes the image better on that page than on the Regiment page since that's what the image is specifically about.) --MASEM (t) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I dispute what you're saying and I'll tell you why: there is no need for a separate article on every event the UDR was involved in, or the IRA for that matter. It's much more encyclopaedic to keep as much information as possible on the UDR article itself, to the point where it starts to become too overcrowded or too long. All of these separate articles have been created to add undue WP:WEIGHT to certain events as a result of the terrible infighting that went on for far too long on articles concerning The Troubles. The wiki is much better served in my opinion by the reduction of such articles. The Glenanne bombing was a direct attack on the UDR and that's where the info, and the image, belong. You might disagree but WP:BOLD doesn't. If you have a particular interest in articles on the Troubles may I respectfully suggest you join the discussion on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. If you don't have this in your area of interest I suggest, again respectfully, that you leave such discussions up to the people who have the interest, time to give, knowledge and sources to create and fine tune articles with appropriate collegiate discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not disagree that considering the three articles together (the Regiment, the Glenanne, and the attacks) that there is probably one article too many, though all can't be reduced to one due to the size of the Regiment article. If it were that all the info on those three pages were just on the Regiment article (in the depth that the Glenanne part goes into) then yes, I can see justification for using the image there. But until this "merge" happens (and because its under the Troubles, its definitely one that needs consensus to do so) the Glenanne article exists as a separate topic, and the picture is only relevant there (it's showing a direct result of the bombing), with the use on the Regiment page excessive and inappropriate (the picture has little to do with the Regiment topic directly). All I'm speaking to is the NFCC aspects of this, which requires that picture to be on the Glenanne page for all purposes, while the Glenanne page exists as a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interim I have copied the relevant information to the "attacks" article and am now going to request deletion of the Glenanne Bombing article as most of it, quite frankly, is cruft, just padding to justify having it. The "attacks" article is a list which doesn't warrant images, ergo the only sensible place to put the image is on the parent site - Ulster Defence Regiment. I'm not trying to thwart NFCC by doing this, in the words of Martin Luther King, "I have a dream". In my case it's a complete tidying up of all articles to do with the Ulster Defence Regiment and if you look at the parent article, its history and the talk page, you can see I've been working hard, in a collegiate and sensible manner, something which sysops are probably glad to see given the amount of time they've had to spend on the WP:BATTLE which has been going on for over 10 years. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As a non-NFCC issue of caution - the Glenanne article should be merged and made a redirect, not deleted, as it is a searchable term (particularly if you've copied information from it into the Regiment article, to retain the history). As the net NFCC solution, that is appropriate for the bombing photo as long as the Glenanne article is merged (or deleted). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to redirect the article. It does sound like a suitable alternative to deletion though. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If not for Troubles, you could be bold and simply replace the contents with the redirect tag (WP:REDIRECT for instructions). But with Troubles that might be seen as a problem, and so a merge request (WP:MERGE) would be the right way to do that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that once I've finished with the item I'm working on at the moment. Thank you for the advice. At least something practical has come from this intervention although I would have got round to these modifications eventually. Just hadn't intended to be distracted so soon. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to do it with a redirect and I've learned something new as a result. Thank you again. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

I note with disappointment there has been no further activity on this item. After great pondering I would like to offer the following as a solution:

1. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg to remain where it is in Ulster Defence Regiment#Formation and recruitment. On the grounds that it illustrates an important historical document outlined in depth in the section

2. File:Glenane.jpg to be removed from Ulster Defence Regiment#Opposition forces pending the outcome of discussion at Talk:Glenanne_barracks_bombing#Discussion.

3. Discussion invited on File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster. I believe these are important illustrations of the depth of opposition to the regiment felt by at least one political party. It is my view that they have been orphaned by the removal of text which violated WP:WEIGHT. The section they were residing in Ulster Defence Regiment#Political comment is in my sandbox awaiting a rewrite which will take in the political comments and viewpoints encompassing the entire 22 year period of the regiment's history. Once this is done I believe the section will reflect the need for both images. I am happy to submit the rewritten section for reconsideration once it is done. In the interim I will not attempt to restore the images.

May I have comment/discussion on these proposals please? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Point 1, image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Point two, file should be removed. Point 3, after the re-write we can re-review the need for the images. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Following our discussions (and some with others). I have taken this action: File:Glenane.jpg has been removed. The "Political comment" section has been rewritten, with an eye on what existed previously, and the new text at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Non-constitutional_politics makes reference to File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster with the background for their production and deployment, properly sourced.

I invite comment regarding the proposed use of the two political posters on the grounds that they are required to illustrate what such propaganda posters look like in the context of the political argument surrounding the regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing any need for the two posters in that section. Werieth (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The text in the section makes particular reference to them as a propaganda tool. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Right now both File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg] and File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg need to be removed. Werieth (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Update:
• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:The Yellow Crad.jpg
• File:The Blue Card.jpg
  • All of those files clearly fail NFCC and need removed. Werieth (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg. Properly discussed in the text.
• Keep File:The Yellow Crad.jpg and File:The Blue Card.jpg. Copyright is accurate and both items are properly referenced in the text and of historical importance. This entire section is the only section on the wiki which devotes any serious attention to these historical documents.
• Delete File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg. I accept the image isn't needed. After the A Class review I will discuss the options of starting a separate article or at least a full section to Cpl Eric Glass and at that juncture the image can be reintroduced. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These all fail WP:NFCC#8, just because something is discussed doesn't mean that it needs an image. Werieth (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my belief that the three historical documents I have voted to keep have a significance which greatly enhances the understanding of any reader of the sections they are contained within. I believe that the removal of these images from their respective sections would be detrimental to that understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The application form is simply that - it is an application form with all the usual fields one would expect to find on such (name, address, family, why one is enlisting). If there was some unique factor that was the subject of sourced commentary in the text that appeared on the form (I have no idea what, but I can envision extreme examples) then it might be okay, but it just is a piece of typewritten paper with all the usual fields one can expect. It does not aid the reader in any way. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes it unique is the heading. "Ulster Defence Regiment". It is so markedly different from any other form to join the British forces at that time. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just being different in name is nothing unique. The article does not say how this form is "markedly different" from any other recruitment form (outside of the name), nor do I believe this is the case given what information we see. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So, apart from deletion, what would you see as a possible solution to this issue? It is, in my mind, an important historical document. It must have been incredibly difficult to get hold of and I don't think it should be lost from the article. I realise that Wikipedia is not a repository for historical documents but I firmly believe that, in this case, the document fits the text and enhances a reader's understanding of the subject matter.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as the document is published elsewhere, it is not our responsibility as a tertiary source to include it. While it may be a historical document, it fails to meet the high standards we have for non-free use, simply because it is only just an application form. It would be the type of thing that would be in a museum display about the force, but something we just can't support without further discussion about the importance or differencing of the form. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you suggesting in fact that further discussion of the application form in the article would render the file more important in your view? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be further discussion of why the application form is unique (not just because it was specific for the regiment). There might be something that you can discuss from sources, but given the way the form looks, I don't see a singular piece of information that seems out of place for a registration form, and doubt that you'd be able to find this. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fresh proposals

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg - Following all our discussions I have agreed with Werieth that this file should be deleted. It has been removed from the article.
• File:Glenane.jpg - Following discussion a consensus has been reached that the image be removed from the UDR article (which was done last week) and any other pages where it is repeated leaving Glenanne barracks bombing as the only page where it appears.
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg - I am not in favour of this image but would ask copyright editors to consider its restoration in UDR article as it provides a POV balance. This has been shown to be quite an emotive issue with some editors in the past, and for good reason - Troubles articles need balance.
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster - Another editor has replaced this with no prior knowledge of the reasons for the file's removal. I have left him an explanation User talk:John and been open with my view that I think the Bloodmoney poster should be included again. He has indicated he may join this discussion. My own views are exactly the same as the ones indicated for Bloodmoney. I think it should be in there for balance.
• File:The Yellow Card.jpg - As detailed on the file's own talk page I firmly believe this image passes all qualification for staying. It stands alone now with its own section. The usage of this document and the repercussions arising from it are amongst one of the most contentious issues arising from The Troubles and I would like to see it remain. If you want more explanation in the section Ulster Defence Regiment#The Yellow Card then by all means I will oblige - I have the sources. In this case though it is the actual text of the card which tells the story so I would propose the section be left at its current size and let the image do the work.
• File:The Blue Card.jpg - This image has been removed from the article and I support its deletion unless another editor wishes to make use of it on another Troubles related page. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The John Gawlik House.jpg

A 1909 image of a US subject is clearly PD surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Depend if that's a publication date? As regards non-free, I assume the building's still standing in a comparable form? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And we're missing #10c rationales here on both articles it is used on. Unless we have assurances of being out of copyright we need to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeterminate copyright status. Without a publication date, we have to assume that it is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The building still stands, so a freely available image could be created. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:1870 school room.jpg

An 1870 image taken in the UK, may well be public domain under EU-Anonymous, In any case it would be PD in the US as it's prior to 1923. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo has to have been published prior to 1923 to qualify for PD under that rule. "Published" in this context means reproduced in a book, magazine or newspaper, or issued as a postcard. We don't have any proof that it was ever published at all. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:2nd Nickelodeon Universe logo.PNG

Threshold of originality not met, this is a textlogo of US origin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; I think there's enough original material in the word "Universal" (images of planets etc) that this one is over the line. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:County Limerick Council.png

Replaceable with alternative image, based on same blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy.jpg

This is a simple text cover, so threshold of originality may not have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; My opinion is that there's enough originality here that the cover qualifies for copyright protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo raybestos.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logybaymiddlecoveoutercove.JPG

This is picture of a seal (Canda has FoP). If the seal is dated prior to 1923 then this could be public domain. In any case a crest could be replaced by a drawing made from the Blazon surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Canadian FOP doesn't apply to 2D works such as this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg

I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in Pokémon episodes removed from rotation. While I definitely do not dispute that this is a notable scene, I do not see how this still image significantly increases a readers understanding of that section (the flashes cannot be illustrated by a still image anyway). The use in Photosensitive epilepsy seems to violate NFCC#8 as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable here as well as the epilepsy article. Showing the full effect would of course cause the same problems the episode caused with WP readers so we can't do that, but it is fair to with how much discussion there was over that to show one example of where than more than 50% of the screen was a flashing color cycle (implied by the red area) and how that led to the epilepsy factor. It wasn't just one tiny patch, it was basically the whole screen. So it's reasonable to show this in both cases. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to use a screenshot to illustrate that. The fact that the scene included a large patch showing an explosion illustrated with alternating red and blue flashes can be described by text. The part of the image showing the characters seems to be irrelevant for describing that fact. I would support including an animated version, but I do not see how a still image significantly increases a readers undertanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pokémon episode Beauty and the Beach - screen capture .jpg

The use of this image in Pokémon episodes removed from rotation#"Beauty and the Beach" (Episode 18) seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. The fact that James offends Misty by showing off his inflatable breasts can be described by text and a removal of this image wouldn't hurt a readers understanding of the section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the image is in the clear, but I am aware about the issue of this episode in the American version and know it was a source of contention among fans. However, key word is here is "among fans". I have no idea if one can find sources in reliable works that discuss this and the issues it causes, specifically relating towards what 4kids considered to be a level of indecency that would prevail through other works they did (eg just describing in text would not be sufficient if this information was found). It might be possible, but those have to be found to keep the image in place. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I found two sources

• Tobin, Joseph (2004). Pikachu s Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon. Duke University Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-8223-3250-7.
• Camp, Brian; Davies, Julie (2007). Anime Classics Zettai!: 100 Must-See Japanese Animation Masterpieces. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 978-1-933330-22-8.

I am not sure whether that is enough to keep the image, though. However, I suspect there might be other sources (in particular sources published in the US, such as magazines, maybe newspapers), but possibly nothing that I could easily access. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pokémon episode 1 screenshot.png

The use in Pokémon, I Choose You! seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFCI#5, film and television screenshots are only acceptable for critical commentary. I do not see how this use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Leela Krishnudu cover.jpg

Tagged as Non-free, but also claimed as GFDL, these can't both be correct. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

GFDL needs OTRS. Non-free needs FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Wladyslaw Anders2.jpg

It is noted on the image, that this may be an official photo by the British military, if so would the copyright have now expired? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Zachara2.JPG

This is a playbill/program of US Origin. Whilst I am willing to be convinced otherwise, I find it unlikely that such an item would have it's copyright renewed, and thus this image would be in the public domain, the copyright in the playbill having lapsed (or not been registered in the first place.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is very unlikely that someone would renew the copyright to something like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WAPA-TV logo 2007 TAG spot.svg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-Textlogo, PD- shape? (Origin is Pueto Rico, which I reasonably assume to follow US practice.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Transfer to Commons. Most likely {{PD-textlogo}} by Commons' threshold these days. I put it here on en.wp out of an abundance of caution 4 years ago, back when we were (or at least I was) less brave about post-1989 shapes in logos. The font is well-known and well-used; the stripes are pretty much those of the Flag of Puerto Rico, the design for which has existed since the 19th century. --Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VRT (Belgium) logo.png

Threshold of originality may not have been met, PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WBRZ.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Malwa India 1823.png

An 1823 Map is clearly public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Utair-express2.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Unidosxingenieria.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Marshall cavendish logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met. PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:MitsubishiFusoTruckofAmericaLogo RGB.jpg

Threshold of originality not met. PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The three-diamonds shape with FUSO logotype is certainly not mundane nor within the public domain. The three-diamonds logo is copyrighted and trademarked by Mitsubishi (which means three-diamonds in Japanese), used globally by a large number of Mitsubishi companies, and defended legally as necessary. See [10]; [11] Use in the Mitsubishi Fuso article conforms to the Wikipedia Fair Use Standard.

I doubt that the Mitsubishi Fuso logo is eligible for copyright protection in the US, so I think this could be tagged with {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure whether this is eligible for copyright protection in Japan. I looked at [12] but didn't seem to be able to find a section clarifying this. The threshold for protection might be lower in Japan than in the US. On the other hand, even if it would be protected in Japan, the copyright might have been expired already (protection usually seems to last for 50 years). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Per common's page on TOO, for Japan "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." Fails TOO in US and Japan, can be treated that way, but we can at least minimally put PD-USonly if someone worries that the Mitsubishi logo could meet copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not copyrightable but File:Mitsubishi Fuso logo.png is better so I suggest that we delete this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Montgomery and Patton Discuss Operations in Sicily.jpg

Is this an official photo, either British or US? In either case it might now be PD if so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Motorcity.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Tooncast.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD Shape or PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Balducci's Logo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes infobox screenshots

• File:ST-TNG 11001001.jpg
• File:The Battle screenshot.jpg
• File:STIcarusFactor.jpg
• File:STBonding.jpg
• File:STSamaritan.jpg
• File:STtheHunted.jpg
• File:ST-TNG Rascals.jpg
• File:ST-TNG The Big Goodbye.jpg

These images appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. I've only spot checked some, there might be more. These images are being used at the top of the episode article without critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that a number of these files are being discussed at FFD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I relist them at FFD and close this discussion? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is duplicative of FFD. Close these. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those that I already listed here don't seem to be discussed at FFD, so I guess there is no real duplication. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If these aren't at FFD, and that the use of screencaps through the TNG episode series is of question, then I recommend doing what was done with ST: Voyager images recently, getting the Star Trek project involved to determine which screencaps are unnecessary. They've been open to this pruning before. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all NFCC is fairly clear and must be applied strictly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ThreeMenWalkingII.JPG

Some of the uses seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7NavahoMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and possibly WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7StruggleMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7BushmanFamilyMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No commentary about this specific sculpture. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7Bali-cockfightMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7AustralianyouthMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Blue Submarine No. 6 characters

The following non-free images are being used in this article:

• File:Mei-Ling Hwang.jpg
• File:Myong-Hae Yun.jpg
• File:Freeda Verasko.jpg
• File:Sukune Tsuji.jpg
• File:Red Spot.jpg

Those uses might be problematic per WP:NFLISTS and possibly violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover1.png

If this is clearly a NASA image, then this is 'free' content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that NASA took the photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'd appreciate if I you used your common sense. Who else than NASA could possibly take a photo on the moon??? (Petulda) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover2.png

NASA image , so incorrectly flagged as Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The rationale sources it to NASA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ipse dixit doesn't seem to be compatible with WP:V. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't follow WP:V for copyright issues. In practice we know that the image is a still from a video clip of the apollo 16 lunar landing. NASA were the only people videoing the landings. If you really want a source it will have come from a lower quality version of this at around the 40 second mark.Geni (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at where that image is used (on the article about examination of the moon photographs), I strongly recommend that it and the two other connected images be replaced with screenshots pulled directly from the apod video Geni links to. For one, that is 100% sourced to NASA and PD-Nasa can be called. Second, it is a better quality than those photos, but still shows the "dust shape" that the article in question is trying to highlight. So we'll assure the freeness of the images and get better ones. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover3.png

NASA image, so this could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? It has no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Movic logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lindlovens IF.png

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Daxnetworks.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Aib logo.JPG

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nbforrest-01.jpg

Forrest died in 1943, and this looks like an official service photo, so this might be public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably {{PD-USGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NCARB logo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Collaborates for Autism Logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is PD-textlogo to me. There are two images in the history. Are both valid logos? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note the image is not in use. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NewCBBlogo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:South Dublin County Council Crest.png

Image is replaceable with an alternative constructed from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The original Sunderland Stn.jpg

This is clearly a reproduction of a pre 1923 engraving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete There is no evidence that the engraving was published in 1923. The first revision of the file tells that it comes from a booklet published in 1965. If that was the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in the United Kingdom 70 years after the death of the artist or 50 years after 1965 (whichever is later) and in the United States 95 years after 1965. The image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was using evidence in the image itself, The fashion and style of loco are not mid 20's. I concur that the image is currently lacking 'publication' evidence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nonesuch Explorer Series logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, image is Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Northwestairlink.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Takasago logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Npower logo.png

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NYCTV Life logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OKFlag.jpg

This is too simple, PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paddy Island 1868.jpg

An 1868 map of Australian origin ,would be public domain in Australia. by at least 1968. This is just a mechanical scan so... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a survey plan something which would normally be "unpublished" (according to the US definition)? It says that this was published in 1992. Was that the first publication? If so, then Commons:COM:HIRTLE tells us that the copyright expires in USA on 1 January 2048... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It still should have been PD-US in 92, even now unpublished works are only covered for 120years maximum. Or is there something else at play? -- Nbound (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to comment on a file's content after the resolution has been reduced. I don't see any evidence of copyright for the original. Perhaps an admin can look at the original image. What evidence is there this isn't PD? The Source indicates it's "owned" by the Queensland Department of Lands, which I would expect would make it PD.
This is essentially a plat map with annotated references to other surveys or documents related to land rights or ownership. "Publication" would seem have occurred (become publicly available to read or copy) when this was filed with and became a part of the records of the Queensland Surveyor General, an Australian land recording agency, apparently in 1868. I believe it became PD at the time of filing.

It's not obvious that the Source date of 1992 has anything to do with publication; I understand it to be documenting the date the original was scanned.
SBaker43 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

120 years from creation only applies if the work wasn't published before 2003. If it was published for the first time between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002, then the copyright expires on 1 January 2048, if that is later than 120 years from creation, per Commons:COM:HIRTLE. Due to a bug in US copyright law, there was no way for an unpublished work to enter the public domain in the United States before 2003.

The section for "Never published, Never registered works" at Commons:COM:HIRTLE should only be used if the work never has been published. If it has been published at any point, then you should find the correct situation in the "published" section instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PapaMurphys.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ReadingAnthracite.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, This is too simple? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Strigino logo en.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stvlogo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bekins Van Lines logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bellevue College.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stemma comune Verona.png

Replaceable, with an alterantive 'free' image derived from the Blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

45th Launch Support Squadron#List of LCSS Launches

There are numerous logos. They are all tagged with {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force}}, except for File:SpaceX Dragon COTS Demo 1 logo.png, File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png and File:CRS SpX-1 emblem.png, which I suspect might also be PD, so those three may need retagging. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that all of these are US government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, any SpaceX patches, even if the launch was under a government contract, are strictly in-house efforts. They would not be part of said contract...as with all launch/mission patches, they are a method of teambuilding. They are also far too complex in design to qualify for a PD-textlogo license. However, they are currently used under fair use in their mission specific articles, so the images themselves probably should not be deleted. They should, however, be removed from the 45th Launch Support Squadron article as an example of unjustified fair use. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the image copyright discussion, as I just don't know enough about the law in that area to have a supportable position. However, I thought I should make it known here that I have in the past carried on a email conversation with an individual from the SpaceX communications/media dept. about use of some of their stuff on Wikipedia. If someone wants to frame a question for the company about the SpaceX image in question, I'll be happy to try to get it to the fellow I interacted with last time at SpaceX and see what can be done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg

If this was published in 1933 and the copyright was not renewed, then this is in the public domain in the United States. If the copyright was renewed, then I guess this might still be copyrighted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Term Extension Act. If that is the case, then the uses in 4th World Scout Jamboree, Magyar Cserkészszövetség and Pál Teleki might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If the photo was published with a photographer byline within 50 years after it was published, and if the photographer died after 1945, then it is copyrighted in the United States regardless of whether the copyright was renewed or not. Also, we don't know whether it was published in 1933 or not. If it wasn't published before 1946, then there is no chance that it is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's probably first published anonymously in a newspaper in Hungary Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hungary or in another country that uses 70 years after publication of anonymous works. --Egel _Reaction? 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. If it was published in 1933, then you need to determine the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996. If it was in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it is probably in the public domain in the United States (you only need to check for any subsisting copyright). If it wasn't in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it enters the public domain in the United States 95 years after it was first published. The Hungarian copyright law currently uses 70 years from publication (for anonymous photos) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (for non-anonymous photos), but the laws in 1996 specified a different term, and it is the 1996 term you should use for determining the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996 with regard to US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This photo was already the subject of discussion back in October 2012: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 2#File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. My opinion is that, judging by the low quality of the image, it is a still from one of the newsreels produced about the jamboree; I was not able to pinpoint the exact source though I watched all three newsreels that are available on YouTube. The decision taken at the time of the Oct 2012 discussion was to keep the image as fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If we can't find evidence of PD status, we are again stuck with treating it as non-free, as was the result of the last PUF discussion. However, in that case the rationales need to be checked. Currently the file has FURs claimed for a whopping five articles and is actually used in three. All the FURs have the same F8 argument: that it's the last photograph showing this person in a scout uniform. This is a patently bad NFC case. We have free pictures of this person. We even have another, free picture of him at this very event, wearing the same uniform (File:Pál Teleki Papp Antal Kisbarnaki Ferenc Farkas 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. At least it's claimed to be free; maybe it isn't, but in any case it makes this image fail NFCC#3.) The idea that him wearing a scout uniform is in need of illustration would be unconvincing anyway: this is just a picture of a guy standing behind a microphone. We know what the guy looked like. We know what scout uniforms look like. We know what standing behind a microphone looks like. Nothing in the combination of these three things is difficult to understand without seeing an extra picture.
I'm removing the picture from all but the most pertinent articles, for now, but note that it will have to be removed from that one too unless free status is substantiated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Blue devils logo.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KCVU FOX 20 Logo 2013.png

Threshold of originality not met?PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rite-Hite headquarters.jpg

This isn't a logo it's an interior. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is both listed as a logo by someone other than the uploader and as a photo taken by the uploader. I suggest that we assume that it is unfree and delete it per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rninfest2logo.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks a bit problematic. Compare with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png (de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SPRINTER logo.svg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file, so it might be copyrightable as computer software per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. If that is the case, then it is replaceable by a freely licensed SVG file of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The file page seems to indicate it was created by a Wikipedia editor from an EPS image, so the copyright status would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stbold.jpg

An 1871 image may be out of copyright and thus freely licenseable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it is from 1871? The source ([13]) doesn't list any year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Smallman Label.jpg

Threshold of Originality concern, this is simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg

Notes for the image mention that the image could be a 'service' photo, in which cases it would either have expired, or potentialy be a pre 1957 crown copyright image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:AMD Radeon logo.svg

Duplicate at Commons, considered PDShape/Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The SVG file is possibly copyrightable as computer software. See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The file page seems to indicate the SVG was created by a Wikipedia editor, so the copyright indication would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Aimee Semple McPherson

I really don't see justification for all 9 non-free files for an article about one person Werieth (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of the 9 , only three seem to be justifible: File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg (the arrival at the train station), File:ASM-reading_blackmailNote1.jpg, and File:ASM-cutting cake.jpg. All the others are duplicative of those non-frees and the existing frees. Mind you, copyright checks on these may be worthwhile due to age and possible lack of appropriate copyright notice for the time, but if they are all non-free, then the rest do not help the article per NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg was published on June 26, 1926. The image has a listed Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Between 1923 and 1977 if this was not re-registered for copyright it would be in the public domain. As it stands it appears to have a license to restrictive for use on Wikipedia without being used within the NFC criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all sourced to the UCLA Digital Library and a fall within the same license and dating between 1923 and 1977 and could well be public domain, but appear to have a non-commercial CC license.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming all 9 non-frees fall under this, we can still justify 3 of them as given, but we can't justify all 9. But if they can be put to a free license, that changes everything. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what was already discussed about the possibility of these being already in the public domain (in Sutton’s book I have perused some photos there published with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation are also claimed by yet another agency in their Bettmann collection which may indicate public domain, at the very least no clear ownership); if these are the files in question, inclusion for article justification are as follows: In general they they illustrate the wide range of diverse events and situations and life phases mentioned in the article about the subject and thus should not violate NFCC#3a (Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.)

1 --File:ASM-AngelusTemple Plaque 1923 02.jpg illustrates the ecumenical intent of the Angelus Temple. 1923, may be in public domain, appears in Sutton's 2007 book with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation, I have applied for permission nevertheless.

2--File:ASM-AngelusTemple Sermon 1923 01.jpg typical of what the subject did throughout her life This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

3--File:ASM 14hourService 1.jpg 1941 the all night services held during the war years illustrating the commitment she and her parishioners had to prayer and worship (much more so than the 1 hour on Sunday morning of many other churches). This file has CC license as per its originating websitelinked from the photo page.

4--File:ASM Semple Crawford1935.jpg to show that she was quite close to Rheba Crawford and McPherson's daughter Roberta, who figured significantly in her early to mid 1930's ministry but were later ousted from the Angelus Temple in emotive high profile media lawsuits, yet they later returned to mourn at her grave. Rheba Crawford is not elsewhere in other photos. This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

5--File:ASM convalescing in DouglasAZHospital Corbis.jpg 1926 includes Prosecutor Asa Keyes and assistant Joseph Ryan who figured prominently in the kidnapping grand jury inquiry mentioned in the kidnapping section; and not seen in other photos in the article. Also includes daughter Roberta Star Semple and Mother Mildred Kennedy and son Rolf McPherson, prominent persons in McPerson’s life the latter two not seen in other photos in the article. Also the picture depicts McPherson immediately after her emergence from the Mexican desert. Bettman Collection. May be in the public domain or at least no clear ownership, a related picture appears in Sutton's 2007 book.

If these justifications are needed to be included in the appropriate place on their respective pages, I shall place them there immediately.

From what I gather, images from the BETTMANN Archives / CORBIS are free to use anyway on Wikipedia as per:

http://www.corbis.com/BettMann100/ImageDonation/PDF/Corbis_Guidelines.pdf

Bettmann Collection which has has been opened for use by non profit entities Only images from the Bettmann Archive will be donated. Images must be available through the Corbis website http://pro.corbis.com)

From the talk page [[14]]

"Their images which are from the US Govt are in the public domain, as are all photos from pre-1923. They have also granted free use to non-profit organizations for some historic photos [Bettmann] (so Wikipedia)" Kwenchin (talk)"

Thanks. SteamWiki (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"granted free use to non-profit" does not meet our free use license requirements. We need the license to be free for all uses, redistribution, and modification by any entity in the world. So we still have the non-free image. If we can clear any of these as in the PD, that's great, but most of what you argue above is inappropriate - we don't need photos just to illustrate events particularly with the number of free and more relevant pictures of the woman already in the article. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll work at clearing it for PD, and put the CC notice (cc-by-3.0) on the others that have it which amounts to free anyway. At this time I do not see any renewal notices in my searches which at this time are preliminary. Additionally, there is a picture of the gospel car taken in 1919 from a book Einstein's (Sister Aimee) I could use (no copyright notice) and also see the same file elsewhere on the Foursquare.org website therefore I gather that is OK to use as well if add the PD tag? ThanksSteamWiki (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't tag these images as CC-BY-3.0, that has to be a license that is specifically added by the copyright owner of the image. (If they are given that way, that's fine thne). The "free for non-profit" is not a free license for our purposes, and has to be tagged with the appropriate copyright license tag. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Saga Group.png

I'm not sure if this meets UK TOO, It's text with a simple gradient. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg meets the UK threshold of originality, but English Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the British threshold of originality is irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Saint Benilde.gif

The subject died in 1862, Assuming the image is contempary with that persons lifetime, I find it unlikly that the the artist was still alive less than 70 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know whether it is a contemporary painting or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruppelt Ramey Samford 1952-07-29.jpg

This image is of a military press conference, thusly it may well be an official photo, and thus subject to PD-USGov terms, not the 'fair-use' ones currently used. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion for no source. It says where it was taken but not where the photo was obtained. Might be {{PD-USGov}}, but might also have been taken by a newspaper photographer or anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this website the image is from United Press International. NtheP (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds as if it violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Savarkaringroup.jpg

This is claimed to have expired in it's origin country, Photo dates from 1944, If as claimed it's a government image, then I don't see why this is 'non-free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos are protected by copyright for 60 years since publication in India (50 years since creation if taken before 1908). Although it was taken in 1944, we have no information about when it was first published. If it was published in 1944, then the copyright has expired in India. If it remained unpublished for at least 20 years, then the copyright hasn't expired in India yet.

USA uses different rules. In USA, the rule is that an Indian photo must have been published before 1941 (unless it satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}). This is explained in the warning in the template. As it was taken in 1944, the photo is unfree in the United States and needs to be treated as an unfree work on Wikipedia.

The image violates WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SchenleyCasino.jpg

Given the commentary in the linked article, this image was logically taken at a time the building was extant ( prior to 1896). It is thus a pre 1923 image of US origin and could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on date of publication, though. When was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming contemporary publication, but this isn't confirmed in the file description :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The law for protection of the nation.jpg

text cover for an edict,law or decree of an official governmental body. Review requested because I'm not sure these are automatically non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that {{PD-laws}} applies here. Also, Commons:Template:PD-BG-exempt should apply for all Bulgarian laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:A.S.D. Cerea.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in A.S.D. Cerea 1912. Possibly PD due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ABC Spark logo.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ABC Family. Seems to be below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ANT1 logo.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OldAnt1.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ANZ-brand.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANZ Bank New Zealand. Appears to not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sophocles Budget Page.png

This is textual from output from software, If it is not user generated than it could be replaced with content that is. Additionally, I am not sure mere 'layouts' are subject to copyright apart from contents placed in them, and if User generated content, the facts could be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything copyrightable would be the choice of words and numbers (if those were chosen in some "copyrightable" way). As I can't easily see the text and the numbers, it's hard to make any judgement. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Siribhoovalaya DSC00403.JPG

This is a reproduction of an 'early' work almost certainly out of copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Set-game-cards.png

The symbols shown are simple geometric shapes. I am not sure these meet the 'originality' threshold. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Arms-east-barnet.jpg

Replaceable with alternative drawn from blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Arms-cheshunt.jpg

This image is replaceable with one derived from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Shot with martin.jpg

The notes for the image claim that the photo is pre-1923 and of US origin, thus public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It says that it was taken before 1923. However, we don't know when it was first published, so the copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ckfg.gif

Threshold of originality not met. This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Laconia, NH seal.JPG

This is a seal , the date is 1893, and if the seal is contemporary it's pre 1923, so public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jack TV 2011.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, this is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Girl From Yesterday Still.gif

This is a photo still from a pre 1923 work. So this is public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:AlajosStobl.jpg

This is a photo of a statute, the sculptor died in 1926, No information is given on when this specfic image was published though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged replaceable. It seems reasonable that the statue was published during his lifetime and presumably without copyright formalities, so it should be safe to assume that the statue is in the public domain. However, the photo of it might be unfree, and is replaceable by a free photo of the same statue. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be easily public domain, not a fair use image..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When and where was the photo of the statue first published? Without any publication data, we will have to assume that the photo is too recent. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg

It is claimed this is PD-India, but the image currently seems to have 'license soup'... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unfree in USA as it wasn't published before 1941 (source claims that the bridge was constructed in 1941, also watermark says 9-11-41 which looks like a date), so it has to be listed as unfree on Wikipedia. It is free in India if it was published before 1963, but we have no information about the publication history of the photo. Tagged "no fair use rationale". --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Knlu.JPG

Does this qualify for exemption as the symbol of an academic body? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that Commons:Template:PD-UA-exempt doesn't cover this. Maybe it's covered if the academic body is run by the government... --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Great Midwest Conference logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bean3.jpg

This has an OTRS permission, so does this only cover the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:OTRS/N instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Antun Blažić.jpg

Presumably taken before 1943, but no publication date. Source is listed as another Wikipedia, which isn't generally good enough. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Added interwiki link. There is something which might be a source on the other Wikipedia, but it's written in Serbian, so I can't tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It says "Scanned from the book Yugoslav People's Heroes, Youth, Belgrade, 1975". -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:1000TRLira.jpg

According to COMMONS: Currency , Turkish banknotes can be freely licensed. Re-licenseable or replaceable with a free image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be nonderivative. See also Commons:Commons talk:Currency#Turkey. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:InPlaceofStrife.jpg

This is the front cover of an 'official' report presented to the UK Parliament as a command paper, Surely this would be covered under OGL, given it's offical status (and original publication by HMSO) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Some works by the British government are licensed under the OGL, some are not. Do you have any source telling that this one is available under OGL? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at present, but other command papers have been re-licensed under OGL.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a problem I have with UK government works: many works have been licensed under OGL, but it's usually not indicated on the works and I usually have no clue about how to find out which works the OGL covers. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:International Tennis Federation.png

Threshold of originality concern, Is the tennis ball enough to make this original? I'm not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Rapsar (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ipa-map.gif

Not a logo, Does this qualify under an Australian equivalent to OGL as a govt work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What does Open Gear Lubricant have to do with it? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. Maps almost always are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BNT logo 2008.png

Does this meet TOO, I'm not sure given that it's only simple word/text arrangements to form the logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BNT2 logo.png

Simple text and geomertric shape arrangment in single color, TOO may not have been met. Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a text logo.--Rapsar (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Inish Times Logo.PNG

Threshold of originality might not have been met, Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg

Notes suggest that as a state symbol, this may be exempt? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it isn't, would it even be eligible for copyright? It's just the East German flag (which is pd) with a border and three letters in a fairly generic font. --W. D. Graham 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or is this a user-created SVG based on (but not copied from) the design of the official insignia shown in a photo? Maybe we should ask the uploader what license he wants to release his work under, and tag it with that (for the SVG), along with {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{insignia}} (for the underlying design). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that may not be of any use here, as the uploader has been indef blocked. But since it is only used in one article, only on en.WP, and the patch is at least partially visible in a photo on that page, I guess it won't be a big loss if this image is deleted. I'd say just delete. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think anyone has given any rationale for deletion at all. The question as I understand it is whether the image should be used as a fair-use copyrighted image, or regarded as public domain. Regardless of who made it, I think it falls very far short of the threshold of originality, and should be treated as pd-ineligible. The East German flag is pd, you can't just add a border and three letters and claim it's original copyrighted work. --W. D. Graham 21:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg

Notes claim this is PD in Canada? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is copyrighted in the United States if the author submitted a copyright renewal to the United States Copyright Office. I saw a few renewals for his other books when I checked this some time ago, but I couldn't find this book. Would need a more careful check of the copyright renewal records. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:CasinoExterior585.jpg

Would it be reasonable to assume this image is contemporary with the building and thus is public domain? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously taken between 1893 and 1896, but when was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:CemalAzmi.jpg

Duplicate at Commons, Subject died in 1922, but this image doesn't give a publication date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Cop18 cmp8 logo.jpg

Commons considers this a text logo, but requesting a review here because the globe inclusion makes me wonder about that call being wrong. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Farley Edition of Domesday.JPG

This is a self-made (by the uploader) image of an old book, the uploader originally uploaded this as non-free, but I am skeptical that they actually needed to do that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The book is PD. The photo is unlicensed. Anyone could take another photo of the same book, so this violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Debussy Premiere Arabesque melody and chords.mid

I am requesting a review, Debussy died in 1918, making the original composition PD as of 1988, Is this issue here the specific arrangement? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:FerruccioNazionale.jpg

This is a simple news photo, and so falls within the scope of PD-Italy surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only in the public domain in USA if it was published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice or before 1964 without a copyright renewal. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Exposition Hall 1898.gif

This image is stated as having come from a 1909 postcard, assuming this is first publication this is a 'freely' licenseable image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg

Claimed as PD-Pakistan as well as non-free, but apparently sourced to UK academic source. Is this an 'official' photo, if so as crown copyright this would have expired surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. British academic institutions use images from multiple sources, so there is no way to tell who took the photo without more information. {{PD-Pakistan}} requires evidence of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:LoweringLESSToLunarSurface.jpg

This image is claimed as having not been published with a notice, but also contains a non-free image tag (because it's apparently not covered by the typical NASA one.), There are some others like this in the 'disputed' category, which I will not nominate separately. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. Was the NASA document published in 1970? If so, then I suggest that we simply tag this with {{wrong license}} until someone has been able to obtain a copy of that NASA document to check for copyright notices. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:MasterCard Logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Acceptance mark (that use also violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG). Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this is the logo used on their cards, so would be the most appropriate one to use, to identify their products. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Below TOO for me as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Former Visa (company) logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Acceptance mark (that use also violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG). Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment IANAL, though it seems to me that it fails the originality test and should therefore be free, and thus usable, and should be added to the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Below TOO for me as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Adagio (Sweetbox album)

There are two non-free covers used in this article, both in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Adagio JP.jpg and File:Sweetbox Adagio RS.jpg. I think one of those covers should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. I don't know which of the two is more appropriate to keep, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Addicted (Sweetbox album)

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted RS.jpg and File:Addicted KE.jpeg. Again, I think one of the two should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Addicted (Sweetbox song)

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted SE.jpg and File:Addicted SE.jpg. One of them should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Synclavier II Demo 2.ogg

The rationale for the use in Additive synthesis#Timeline seems not to comply with WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale doesn't seem to explicitly mention the article where fair use is claimed. The use might also not comply with WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now edited it so that it mentions the article (Additive synthesis) explicitly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it passes WP:NFCC#8. A sound sample of a synthesizer significantly increases the reader's understanding of the synthesizer. It is the most effective way to transfer information about how a synthesizer sounds, and it will also illustrate what the synthesizer is capable of. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable by free media - any freely available software and/or composition can be used to demonstrate the effect that was introduced with said synthesizer; it is not required to have the actual demo sound used here. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the Additive synthesis article, the sample is used on a row about Synclavier II in a table that is a historical timeline of additive synthesizers and devices implementing additive synthesis. The sample sound demonstrates the particular synthesizer, not a particular effect, so it would be awkward to replace it with a sample generated from scratch. I searched for but didn't find freely available samples of Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are trying to demonstrate the sound of the synthesizer unit itself, then its just a matter of finding one of the claimed 50 Synclavier II units that exist today (per that article) and getting a free sound sample off it, instead of the composed sample. The question then becomes of how accessable those Synclaviers are. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone called for Synclavier II owners at gearslutz.com. There were no replies. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if no one got replies, the question remains: can someone from the public get access to one of these devices with reasonable effort and make a recording, or are they all secreted away in private collections? If it is the former then it is just a matter of waiting for that to happen, and per NFCC#1, we would not allow that non-free sample since a free one is possible. If it is the case that all the existing synthesizers are tied up behind closed doors and would require extraordinary efforts to access, then yes, the non-free may be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Could be created" in WP:NFCC#1 is certainly open to interpretation as to the minimum probability required, and we can only guess the probability anyhow. From foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy: "An EDP [such as WP:NFCCP] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A freely licensed work is not available. The Synclavier article has existed for about ten years without an audio sample uploaded, if that is any indication as to whether we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file. My estimate is that without an extra push we should have to wait another 10 years. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Could be created" here is interpreted to mean that a member of the public can somehow create the image or audio, not whether it has happened or not over a given period of time. So again, the question remains - are these units all behind private doors to be sufficiently considered inexcessible to the public? --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. That is not common knowledge. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have inquired for a free audio sample from Synclavier European Services. Waiting for their reply. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Violates at least WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE is a guideline, and about images. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Finnish Broadcasting Company has some model of Synclavier. Following that lead. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That unit is reported (in a 2007 discussion) to be missing the original computer (although it can be replaced with a Mac) and there seems to be some other problem with it as well. It's probably a newer model too, as apparently its arrival was reported so late, in ([Anonymous] 1991: Synclavier Suomeen. Musiikkiuutiset 2 1991). I've send a message to Pentti Männikkö, who is a sound producer at Yle, asking about it. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the composer Jon Appleton a message asking whether he could release a sample, as there is a video of him playing Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He gave a positive reply. I'll try to negotiate a Creative Commons release of one of his Synclavier audio tracks or an excerpt. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also asked Richard Atkinson, who appears to have a working Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Jon Appleton agreed to license one of his Synclavier tracks under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. It has thus been demonstrated that it is possible to create a free alternative to this file. I will proceed to upload it to Commons shortly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jon Appleton - Sashasonjon.oga if anyone's interested. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Zenit sea launch.jpg

This is not a 'unique historic image' as claimed. It could be replaced by a free image. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree it isn't particularly historic, I would strongly challenge the assertion that it could be replaced by a free image. Sea Launch conducts rocket launches from a converted oil rig in open water on the equator. The only vessel nearby is a command ship also operated by Sea Launch, and as a result I cannot see how it can be reasonably assumed that a replacement free image could be created. --W. D. Graham 21:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Sea Launch article actually has a free image of such a launch, which obviously defeats this argument. The claimed use on other articles, such as Ukraine, is obviously invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KTVU 2 logo.PNG

Currently tagged as non-free. Probably copyright-ineligible as WP:TOO isn't satisfied. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Chris McCandless.png

License Ouvert at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:npd}} on Commons. The user on Commons states that the copyright status is "unclear" and that it is used under a fair use claim in addition to being licensed as "Licence Ouverte". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:I-TliCho-flag-new.gif

This was treated as free (PD-shape) by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ukr hckylogo.png

Considerd UA-exempt at Commons perhaps erronously. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:John Patrick Bedell Washoe County Jail photo.JPEG

The use of this image in 2010 Pentagon shooting seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image seems to merely serve an identification purpose in that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OpenWire graphical editor on Embarcadero Delphi.jpg

An OTRS permission is pending for an identical image on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wait or actively assess Keep: Hi. Actually, it was I who changed the licensing tag to non-free fair use. You see, Mitov insists that Embarcadero has given him permission to use the screenshot of their software. He says they were very nice about it, they are his business partners and they assured him that he has permission to use it. However, I still do not believe they gave him permission for free use. Embarcadero Delphi is non-free commercial product; its copyright holders will never give permission to use it under a free license like Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. It is uncharacteristic of companies like Embarcadero. At most, I believe they allowed him to freely publish and reproduce the screenshot but I daresay they'd flip if they see a derivative work of Delphi.

We should either wait for Commons OTRS results (which is probably a decline) or ask a person with OTRS permission to check the email sent. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we leave this discussion open and wait until Commons either has deleted Commons:File:OpenWire Editor installed in Delphi XE3.jpg or added an OTRS ticket. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like the image on Commons is deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Starz 1994.png

Threshold of originality concern, Commons treats this as 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The image on the Commons was uploaded by an editor with only nine edits, so I would not consider his opinion to be definitive. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of Seoul.svg

Commons treat's this logo as free, are Governmental symbols exempt in South Korea? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that we should wait until Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Seoul.svg has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Matrix of the seal of the University of St Andrews.jpg

This image is duplicated at Commons, the item shown being of a sufficient age that it is in public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect the user who copied it there from this wiki was mistaken, as the upload was their very first edit to that wiki. I am nominating the copy on Commons for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tagged as "replaceable fair use". The fair use rationale appears to state that the seal is in the public domain because of age. The seal looks old, so the claim seems reasonable. In that case, it violates WP:NFCC#1 as anyone else could take a photo of the same seal. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so I understand - a photo of a PD sculpture is copyrightable even though a photo of a non-PD sculpture is not since it is a derivative work? VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the 3d to 2d transition that creates the new copyright - there's enough in the 3D-ness of the PD work that lighting and shadows created by the photographer are considered to be copyrightable elements. If it was a 2D-to-2D work, the image would be considered a slavish reproduction of the original, bestowing no new copyrights. Note that a photo of a non-PD sculpture does create a second copyright, that of the photographer on the photo itself, while there is still a copyright to the original sculpture as well. Hence if we determine that a non-free image of a 3D work where there is no freedom of panorama, we really want a photograph that is licensed free, even though it still is a deritive work of the sculpture - it is just one less copyright aspect to worry about. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes logical sense. Thanks for explaining! VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:COM:ART. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:DTS logo.svg

Commons treats this logo artwork as 'free' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Joymati6.jpg

Commons treats this image as PD-india (based on the 1934 date seemingly) but gives no further information, The source link being geocities is dead. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-India}} requires evidence of pre-1941 publication, but none is given. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joymati6.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Codetel preverizon.jpg

The Commons Equivalent is treated as being below TOO, but I am not so sure given the complexity of the logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EXA-WHITE.JPG

The equivalent image on Commons claims to have permission for release under Creative Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Higgs mass metastability.png

Vector conversion listed is shown as free, if it's a derived work of this why is this also not free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably below the threshold of originality. If not, then it violates WP:NFCC#1 as the information in the image isn't copyrighted. The SVG file is a copyrighted computer program licensed under a CC licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A graph of data does not fall under copyright.[15] There's nothing in this graph which goes beyond a simple visualization of the data. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of Baltimore.jpg

The seal has a date of 1797 , Is the seal artwork contempary? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the infobox in the article about the city, the city was incorporated in 1797. It seems reasonable that the number 1797 may appear in any symbol for the city, regardless of the age of the symbol. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

According to our article on it, Seal of Baltimore, this seal was adopted in 1827, so is definitely PD-old/PD-1923. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Humaun Azad (1947-2004).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Humayun Azad bibliography and List of converts to Nontheism. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army officer rank insignia

Clear violations of WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been - for years. What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Your edit comment says: "This image has been listed for review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Australian Army officer rank insignia". What image? There are no non-free images on the page now that you have removed them. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, if you are going to indulge in what looks like an edit war, you need to explain to your combatant that NFCC enforcement is exempt from edit-warring, 3RR, and similar rules / policies / guidelines. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a bug with WP:TW's edit summary. Just because no one has noticed the issue doesnt mean that there wasnt an issue. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand.

As I said: What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this is to review if their use is proper. And in this case, no, there can be a reduction in the non-free image use by showing one insigna that uses all the elements, and then text-descriptions for all the rest, as to satisfy both NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a relevant useful reply! I will modify the page accordingly, and when I've finished, I would very much appreciate your feedback on whether I have accurately interpreted and implemented your advice. It is indeed a pleasure to hear from someone suggesting ways to solve the problem, rather than those simply complaining. Yours sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation of your advice. I will appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of though I think you can go fewer and show the General level - which has all three elements (crown, star, swords), outside of the table, explaining that the insignia uses three major icons as shown, and then run through as you do on the tables. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of - Good!

though I think you can go fewer - Possibly. (Probably?) But what's the cost/benefit analysis?

In my (no doubt biased) opinion, I think the PRIMARY goal should be user-comprehension, and (of course), I think the way I've done it facilitates user-comprehension. (Personally, I'm rather unimpressed by computer programmers, etc., who believe the primary goal is to make things easier for computers. And before we go any further, I quickly hasten to state that I do NOT put you in that category.)

So, is what I've done acceptable? Or are there remaining problems? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension, particularly here in which all we are doing is showing without telling what the importance is of these ranks (eg its very weak at NFCC#8). It is completely reasonable to show an example that can be extrapolated to others, which is why I'm saying that if you show the General's insignia which has all 3 distinctive elements, and explain how such elements are presented on the rest, you're still cutting down NFC but leaving the important one, and using text to describe the rest, helping to meet both goals. (another option that I'm not sure about is if you showed one and then has very simple line drawings to show the icons on it, though I'm not sure if those would be called derivative works or not). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension - Agreed. (i.e. That was the point I was trying to make.)

It is completely reasonable to show an "example" ... - That was/is indeed my intent.

which is why I'm saying ... - Yes, I understand that.

I realize you are being very polite and very diplomatic, but I don't have a feel for how you view my question: "What's the cost/benefit analysis?" (BTW: It's bedtime here - I won't be responding in the next 20 hours.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the cost/benefit analysis is far different for WP than any other educational work, because of the Foundation's goal to encourage free content creation and distribution. Non-free harms that but its recognized that some is needed to complete the educational work - each use is a cost in light of non-free policy. Arguably, the insignia could be fully described in text, not incredibly hard and glossing over some details, and still be of nearly the same education value (because they are only presented and not discussed in any more detail, there's little educational value in seeing them all) But I recognize that maybe one would be better to have. But I do fully recognize that if you select the right one to use an example, the rest can be clearly extrapolated from that without a lot of excess text. Multiple examples are thus not necessary to achieve the same benefit. Of course, as noted below, one montage image, provided by those that own the copyright, is just as good from the non-free aspect and much better for the overall page, so that's a better one to use. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well having them all did fail WP:NFG. Though could one image, with all the rank insignias, fail NFCC (something like this)? Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Montage/composite images like that would be great, but they have to be made by the copyright owner themselves. If you or a third-party put those together in the same fashion, it would be treated as an image with X uses of non-free, where X is the number of images used. If the copyright holder does that and puts it out as a single image, then it's a single image to us, too. Note that here, not knowing the relationship between the Veterans and the actual AU Army, I don't think that image could be used, but a bit of Tin Eye and I get this page [16] which DOES appear to be the same image and from the defence agency of AU, would presuambly are the copyright holders. It would be reasonable to crop that image to the appropriate line (making note of that) and using that single image as a lead image here. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression the owner doesn't want that: "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only" [17] Or does US law allow it? And the insignias are a low quality photo/drawing hybrid. --Egel _Reaction? 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

US's Fair Use allowances in copyright law should override that; as part of the guarantee of copyright is that you cannot forbid fair use, irregardless of what warnings/restrictions you place. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, I have a problem with the definition of "the owner" of "the copyright". (NOTE: I'm talking about so-called "copyright" images from sites other than defence.gov.au) Quite clearly, the copyright is owned by the Australian Government. Yes, the so-called "owner" drew the image, but I think it's a rather large stretch to say "the creator of a reproduction of an image who's copyright is owned by somebody else is suddenly the owner of the copyright." Yes, they are the owner of the copyright of that particular reproduction (whatever that might mean). But they are most certainly NOT the owner "the" copyright (whatever that might mean). Comments? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, if I created a derivative work of a work still under copyright, then for current purposes of non-free evaluation , there are two copyrights associated with the new work - that of the original creator of the image, and my own copyright. I myself may chose to use a free license, which doesn't touch the original owner's copyright work, but for purposes of non-free, is a better option since there's fewer copyright hurdles on the image use. (Hence, for example, we do require that we have freely-taken photographs of still-standing sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

a) Wow! That was a quick response!

b) Yes. That's what I thought I'd said. Are you agreeing with me, or are you pointing out a difference? If so, what's the difference?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I'm agreeing with you. You do have a claim of coypright on a derivative work of sufficient creativity, but you're not claiming the full copyright. But in regards to this case, we do have, to be for all purposes, an image created by the copyright holder (the one off defence.gov.au) so we can use that here. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! That actually seems both logical and reasonable. (Clearly, you are neither a politician nor a lawyer.) ("Over and out".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Red River Rivalry Logo.png

In the article AT&T, the use of this image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, especially as the article's text content about AT&T's sponsorship of the game is a single list item. The logo is entirely decorative. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the logo is only valid on the article about the rivalry. Remove from there. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rbhlogo wikipage.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any need for the image, though, as there doesn't seem to be any article about the company. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo noul adevarul.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Adevărul Moldova. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The bird seems to be copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TomandJerryHitler.jpg

The use in Adolf Hitler in popular culture violates WP:NFCC#10c. This use and the use in The Lonesome Mouse appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both. In the article about the cartoon, it's only briefly mentioned that an edited version runs, and is nowhere near the significance of the "censorship" of the Censored Eleven, for example. Similarily fails for the same reason at the pop culture one (again, if it was a scene from the Censored Eleven, possibly, but without significance and just as an example, fails). --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Plugz.jpg

The use of this cover in The Plugz might violate WP:NFCC#8. It also doesn't seem to fall under those cases usually regarded as acceptable per WP:NFCI#1, as the article is about the band depicted on the cover and not the item to which the cover belongs. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the group's disbanded, it is reasonable to use non-free to illustrate them. While it would be better to have something akin to a press kit photo, in this case using a known photo of the group from one of their album/single covers is reasonable. (Yes, it's cover art, but here also likely the best photo of the band that is known about). Not really a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg

(Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to bring this query.)
File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg is currently being used in the main infobox of the article Yeezus, and is being claimed under fair use. However, I'm not entirely sure that it meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection – what exactly is being copyrighted? It's certainly not the disc or the jewel case – the orange sticker, then? Personally, I would have thought that this image would be ineligible for copyright, and that we could probably create our own free version in as high a resolution as we'd like, but then IANAL. I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Nothing unique in the image to warrant copyright (reminds me of when the non-free cover was replaced with a free commons version for We're New Here) If the pink figure in that cover was no issue, neither should the orange sticker here. Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Speedily delete per WP:CSD#F7. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Giovan M Salati.jpg

If it was first published in 1989 as claimed, then it must be a recent painting. If it isn't a contemporary painting, then doesn't this mean that the painting isn't better than anything that any Wikipedia contributor could make? Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it known whether any other images of him exist? If not, then how could an image be made that would not be a derivative work of this one? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's almost certainly an original 19th-century work, and there is no reason to assume the book publication in 1989 was the original publication. Near 100% certain this is actually PD, although it is of course annoying that the uploader didn't copy the source attribution of the original painting that must be given in the book if it's of any value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Brookside

I don't see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

I cant see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Two are photos with very reasonable justifications, old lineups, including one showing a since-deceased member. All the rest are brief song clips. Only with the latter group might one reasonably question the need for so many, though I don't see it as excessive given that song clips are obviously irreplaceable and are as short as a free iTunes preview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sound clip on band pages should only be used when talking about their distinctive song, since otherwise for truly notable songs it would be reasonable that a sound clip there in discussion about the song itself. But clips about the band should be chosen with a lot more careful regard. Without even looking, though, I'm sure at 2-3 sound clips can be fully justified in the case of RHCP due to their odd style, and to highlight that in light of their major hits (eg "Give It Away", "Californication"). Note that it is not a matter of fair use (outside of the specific limitations we put on length to avoid problems), but minimizing non-free usage. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirteenth

Given the number of free files (55) is there really a need for 10 non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can musical notation be necessarily copyrighted? Obviously the performed work is copyrighted but the sheet music itself? I do agree non-free should be trimmed out removing any non-frees in favor of free examples, but the question is if the sheet music is copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, notated music is copyrighted the same way as a book is. Like a book, small excerpts can be used under the Fair use principle, but its use is limited on WP by WP:Fair Use. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Space Mouse

I don't see justification for 11 non-free files especially given how similar they all re Werieth (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as there's very little different between iterations, only a couple images appear to be needed. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pixie Lott - Bright Lights.jpg

I don't see how two screenshots from the video enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. A free picture of Ms Lott would surely suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Tinchy Stryder & Pixie Lott - Bright Lights.jpg

I don't see how two screenshots from the video enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. This seems especially redundant as it shows pretty much what the cd cover (File:Tinchypixiebright.jpg) shows. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Venezuela football association.png

This image is considered too simple by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple in the US, but what about Venezuela? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Socialistische Partij Anders.svg

Commons considers this too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Netrunner Enigma 13.06.jpg

Netrunner is 'free' software according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is needed evidence the site releases material in compatible licenses, that the screenshot showed in the computer has a similar license, and that they have the rights of these works. I requested speedy deletion there. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Associação Esportiva Araçatuba logo.svg

According to Commons, this is below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is too simple, the real question is, is it ineligible for copyright in Brazil, the country of origin? If it is copyrighted in Brazil, it shouldn't be in Commons. That's what you should have said in the deletion discussion. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WKSU-FM logo (new).png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Current eCornell Logo.png

This looks too simple to be protected, but not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Faller Logo.gif

Logo may fall below TOO, what standard does DE apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Alerta.jpg

WP:NFCCP #8, the poster doesn't add much to the article. An equivalent free image could be reasonably found. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the above assessment. It illustrates the Cuban perspective warning about the US and has great contextual significance. How do you suppose a free version could reasonably be found of original art? Seriously? Original art from a historic, notable period in time. Having said all that, it doesn't have a valid rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the case that we use non-free if a free image can't be found - the question is if we don't affect the reader's understanding of the topic if the image was not present, and in this case, for two reasons, it does fail this. First, the image is not discussed at all in text, but that's probably because on Military history of Cuba, the image really doesn't apply - it's more appropriate to the Bay of Pigs invasion. I'm not saying it meets NFCC#8 there, only that it has a better chance, in discussing the Cuban reaction to the US threat of invasion. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Masem just stated accept I do disagree that the image doesn't apply to Military history of Cuba. It has the contextual significance for both articles mentioned...but it does require critical commentary. Now...that could be easily fixed by adding the commentary...but it would have to be properly referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who character images

This section is intended to list the cases from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_25#Huge category that might be problematic. I will look at the category later and list those that might need discussion. Feel free to list some as well. I think we should list them under a level 4 heading, like ====[[:File:Whatever.jpg]]====. The sections sorting the discussions by type (screenshot, book cover) use level 3 headings. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowing how the DW articles are organized and simply glancing at names, I suspect most are appropriate single character images used in the infobox in articles about that character (barring something like Romana, the Master, and the Doctor). That's not to say they're all clear, just that I suspect they are in reasonable use on notable character articles. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

delete nothing to do with the story.188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete In a story with many memorable images, this has to be the most mundane screencap. It doesn't add anything to the article. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Planet of Fire.jpg

Used in Planet of Fire. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

By the look of it it shows the Master having caught the companion. That seems a pivotal bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

keep Master is a key villain in this story, plus Peri is a new companion here. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Twin Dilemma.jpg

Used in The Twin Dilemma. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

keep This is a famously controversial moment. If needed, expand article to include more detail. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Delta and the Bannermen.jpg

Used in Delta and the Bannermen. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paradise Towers.jpg

Used in Paradise Towers. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Celestial Toymaker.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Celestial Toymaker. Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in The Celestial Toymaker, as the article is about one of the serials and not specifically about the character the image depicts. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep shows main villain, who is unique to this story (on TV) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Does show the main and supporting cast - but A shot of the sensorite face (rather than it's back) would be better [sensorites unique to this story]. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Gunslinger.jpg

Used in A Town Called Mercy. That article is about a specific episode and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the entire article, there is a section about the design of this one-off character which is more than sufficient justification for keeping the image on the episode page. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Eldrad.jpg

Used in The Hand of Fear. That article is about a specific episode and not about the character the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

keep Shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no discuss about the character's design within the episode article so the image does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

commment Add it in then. I mean If showing the main villain of a story isn't "useful to the reader", then I'm not sure what is. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Book and CD covers

File:Doctor Who The Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true - the article is about the story, which exists as both a TV show and a book (often the books have significant differences to what was screened on TV). It's the same principle as articles about songs with multiple notable cover versions, where the covers from all the relevant releases are included in a similar fashion. (eg Tainted Love) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Per WP:NFCI#1, images of covers "...from various items..." are are acceptable "...for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." There is no critical commentary about this book in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy#In print. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, unless the novelization is notable for its own article, the cover is not required on the episode article. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy (audio).gif

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the album. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who The Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Goodluckcharlie1.jpeg

Also nominated are:

• File:Goodluckcharlie2.jpeg
• File:Goodluckcharlie3.jpeg
• File:Goodluckcharlie4.jpeg

Recently uploaded mages used only in the infoboxes of TV season articles that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8. They were removed from the articles for this reason and tagged as orphaned, but the uploader has since restored them. AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This seems pretty easy. Invalid rationale for the following reasons: Description is not of cover art, or the season but of the characters, no source is given, not actually the cover art but the publicity photos used in the cover art, portion used is incorrect as this is only part what the actual cover art created, while the answer to low resolution is answered as yes, all of the images were increased in size to 300px (although this I went ahead and fixed), purpose of use is incorrect and should be "to identify the subject by season" at the very least. It is possible this image cannot be replaced with a free version but I will take a quick look.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A check of flickr shows one image of cast members that can be used with a suitable CC 2.0 license and there are other images that could possibly be turned into a similar license by request. I see this done often. So there is no valid reason to depict illustrate the actors with NFC, but a screenshot that is discussed in detail in the article would be fine. If this were actual cover art with the proper titles and an obvious change from season to season with a valid rationale I would support it with a keep !vote, but this is far from what it says it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've added three more images that I've just become aware of. These suffer from exactly the same problem regarding their use. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Aussie, I hope you don't mind but I dropped those images down to their own section as the original images and those suffer from different issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Shake it up images

• File:Shakeitupseason1.jpg
• File:Cast-of-shake-it-up-season 2.jpg
• File:Shakeitupseason3.jpg

See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCPN logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCLV-FM, WCLV (AM) logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WELW logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCRFlogo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCSB logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WDOK logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WEOL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WTAM logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WNCX logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WOBL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WQAL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gasoline Alley

Is there justification for 7 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pinnacleinclogo.png

The Commons Deletion debate deemed this below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ph seal zamboanga del sur.png

Despite the wording of the template, Commons considered this to be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PETRONAS 2011.svg

Commons apparently deemed this below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly

I cant see justification for the images except the primary cover Werieth (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It helps the reader understand the context of the game.

• Gameplay screenshot(s): provides the reader with a concrete example of the Gameplay information, as well as a subtle compare-contrast between remakes.
• PZ2: Wii Edition cover: provides secondary identification, as well as concrete evidence of it being a Wii remake of the original. Plus, it shows two main antagonists: Sae Kurosawa and the Kusabi.

—017Bluefield (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those reasons meet the bar set forth by WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the screenshots do help the reader understand the context of the game, both in setting and in gameplay. —017Bluefield (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But per the second part of WP:NFCC#8 the omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Werieth (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. Without the screenshot, the reader won't precisely understand how FFII's Viewfinder mode, or its HUD components, work(s). For the original version's Camera Obscura, the power charge focused on the player's proximity to the hostile ghost; not time spent watching it, as seen in almost every other installment. —017Bluefield (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One screenshot to go along with a sourced gameplay section for video games is considered standard practice (and one of the items listed at NFCI). NFCC#8 is met by assuring that the screenshot showcases key gameplay features that are described and sourced in the text (in the concept of a video game, it is very hard to narrow the game to a single screenshot and talk about that image in context). Any more than one screenshot must require more normal application of NFCC#8. In the case of an HD remake, if its just to show the graphics in the HD and not talk about new gameplay features or to go along with sourced discussion of what graphical improvements have been made in the HD version, then the second screenshot, in HD, is not appropriate (as appears to be in this case). --MASEM (t) 06:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:VA-VA-VOOM-NICKI-MINAJ.jpg

This appears to be simple text, as does a generic Parental Advisory. Below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Power 108.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WENZ logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:107.9 The END logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WERE logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WGAR-FM logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 05:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WHWN logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 05:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WKNR logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WWGK logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 06:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Unpakt logo.jpg

There is nothing in this media above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Provides identification for the subject of one article. Keep. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's not the issue. It's a simple text-only logo and thus instead of being non-free, likely should be free (and thus kept without a problem). It's too simple to be creative under the concept of "Threshold of Originality" (TOO) to qualify for copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nature Air logo.svg

There is nothing in this media above TOO, although it's an artistic script. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg

I disagree that we need a possibly non-free image for this. The gun is pretty common, found in several Russian museums (here for example) and there are several PD photos of it in volume two of the book by Chinn (US gov't work) of the exemplar tested at Arbedeen. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can't see how this meets WP:NFCC#1. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• If this is a Russian photo from 1940 or 1941 (when the gun was introduced), it would actually be free as {{PD-URAA}} though. There are some books which have photo credits detailed enough to establish this; I'm going to go through them and investigate that angle (see if this photo shows up in any of them). Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Family-Game-Night-Yahtzee-Bowling.jpg

I don't think this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#1. The image itself is not the subject of commentary, but rather appears to illustrate how the game is played. Presumably a free mock-up of what the bowling pins look like could be made. Deleting this image would be in line with previous precedent at NFCR for a screenshot of Plinko being played failing NFCC, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 19#File:Plinkoseason37.jpg. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice Vickery.jpg

Given the date of the image, I'm disputing if this needs to be considered Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Brisbane School of Theology.jpg

Threshold of originality not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VanillaForums.org Screenshot.png

Software is described as being GPL, presumably the concern is the user content shown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ETV-Rasoi-Show-logo.jpeg

This is logo artwork, so unlikely to be a self work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• So retag it, and inform the uploader. Next. :) There's ~225 active cases on this page. I don't think we need to bring simple ones like this, yeah? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Maynard Jackson NGE.jpg

Used in four articles and violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of them. The rationale does not comply with WP:NFURG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:After School - Shampoo sample.ogg

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in After School (band) and Virgin (After School album). None of the two articles would suffer from acute unintelligibility if the sample were removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bisnode logo.png

This images is below TOO according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Keystone Library Network's Logo.png

This is a logo which does not meet Threshold or originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg

I tagged this file for violating WP:NFCC#10c as part of the NFCC task I perform. The file obviously lacks rationales for Economy of Turkey, High-speed rail in Turkey and Turkish State Railways. Is the content of the section File:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg#Fair use rationale what is considered a valid rationale per WP:NFURG? I would argue this is not the case and thus the file also lacks a rationale for EUROTEM. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canal+ Cinéma logo 2009.svg

Commons treats this logo as not having met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelion retouched.png

Treated as a textlogo on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jcp logo.PNG

In the commons deletion disscussion, this image was deemed not to have met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bnt-sat.png

According to Commons, this logo does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TattleTales Logo.JPG

Possibly a PD-textlogo failing WP:TOO? RJaguar3 | u | t 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To Tell the Truth

I request a review of whether all of the non-free images (except for the infobox logo) satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am of the opinion they do not. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think [18] provides context needed to fully understand the time period and how the show looked. The cast shot could be done with individual free pictures, so unless free images of them don't exist that needs to go. Most of the rest don't add enough, IMO, to meet NFCC#8, though the black and white logo might if there were some non-trivial coverage of the logo change (which I doubt). Hobit (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The cast shot is public domain (pre-1978 publication in the US with no notice). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'd (obviously) not looked. I'm assuming the same doesn't apply to the screen shots from before 1978 for some reason? Could you explain? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless on this... Hobit (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure. Currently, the images are tagged as non-free. I have no idea whether the episodes from which they came has copyright notices. Even if they lacked copyright notices, case law says that pre-1978 broadcast of a copyrighted work does not constitute the kind publication that would trigger the copyright notice requirement. See Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1981). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UniversalTelevision1975.png

Clearly logo artwork, and not uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After the Lights

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:After The Lights Sweetbox RS.jpg and File:Sweetbox After The Lights KE.jpg. One of them should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rahula College Crest Color.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya. Might be in the public domain due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nutsmagazine.jpg

Whilst the image helps identify the magazine, I don't see why the article needs a particular cover image, when the publications logo is already included in the infobox. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, Playboy has a fair number of images including a cover. Seems as reasonable to have a cover image of a magazine as it does an album cover of a record (maybe more). Hobit (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png

This is a seal of a California Local government agency. Aren't these freely license-able? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Works produced by the US Gov't are public domain but that provision does not apply to state or local gov't under it. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is the normal thing we do with seals of cities in city articles? Hobit (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They are generally considered like logos and can be used the identifying image for the city. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jedi Knights.png

It was argued that this picture goes against WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, although I believe the justification I gave on both criteria is valid and helps user's understanding of the subject in question. LusoEditor (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out on Talk:Jedi, to visualize the general appearance of what Jedi are, there are plenty of free images of Jedi cosplayers that work as well as the non-free screenshot, and per NFCC#1, should be replaced with one of those. The article is not talking specifically about the two Jedi shown, only using them as examples, but so can any cosplay pictures with the same educational relevance. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, cosplay is just an attempt (never as accurate as a picture from the source material which is a visual representation of the author's vision) to replicate what is shown on the movies. I would agree that a cosplay picture could be used to represent fandom or pop culture, but not the subject itself. LusoEditor (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Within the films, there's so many different styles (due to species) that it's hard to talk about accuracy. It would be one thing if it was, say, a combat suit with a lot of fine details, but here we are talking robes, a lightsaber, and arguably a specific way to fashion a bit of hair. Yes, the robes do have a certain cut and tailoring on them, but the fan-efforts are as close enough to accurate as needed for an encyclopedic topic, and hence why non-free is replaceable here. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Film-wise, the robes are pretty much the same for the various species. And again, the fact that it's a picture of master and apprentice also conveys the relationship and ranking between the two. I still think that as far as fictional characters goes, a picture from the source material will always convey a more accurate representation to the readers while not contradicting any copyright law (since it fits under fair-use) and that a cosplay picture would be more appropriate to a fandom section. LusoEditor (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a copyright law issue, at least in the aspect that we need to worry about Lucas/Disney coming down and suing Wikipedia. Instead we have a free content mission that allows exceptional uses of non-free but only when free media can't serve the same purpose, as to encourage free content development. While I understand the need to be accurate, there is very little difference from a off-hand, out-of-universe discussion of the concept of a Jedi using non-free compared to free cosplay images. If we were talking specifically about these characters, that's a different issue but we're talking the broad concept of a Jedi, and we don't need to use them to show the general look and feel. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article as it's written is not about the broad concept of a Jedi, it's about the fictional organization in the fictional canon. In fact, is bordering WP:NOTPLOT. Even if it was rewritten to cover the broad concept, this image would still relevant at the section for fictional characters in the franchise for identification and depiction of its marketing characteristics as presented by LucasFilm+Disney. Diego (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just as we wouldn't use a picture of someone pretending to be a person to illustrate that person, we should not be using fan art to illustrate something from a movie. So meets NFCC#1 unless someone can find a free version of something from the movie (which isn't impossible, just unlikely). Clearly meets NFCC#8. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not how our non-free policy works. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opinion is noted, but I'm not at all clear what basis you have for it. Care to explain? I am pretty sure we don't dress people up to look like someone else in biographical articles. Nor do we use fan art to (for example) illustrate what a power puff girl is. I'm not sure how what you are proposing is any different. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This is not an article about the specific characters of Obi-Wan Kanobi or Qui-Gon Jinn where it would be inappropriate to use a fan recreation to represent them, just as it would be inappropriate to use a person dressed as a famous person to represent that person. But we're talking about the general concept of a Jedi and since, even within the official media, numerous ways they are dressed and depicted, there is no reason that a well-done fan recreation in pose (photographed freely) can be used to do the same encyclopedic purpose of showing what a Jedi is typically dressed like and what they use as a weapon. It would be similar to using free photos of Civil War recreationists instead of non-free photos (well, if such existed, most should be free by now, but the point is there) to show what the Blues and the Grey were like in real life. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd hope that using recreationists wouldn't go well as the sole image for what the Blues and the Greys looked like (yes, assuming all that was copyrighted). Hobit (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But again, this is not just about apparel. The way they work, master and apprentice together, is also present (and weaponry of course). I still think that one "encyclopedic purpose" is to be as accurate as possible. And nothing like a picture from the source material to do so instead of cosplay. From my point of view, Jedi are part of a franchise that is non-free by default, therefore any visual representation of them (except fandom or pop culture) has to come from the source material, just like any fictional organization. LusoEditor (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • That picture (the non-free) gives no impression about the master-apprentice relationship (yes, I know it exists) nor do I think you can necessarily do that with any scene from the movie, the only thing that differentiates it from any possible fan made version is the visual effects, which are not part of the article. I shouldn't have to impress how big the Star Wars fandom is and from that , and to what extents those fans go for accuracy in their work; ergo, it's difficult to argue that we need the movie still to be accurate. I realize none of the Jedi-related images at commons are of them same quality to be used for this article currently, but as Star Wars remains a popular franchise it remains completely possible that a free image of high quality cosplays is possible. (Now, to throw a different angle, I *could* see a screenshot from .. oh, let's say late in the Phantom Menace when Anakin and/or Obi-Wan is facing the Jedi council as a means of showing several facets of Jedi that cannot be captured by fans - the variety of species, the Council itself, and possibly (Can't recall if there is such a scene) the appearance of Anakin and Obi-Wan in the same scene together in front of the Council as to show the master/apprentice better. And of course, the outfits.) --MASEM (t) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• The reason to have this image is the same one we include images for any other copyrighted media (be it movies, comic book characters and album covers): for identification and display of its marketing characteristics. A cosplay image may be adequate for Jediism, which is about its influences in the real world, and also at Jedi#In popular culture which should deal with fan reactions. But this article is mainly about the fictional characters from the movie franchise, therefore the same rules apply as any other copyrighted media, and the same reasons why we don't find a fan art substitute adequate are at play here. Diego (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have no clear-cut allowances for images for identification of fictional characters, however, unlike the NFCI for cover arts, so that same logic does not apply. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That still wouldn't make reasonable to replace this with [19]. The reasons to display the franchise's characterization are sound and stand on their own. Diego (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You can't replace a cartoon character with a real-life photo, obviously. But when we have something that exists in a physical manner and that can be recreated relatively accurately by fans, then yes, we need to consider. Note that I'm talking about the concept of the Jedi - I would not be saying the same if we were talking about Obi-Wan Kanobi, where no matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it wouldn't be the same as either Alec Guinness or Ewan McGreggor's version. As there is not one Jedi in the films, we're not in the same position. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How does having more than one Jedi change anything? No matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it will not be equal to any of the Jedis in the films. Diego (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You're trying to show what a Jedi looks like, right? There's nothing in the article talking about the cinematic details of the Jedi or their design or the like, ergo, a fan-made (high quality) Jedi costume is just as good as a movie shot to show what a Jedi looks like - a person typically wearing heavy earthen-tone robes. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Homer example is completely different as Homer Simpson is a character, Jedi is not. Homer Simpson has an iconic look represented by a very specific drawing; Jedi is an entire group of fictional characters that span multiple formats and vary wildly in appearance, and the distinctive traits which are usually associated with Jedi (typically robes and a lightsaber) can easily be demonstrated by a free equivalent (NFCC #1) or with a description (NFCC #8). If "Jedi" was a character played by a specific actor then that would be an apt comparison, but Jedi have been represented by numerous actors and depicted in countless media in too many ways to count and there is no "the Jedi", there are Jedi. There are no Homer Simpsons, there is the Homer Simpson. That's quite different. A better comparison would be comparing Jedi to Stormtrooper (Star Wars), which has a free image. - SudoGhost 05:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe fictional characters and organizations should have picture from the source material as primary visual representation, not only to not mislead the reader but to present a more accurate representation. Free images of stormtroopers should be used for pop culture section of the article, for example, because it indeed shows how these fictional characters are being represented by fandom. We are talking about fictional characters, therefore there can't be free equivalents. All there is are fan made attempts to replicate the source. An article of Jedi or stormtroopers should have pictures of Jedi and stormtroopers as presented on the source material, and not pictures of people dressed as them. Again, it's misleading to the reader. LusoEditor (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Your belief is inconsistent with WP:NFCC. You're saying there can't be a free equivalent when there already is. We're not talking about a fictional character, we're talking about a fictional group, that's the key difference and why most of these comparisons (Homer Simpson) are irrelevant. There is no way a free image, which conveys identical information can be misleading when the only difference between that one and the non-free image is WP:NFCC #1. Both would equally serve the same purpose on an encyclopedia, so to claim that it would be misleading is itself misleading and again, inconsistent with WP:NFCC. - SudoGhost 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have been reading through the discussion, the image and the article. This is not an article about the film or even a specific character, but of a characteristic or trait found in a fictional story. This, if wide in scope and encyclopedic, would cover all the genres where this trait is found such as film, television, novels, comic books etc. If that is the case, and there is no discussion of the specific costumes, characters or situation and how the depiction relates to the subject, it isn't even needed in the article and is just decorative. Now, having said that...the article might be improved by having a section on the film versions of Jedi characters (from a real world perspective). Is this file needed for that depiction or is there an existing non free image depicting Jedi that could be used.

As for the argument that a cosplay image could be used in this article to depict Jedi, that is not actually accurate is it? It is in reality not a primary source where the characteristic or trait/subject is relevant but is a "reaction" to the primary source material. Coplay Costumes could well be used to depict costumes in general (depending on quality), but can cosplay be used to depict the actual character? No, as that would indeed be inaccurate as cosplay is not the subject as seen in the primary source. This is important when you stop and think about the possibilities of having a non free image of William Shatner removed only because there are now non free images of cosplay and fan films available. Should non notable fans begin uploading images of themselves for Wikipedia articles. No, these things cannot replace the original primary source. An image of a fan dressed for The Rocky Horror Picture Show may have encyclopedic value in The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following but since there are so many professional depictions that are available of the character and free we would use something of that nature, not a fan made cosplay image.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're still using the comparison to specific characters, which do not apply to this article. William Shatner plays a specific character, a person cosplaying that specific character would not illustrate that character in a way that conveys the same information as the actual actor. This article is not about a character. In no way would a non-free image of William Shatner be removed just because Jedi has a free equivilent, the two are in no way comparable. Shatner has a specific look, Jedi do not. Given the extreme variance in appearance and traits that Jedi have, what would a non-free image convey that a free image could not? Nothing. That is what is important. The article is not Specific Jedi or even Jedi in Films, where a non-free image would make more sense. Luke Skywalker is a specific character, and in no way should that image be replaced with a free equivalent, as none would serve the same purpose. The Jedi article is not the same in any way, however. Even if an image is required given the only common aspects of Jedi can be explained in text (WP:NFCC #8), a free image provides exactly the same information as a non-free one. No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate. - SudoGhost 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I used a character as an example in a potion of my comments as this article is referring to a characteristic. It isn't about an object or a person, but a fictitious position or title, a Jedi Knight. Even being non specific, you don't address the encyclopedic issue of scope or any of what I addressed about use depending of relevance. You just focused on the Character analogy, which is a possibility and where this leads by saying that amateur cosplay can take the place of non free images of the primary work in non specific articles only because there is no assumption of...what....originality in the subject. Or is it the assumption that the character is so broad it can be my dog in a costume?--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate" Uh, I am afraid that is just not accurate. Specific actors have played specific roles. Jedi, as a fictional title or position is portrayed by VERY specific actors in very specific roles. If the article discusses the two actor's portrayal of the specific Jedi characters in this specific film...it most certainly does pass NFCC#8 and as cannot be replaced with a free image and deleting it would effect that understanding.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, who portrays Jedi? Can you provide a list that is shorter than 50? I'm almost positive that more than that many actors and voice actors alone have portrayed Jedi, so how are they "very" specific, when Jedi have been portrayed by so many people? That is the opposite of specific, so no specific actor is required to portray something that has such a varied appearance. The article is about Jedi, not two specific ones out of countless others, so the image most certainly does not meet NFCC #8 by any means, as what is being illustrated there is far from critical to improve the understanding of the topic. Maybe for those specific characters at their respective articles, but certainly not this one. - SudoGhost 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Cosplay is short for "Costume play". If the contention is that these images can be used for generic characterizations in general, I would dispute that as not only not the primary source, but not the intention of any cosplay image which depicts people "at play" in a costume, which has limited encyclopedic value as relevant to any primary subject.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since the subject of the article is a fictional organization, a picture from the source material which gives a visual representation of such organization or its elements will always help increase the readers understanding of the topic. What I can agree with, is to change the text that accompanies the thumbnail in order to make it more relevant to a specific part of the article. LusoEditor (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• What the text says is irrelevant, the image itself is the issue. There is nothing this image conveys that a free image could not, that's the problem and why it fails WP:NFCC. That it is from "the source material" does not make it more informative when the elements of the image common to the article's subject are very basic and can be conveyed with a free image or even in the text itself. - SudoGhost 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That a cosplay picture can be used and convey the same information and accuracy as one from the source material is your opinion, not a fact (thus the discussion). I (and apparently others) happen to disagree and have justified my opinion more than once. LusoEditor (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But there's no contextual significance in the article to explain why the accurate film film is necessary to see over the nearly accurate cosplay versions. For a reader who has no idea what a Jedi is coming into the article, the fan image does as good a job of showcasing their appearance as the non-free, which means we have a free equivalent per NFCC#1 and non-free may not be used. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But again, how can a cosplay picture be as accurate or present a more valid representation of the subject than one from the source material? Specially when we're talking about fictional characters. And this is not just about apparel. This picture represents an example of two individuals with fictional weapons, of different ranks, from that same fictional organization, working together. I still don't understand how can a cosplay convey the same. Not to mention the precedence that logic would open. LusoEditor (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article. The only difference between a free and non-free image is just that, the license. How can they not convey the same information? The only thing different between the free and non-free would be the specific individuals which, again, does not matter since the article is not about any individuals. - SudoGhost 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article." Look, a lot of this is about the real world perspective and encyclopedic value. No, we are not talking about anyone who can slap on a Don Post mask, pose with their light sabre collectable and call themselves "Jedi". That may well be relevant for Jedi cosply but not for Jedi knight.

By the way.....I should probably point out that a cosplay image of the copyrighted costume design of Jedi Knights are in fact in violation of Commons standards on the subject which can be reviewed at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter under "Costumes and cosplay"[20]. The costume is original, not in the public domain or suitable license. The issue is far too complicated for this proposal to be acceptable in the argument. Cosplay images cannot be used in this manner and uploading of copyright reproductions are a violation of Commons guidelines in most instances.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to add that it does matter which people are in the picture because they are an example of characters that represent Jedi. Cosplay pictures can only represent cosplay, because that's what that is. To show it as an example of Jedi is misleading to the reader and goes against any encyclopedic purpose. LusoEditor (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Jedi is not a specific person or a small specific group of people, it is a very large fictional organization with countless members, at least hundreds of which have been portrayed in media, so there's no need to present a specific person as to exclude them would not be a detriment to the understanding of what a Jedi is. So no, it doesn't matter which person is in the picture since Jedi is not defined as a specific individual. - SudoGhost 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For comparison sake: To represent soldiers in an article, you would use a picture of actual soldiers, instead of kid or someone (who isn't a soldier) wearing a soldiers suit/cammo/whatever. Since pictures of actual Jedi don't exist due to their fictional nature, we have to go to the source material because that's as accurate as it can get. You argue that those two don't represent Jedi due to that organization having thousands of elements. But to go back to the soldier analogy, you can use a picture of two bald soldiers to represent them, although soldiers with brown/blonde/etc hair exist within the army. The ones on the picture don't represent all Jedi, but do represent elements of the order thus making it an accurate representation. LusoEditor (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We also have free images of soldiers, so that's a moot point. I didn't say those two don't represent Jedi, I said those two individuals are not the only representation of Jedi, their presence in the article is not critical as there is nothing at all that image illustrates that a free image could not. Your argument would make sense if WP:NFCC wasn't a policy, but Wikipedia looks at it through the scope of NFCC, not through "we should only use official images if we at all can". Official does not equal more accurate, both convey the same information in the same way in the ways that matter. - SudoGhost 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But we don't have free images of Jedi. My point is that the same way we don't use people dressed as soldiers to represent real soldiers, we don't use people dressed as Jedi to represent Jedi. Just because it's non-free, doesn't mean cosplay and related fan attempts can replace it. Wikipedia doesn't forbid the use of non-free media. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to make a case of it, and looking at it from a non-WP:NFCC point of view, and nobody said Wikipedia forbids the use of non-free media, but it's not necessary here by any stretch. - SudoGhost 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as I read it and with the examples given (particularly given the examples provided as argued to be kept by former WMF lawyer Mike Godwin). Particularly with the case of the Jedi costume which is very non-distinct, and that most cosplayers are using their own variations that keep the common look. I would at least say that cosplay of Jedi is not a cut and dried case given how it is handled at Commons. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Those examples of what were kept are being used as examples of what not to upload and why costumes images are sometimes kept. Non distinct isn't a factor here unless you can provide a cosplay image to discuss that is an actual derivative of the costume to determine just how non distinct the specific image would be. The Jedi costume is copyrightable as a unique design with very specific pattern, material etc. Variations don't really matter since they are derivatives themselves of the design and are still covered by Commons guidelines. But this really does demonstrate that the idea was not to policy or guidelines as even on Wikipedia it is a copyright violation to upload images or copyrightable designs you make yourself. I'm not talking out of my butt by the way. I am a replica costumer. I can take images of my costumes that are based on public domain designs like the replica costumes from Horatio Hornblower films and television shows. The designs are in the public domain. I cannot make replicas of copyright characters or the copyright designs, but I can make the individual pieces that are public domain. Put them together and try to sell them as a character costume and you are in violation of copyright. How can we begin to make claims about costume images we know nothing about aside from the face value we perceive. It isn't a spiderman costume unless it was officially sold as a "Spiderman" costume. Make it yourself and no, you cannot call it a spiderman costume. At most it is similar to the style of spiderman (again, unless an official depiction/costume). So, I can upload images I took of Planet of the Apes characters as they toured as long as the costumes are only secondary in nature and not the full aspect of the image, I cannot reproduce the costume designs and take a picture for Wikimedia Commons as that violates copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the language of the "KEEP" discussions for both examples and its clear that Godwin says that as long as photographer is making the image under a free license, there's no copyvio involved "It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful." Given that commons has 1300+ images of people in costume, including, off the bat, 3 images of near-perfect Star Wars characters representations, I believe you have misread the intent there. I do agree that there may not be worldwide allowances for their use, hence the warning in the Costume template there, but the US here, we're good. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are reading the deletion discussion of a specific image but your reading does not take into consideration that the taking of that image was secondary in nature (spiderman with girl) where the other image of the Pirate was not considered original enough of a design to be copyrightable. There is always copyright involved when taking images of copyrightable characters, it is how the image is used and what it is of as the main subject or subjects that are considered. You believe I misread the intent given the number of images, regardless of whether any of those are outright copyright violations even for commons? That is a very weak argument Masem and has no logic other than raw numbers that can only support sheer volume and not adherence to guidelines and policy or a correct assessment of those polices.

The issue here is whether or not a cosplay image can be used as a deletion argument for a non free image just because of a design element within said image that may well be a copyright violation using a derivative work.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Jedi" costume with a specific pattern though (or even a vague idea of a pattern), so that doesn't really apply here. You're still talking about specific characters whereas this is not. What you said would most certainly apply to Luke Skywalker, but not so much to Jedi. What you're saying also seems at odds with what's already at commons, since there's an entire category of Stormtroopers on Commons and they have a very, very specific appearance whereas Jedi would not. I'm not saying that should be justification as I don't know if those images have been discussed on commons, but I know that Stormtrooper (Star Wars) has had such an image up for years. - SudoGhost 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Were you aware of the copyright issue that was decided about the storm trooper costume specifically? It is considered functionary in the UK but have intellectual property protection in the US. Commons (not Wikipedia) allows source country copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, it's still free to use on en.wiki if there are country restriction codes - as long as commons has argued to keep the image, en.wiki will treat those as free, but just like any other free image, reusers of our content need to verify they can reuse commons images in their country. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a pattern for a Jedi costume. Simplicity sells it and has the "right" to copy the design.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not using the pattern, we're using the result (akin to the difference between sheet music and the performance of that music both which can be copyrighted). But that's assuming the design started from the pattern, and I would suspect in many images this is not the case. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if true that would still mean this image fails WP:NFCC as it would still be a freer alternative than this image. Both would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, both would convey the same information, so there's no reason to use the non-free image, which might be appropriate in Jedi in film but not Jedi. - SudoGhost 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A clothing design cannot be copyrighted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but a lightsaber might be more likely to be (although I doubt it would be inappropriate for Commons, as there's an entire category of them there). - SudoGhost 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not accurate. Clothing designs may be copyrightable. In this case we are not talking about functional clothing but artistic costumes meant to create a character. And I suggest you mention your theory, that clothing cannot be copyrighted to the Simplicity pattern company, as they would beg to differ.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before on the article's talk page, I feel that the cosplay images are not an free equivalent so I feel that WP:NFCC#1 is met, but I am not sure about WP:NFCC#8 and I wish more of the discussion was focused on that aspect so I could accurately form an opinion about the image. Since Stormtrooper was brought, I thought I would search some of the other Star universe, Klingon has two non-free images, Romulan has one non-free image, Vulcan (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image to represent the blessing gesture and Borg (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image of an official prop display at a museum. Maybe Borg is a good example in that we might be able to find some official museum display that we could use as a free image for the article. Aspects (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be discussing the NFCC#8 issue and that while this discussion is ongoing the relevant prose could be added to strengthen the NFCC criteria. I also thought about museum pieces and the issue still is whether such images still violate the copyright of costumes. For example on the article about Star Fleet uniforms I was going to upload a few images from flickr from the official costumes on display and the same issue arises, copyright of a creative work of William Ware Theiss, the original intellectual property holder. We have to wait 75 years form his death for his copyright to be released to public domain even if the costumes are only trademarked by Paramount (unless this falls within the non re registered period for older copyright works up to the mid 1970's, and Theiss failed to register copyright). This may also apply to props if they are completely original designs that have more than a functionary purpose. It isn't an easy issue. It depends on the individual situation and the work in question.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have argued that there is a better non-free image to use here if one is talking about the Jedi, similar to this that shows the Jedi Council with young Anakin in the center. This only only shows how they are dressed, but the variation in species, and the ranking concept , achieving several purposes at the same time. The only facet not shown that the above non-free gives are lightsabers, but that's not the core of this article (and we have what appears to be a free user-rendering of one on that article). Mind you, discussion of the Jedi order in additional non-primary sources would likely strengthen the rationale for an image. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded this picture because, not only was a copy with better quality of the one the article had for a long time, but it also shows the Jedi on the field, instead of the "ruling" council that merely gives directives and appoints missions. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's yet another reason this specific image is inappropriate; you replaced a jpg with a png, which is completely contrary to WP:IUP#FORMAT and WP:NFCC #3, because I guarantee you that the image you uploaded is of a higher (or as you say "better") quality/resolution. I'm certain of this because this instance is far from the only time you've done this, and the reason you've done it is specifically the reason why you shouldn't. - SudoGhost 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I used PNG because it was the original format of the picture, but also for no compression artifacts. Second, the picture I uploaded was of lower resolution but of better quality when compared to the previous one (which was full of macroblocking). WP:NFCC #3 asks for lower resolution/bitrate when compared to the original file, not another copy. And third, you didn't even know why I did this in the first place, therefore you can't claim that I should or shouldn't have done so. If I've done anything similar in the past (which I rarely do unless I see a necessity for), doesn't explain any future uploads I do. Baseless assumptions are unnecessary and completely off-topic. And if it's decided that the problem is the format of the picture, then I'll gladly upload a JPG version of it. But first I'll wait for a consensus on the rest. LusoEditor (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The format of the photo is far from the only issue, it's just another drop in the pond as to why this picture has no place in the article. I can most certainly claim you shouldn't have done so, when Wikipedia policy says to use png and you specifically replace those with another format because you feel it is a better quality. The reason Wikipedia uses png for film screenshots is exactly the opposite of the reason you've been replacing them, so I most certainly can say you shouldn't have. So this image fails WP:NGCC #1, 3, and 8 and WP:IUP. The format is a surmountable problem, but the others most certainly are not. - SudoGhost 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the original image that you replaced mirrored on another site and reuploaded it, since it was at least the correct format. I can say for certain that using "480 × 310 pixels, file size: 240 KB" as opposed to "450 × 290 pixels, file size: 12 KB" is quite inappropriate; increasing the size and resolution is not appropriate and not in keeping with WP:NFCC #3 by any means. Please stop uploading higher resolution images in png format just because you think the image looks better; it's supposed to be minimal usage and in jpeg format (for films). - SudoGhost 23:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just Wikilawyering using any and all policy or guidelines to argue any manner of reason to find fault. Look, he can upsize any image he finds on an internet site found off wiki as long as it is still small enough to pass minimal use guidelines on Wikipedia. He CANNOT upsize them on Wikipedia above the original upload size. The policy is: "If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible, and not be a substitute for the original work, because to be fair use, it must be minimal." To be clear, this says nothing about uploading the image in a higher resolution than the original file found. It just says it must not be not be a substitute for the original work. If it is a screenshot from the original work (the video or film itself) it must not be upsized as it is the size from the "original work" (that being the video or film). A site on the internet is NOT the original work and therefore cannot be claimed to be a substitute for the original work. By the way the language about formatting says "Should" not "must" or "is required".--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to chill out with the "wikilawyering" bit, as that accusation doesn't even make sense with what I've said. If I was "wikilawyering", I wouldn't upload a version that didn't have that problem and reinsert it into the article myself. Someone "wikilawyering" wouldn't fix the problem he's pointing out, since that problem is no longer a justification to remove the image (not that it was in the first place). The reason I brought that up is because this isn't the first time the png format has been an issue. Please be more conservative with your use of "wikilawyer" in the future, given that it isn't applicable here. - SudoGhost 00:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Colbert Dinner.JPG

This file was deleted as noncompliant with NFCC#8 in a previous discussion with little participation. It is relisted following a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 19. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unneeded. All those pictured, we have free images for, so it's not a matter of showing who these people are. If there's some reaction that we're supposed to get (as the FUR suggests), I'm not seeing it, alone or in context, just that Colbert's there and Bush is reacting to something but without any clear means "how" he is doing so. Unless there is significantly more context here, this is inappropriate non-free that fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be having an article on a subject (the dinner) with no pictures. Aren't there _some_ free pictures taken by those attending? I don't agree with Masem that because there exist free pictures of those attending NFCC#1 isn't met. But I'd like to hear how we know free pictures don't exist. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that an article have an image, free or non-free or otherwise. Given that this event is in the past, then we can't assume there can be a free replacement of the dinner itself (though perhaps there is one out there). But that said, there's no need to have a picture of the dinner event when there's nothing of visual impact happening here. We can use free pictures of Colbert, Bush and others to illustrate the article, which provide better context for the reader than this vague non-free screencap from CSpan. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement to use images, I agree. But that doesn't lead to the notion that we shouldn't have them. First question is to see if free images exist. Second is to figure out if we need an image here. I'd argue yes--it's darn hard to explain what things looked like with just words for something this complex. But let's figure out the first part before we have that discussion--it may well be irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • There were clearly cameras there ([21], we just need to find decent free images. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, if we can adequetely talk about an article without an image compared to including a non-free, we don't include the non-free. "No image" can be an equivalent for a non-free image if we're just talking talking heads of recognizable people. And just because we know other cameras were there does not assure us a free image can be had, particularly given the elite nature of the event. We would have to make these people release their images for free , which is not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Because the broadcast rights are sold commercially, all photography other than the broadcast rights holder is limited to free images (ie Non-Commercial). But free images still require a Fair Use justification on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Not sure about any of that. People taking pictures on their own could chose to release them into the public domain if they chose to (or put them under what Wikipedia would consider a free license). But we'd need to find pictures with such a license or get someone to release a picture that way. Given the number of people there, that should be possible I'd think. Hobit (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• In any case, we don't need this image. As Masem rightly said, it doesn't actually tell us anything. The faces of the main participants, especially Bush, are so small anything non-trivial in their facial expressions is basically indiscernible. What else does the image show us? Does anybody seriously think we need visual illustration of the colour of the curtains or the design of the flower decoration to understand this event? Somebody on the DRV went so far as to suggest we need this so the reader can see "how close Colbert and the President were". As if that couldn't adequately conveyed through a simple description ("Bush was sitting on the podium just two seats away from Colbert"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It conveys the formal nature of the occasion and the closeness of Colbert to the President. The image is significant in illustrating the subject of the article, facilitating critical commentary as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. The quality of the image is due to some NFCC requirement. A higher resolution image could be obtained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with Hakweye regarding the role int he article, and note that how close Colbert was to Bush, and how formal the occasion was, play a role in understanding how the reception was so charged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously saying a reader couldn't adequately understand the idea that "person A was sitting two meters away from person B" without being shown a photo of it?!? That's just beyond ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I do not see "meters" or "metres" in the article at all. NFCC says we have to look at the use in the article, so your example is invalid (besides, I doubt any source would say "X was sitting two metres away from Y", and unless that information had a source, it would not be allowed in an FA). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You are missing the point: the fact that the seating arrangement isn't even mentioned in the article is even more reason to reject that claim of an NFCC#8 relevance. If it's not even worth discussing in the text, why would it be in need of illustration? My point was that even if it was found worth being treating, it could be treated adequately in text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I didn't miss the point, sorry to disappoint you. Indeed, I find that having sources not discuss the distance between Colbert and Bush makes it even more important that we illustrate it, so that readers can see for themselves one of the reasons why Bush would have been "ready to blow". There's a difference between saying X is (Redacted) at home, where he can't here you, and saying X is (Redacted) when you are within punching distance and yet at an event where X is bound by societal standards to shake your hand and smile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
              • This may all be very interesting, but as long as – as you yourself say – reliable sources aren't discussing it, it's OR, and hence not a legitimate consideration for justifying non-free content. Per WP:NFCC#8, non-free content is only used where it is necessary to ensure an adequate understanding of the content of the article. By "content", the criterion refers to legitimate, encyclopedic content, i.e. sourced content. An idea that would constitute illegitimate OR if expressed in text can never be an idea that justifies the use of non-free illustration to get it across to the reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                • No, that is simply wrong. The whole purpose of WP:NFCC#8 is to permit images that enhance our understanding of the article. Seeing it in the image conveys it much more powerfully. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • This is why NFCC#8 is of two parts: first is about aiding comprehension, but the other is if one's understanding of the topic is harmed if the image was not present, and because the scene is an extremely typical formal dinner/speech setup, the picture can be omitted and the topic still understood. Your argument is a serious misunderstanding of NFCC and its allowances. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • Would you have realised that if not for the image? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • "On April 29, 2006, American comedian Stephen Colbert appeared as the featured entertainer at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which was held in Washington, D.C., at the Hilton Washington hotel. Colbert's performance, consisting of a 16-minute podium speech and a 7-minute video presentation, was broadcast live across the United States on the cable television networks C-SPAN and MSNBC. Standing a few feet from U.S. President George W. Bush,[1] in front of an audience of celebrities, politicians, and members of the White House Press Corps,[2] Colbert delivered a controversial, searing routine targeting the president and the media.[3]" Obviously, yes. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Scutisorex thori skeleton.jpg

I doubt that the image adds sufficient value to the article to justify fair use. It is suggested that it is used to show the "strong, interlocking vertebrae" of the animal, but another non-free image in the article does so better. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. If the author of this illustration could make this illustration, somebody else can make another. That goes for the other ("better") illustration too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone else removed it from the article, so I speedy deleted it as "unused fair use" --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Article already has a recent cover in the infobox, thusly use of second cover image, should be supported by commentary in the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and 8 in Mayfair (magazine). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra

The Legend of Korra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an animated TV series. In the article feedback, many readers write that they miss images of the characters. My question is - would it be NFCC-compliant to provide such (unfree) images, provided that every pictured character and the process of their creation (influences, models etc.) is discussed? (There are sources for that.) Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A per character image wouldnt be permitted see WP:NFLIST, However if you can get a cast photo that is created by the original creators (Not fan or WP user created) 1-2 of those would be OK given the independent third party sources are found to back up the content. Werieth (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that is not true. WP:NFLISTS doesn't say that a non-free image per character would never be permitted in a list article. It only says that images showing multiple character at once are preferred over using a single image per character (per WP:NFCC#3a). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In practice, we would never have a list where each character was individually illustrated; it is very hard to imagine that one can't find at least one image that reasonably collects the major characters together in one place, but even if such was the case, it would likely be that only 2-3 major characters would be allowed images, unless of course, the character design was specifically discussed in depth, but otherwise to just illustrate, no. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The Virginian (TV series). The editors at The Virginian seem to have got round multiple cast images by uploading to the commons with the claim of no copyright mark. Can this only be used for pre 1977 or does the year move forward. Most television images (not screenshots which could not have them anyway} do not seem to have a © (letter C in a circle) stamped on them.REVUpminster (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything from 1978 onward typically has assumed copyright whether marked or not (see Commons:Hirtle_chart). For television shows, as long as there was a copyright message somewhere in the show's broadcast (typically at the end), that applied to the whole work, thus making the screenshots copyrights as well. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The images are publicity shots, and I agreed screenshots would not be able to include a copyright mark.REVUpminster (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there using publicity shots (note how on commons they have links to both front and back to assure copyright markings are absent) is completely fine. Most modern shows likely can't do that. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Free Music Archive Logo.jpg

Threshold of originality possibly not met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PD-Text. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:ZONG network.jpg

Image may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PD-Text. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Net50s.jpg

Complex logo. Single frame from a video broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo may have been published before with the copyright symbol prior to the image the broadcast was taken from. Unless it can be positively proven that there was never a copyright tag added to that logo, we have to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant "the broadcast the image was taken from." The article where this was used says it was a "still shot" used to identify the broadcast network. Typically these are shown for a few seconds between programmes. Unfortunately the source is only given as "Youtube" without a specific Youtube URL. —rybec 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And it could be on there for all of 1 second of the 5 second interstitial. Basically, we require positive proof of being non-copyrighted, and because we really can't get that without access to the old broadcast, we're going to have to assume non-free (as it won't meet TOO). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS 1971 id.svg

Logo that may fall below threshold of originality. Single frame from a network ID broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't fall under TOO, it actually would be one of the few old PBS adverts I'd keep since there's a reason why the letters are shaped like heads as explained in the text, and the original of the "P" that still remains part of the current logo. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where it's hard to predict whether the US copyright office would grant or reject copyright registration and thus we should treat it as non-free. I'd say the image should be removed from PBS#Overview. There's zero discussion about the logo. It is thus completely unnecessary in that section and violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

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)

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)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

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)

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)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

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.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Wikipedia first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Wikipedia. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide",[22] that Microsoft released with the Beta [23] "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see [24] and [25] for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #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. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, [blockquote], or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Masem: NFCC#1-replaceable as a free version can be created.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Masem. And the gif image is terrible. --95.69.98.119 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• Listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 28#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif. Cloudbound (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... [editors] who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik ^(talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
              • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel _Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people made up their minds from the moment this was listed here. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try and reformat the article, but it was reverted by another editor. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik ^(talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik ^(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I've added sources. --evrik ^(talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • You can't use the Pine Tree Web one as it is clearly citing Wikipedia, making it WP:CIRCULAR. The other (reading Google's translate) has little to speak directly about the logos and also being a blog raising questions of reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, you're right. I found another source and will look for others. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

KOFY-TV

I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG

I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:

1. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
2. 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
3. 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
4. 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
5. 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
6. 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
7. 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
8. 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
9. 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
10. 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
11. 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
12. 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
13. 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment

• Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
            • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete from Waterboarding: This isn't even a photo of the act, it is a painting of it! Anyone can make a painting of it. A painting by someone else would give exactly the same understanding. A clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

This violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the BSA Brand Identity Guide, I misidentified this emblem: File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg is the 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'. I will fix this.
• The emblem is currently used at:
  • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America): should use the proper 'Boy Scouts of America universal emblem' (Second Class Scout emblem)
  • Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • February 1910: not needed
  • History of the Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): I am fairly certain there is a training emblem; else the Trained emblem can be used.
    • File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg moved to File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • Proper version of File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg uploaded
    • Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • History of the Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • February 1910: image removed
    • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): image removed; will replace with proper emblem once I find it
    • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now uses proper File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
    • --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and in particular WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, wait, it's an American painting. Maybe that makes it PD due to failure to comply with copyright formalities, although I have no idea how to prove that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have had to be registered (falling into the 1950-1963 period where registration was required in the 28 yr term), but there's no easy way to search for this. It would make sense to consider it non-free until it can be found. As for its use, it's clearly fine on Milton Avery's page (an artist's work) but the other uses are suspect - there's not much establishing this as a major work that needs to be seen to understand those topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Avery is an important artist from the mid-20th century and this is a fine example of his mature work...Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a point made on the various "History" articles or the Landscape Artwork articles. It's included and Avery's name-dropped but there's no rational why this piece is more important than any other piece in the same family (contemporary western landscape artists) that we could probably find free replacements for if we're trying to demonstrate this period. Again, same probably with painting articles before - I know that the traditional way to present this in textbooks outside of WP is to show many many examples and let the work speak for itself, but we have a stronger requirement here and that method simply doesn't work. This is not to say that we need to remove those images "now" but just that the language can be improved to make them fit better to describe the importance of AVery's work. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do a copyright renewal search use: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I read somewhere that less than 5% were ever renewed in the 28 year window. Look at 27, 28, and 29 years after first publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in the 78-on copyright office search but I didn't look at the pre-records. I also note that Avery appears to be covered by the ARS ([26]) though that doesn't necessarily mean every work he did is covered. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem: If it was first published in a book or a newspaper, then I believe that you usually need to search for the book title or the name of the newspaper instead of searching for the name of the painitng. This is one thing which makes it difficult to search for renewals of paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding additional text as time permits...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Isobel (song)

I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last cover, the one that is a simple label, may be free - its text + simple shape and fails TOO. But 4 is still too many. One of the covers is clearly duplicative (there's a small change in the photo), not enough enough to justify it. The alt. art is reasonably fair to include per past discussions on regional variations. The music video image needs a lot better justification to keep. It's a Gondry video who is known to be visually abstract but the image doesn't correlate this to the article. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Book articles don't get multiple cover images. The article The Quest for Kalevala only has one cover image, not seven. Why are music products different? The main difference with music products is that cover images of music products provide less identification than cover images of printed publications since music more commonly is distributed without illustrations (for example on radio). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion within the last two years where the album project said that one additional cover if it is in major retail region and significantly different from the main release (eg: differences between EU and US versions) is appropriate but that's about all the allowance allowed if there's no further discussion on the cover images. So there's still a problem in this article, but we'd otherwise have to re-address that alt art consenssus. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@masem - it does 'correlate' - its from the video -look on youtube 2:23Sayerslle (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it appears in the video doesn't make it appropriate to include as non-free media here on WP. We need better correlation - specifically sourced discussion - in the text of the WP article that explains about the concept, creation, or the critical reception of the video in a manner that provides contextual significance. As I noted, since directed by Gondry who is known to be a master of the visual element, I am sure there is something that can be found for this, but that has to be found and included, otherwise, the image is just presented "here's a snap of the video, enjoy" and that flat out fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the whole song is explained by Bjork in the long quote there from 'eurotrash' - so in the still you can see what she is talking about She was born in a forest,- there it is behind her, the trees - between the land and the sky , as Basil Fawlty says, and the plane was a moth - She decided to send to the world all these moths that she trained to go and fly all over the world- so the text has explained the concept - so something has been found for this Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just explaining what's in the video isn't sufficient; the understanding of the video is not improved by having the image there over the existing text. We need something that expands more than just that that would make the image essential to add. I will also note, as a separate, that while there is quoted material in the article and the likely source is there, there must be an inline citation to that source material to keep that quote, otherwise, it can be considered a copyright violation; this is a separate issue from the non-free aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

well. its clearly not 'essential' - none of the images surely are 'essential' - just makes the articles more interesting to look at imo - what do you mean there must be an inline citation - it is sourced as it says at the start of the quote -to the eurotrash programme - do you mean it needs ref tags somewhere in the midst of the quote - what difference does that make? - i'm out of my depth here - I don't know all the rules clearly. btw- this is off-topic but can you tell me quickly if linking to youtube videos is frowned on at all at song/album articles? or inadvisable in any way, or is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

First, let me give you some help: Reference this article from Salon: [27], which specifically has the following quote (among others): "Certainly the fragile quality of light in “Isobel” recalls silent films.". There's enough in that article that can now be used to explain the visual nature of the video, thus making the inclusion of the image appropriate, and meeting NFCC#8. (There also may be other articles, but I hit on this one first) But that has to be included. As for quotes and citations, see WP:QUOTE on why we need to cite quotes, and WP:CITE for basic citation needs. On using YouTube videos, you need to be careful to make sure the video is actually copyright-allowable on youtube (normally: uploaded by the person that owns the copyright). That's more described over at External Link guidance. But to get to the point, the music video image certainly can be kept, since the Slate article, at minimum, supports the reason to see the video image. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - the quote was cited though, to the eurotrash programme - but I think I get the idea more with the text discussing, not just the narrative, but the 'art' of the video , - though the salon quote is pretty pseuds corner-ish imo - the light seems to dim and swell from moment to moment, almost as if the film stock itself possessed a beating heart (!) - i'll read the guidelines. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the cite, we'd want something more explicit (if its a program, the program season/episode information, so that it can be verifieid). As for the Salon quote, while a lot of the comments it makes are fluffy, it does establish - for purposes of NFC and Wikipedia - that the video gives off an old-school silent-era film quality which is something that is not easily described by text, and thus why I suggest using that to support the image. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Alagoas.jpg

This file is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

• Brazilian monitor Ceará
• Brazilian monitor Pará
• Brazilian monitor Piauí
• Brazilian monitor Rio Grande
• Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
• Pará-class monitor

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It also fails WP:NCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's the complete text of #3:
          • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
          • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
        • How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche

I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for interpreting your post differently. Although I would have liked to keep the anthology-like presentation of songs highlighting a particular period — as copied off Rush (band) — it's true that Queensrÿche hasn't been "relevant" for over 15 years. So I have narrowed it down to their two Grammy-nominated songs, and I think it will be good to keep in the two versions by the currently existing bands, as it helps people identify a distinction between them as long as they're still around. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the statuette and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, so we need a free licence from the photographer regardless of the copyright status of the statuette. See {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo part is not necessarily replaceable, depending on where the statuette is located. If it is a non-public place, then it is not easily replaceable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Commons file has a correct copyright tag (for the photo part), then the photo part is replaceable by cropping out the statuette from that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't solve the problem with the trophy, since all that would remain were the poster with the Yahoo logo, which is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the statuette. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I perhaps misunderstand what you said? Do you mean we should crop out the Yahoo logo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Clear violation of WP:NFG where the user refuses listen. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Question: Please explain why WP:LOGO should not be applied. Oh, and I did include commentaries on the images, so WP:NFCI #8 should also apply.
  2. Comment: "user refuses listen" is blatantly wrong and sounds very rude. I asked twice for a discussion before the removal of any content [28], [29] but can't find any contributions of User:Werieth on Talk:Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere. --jergen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No where on WP:LOGO does it say galleries of non-free files are permitted. There is/has been zero sourced commentary about the designs of the logos. WP:NFG is also listed as reasons to not include said images. WP:NFCC#8 hasnt been met. These logos are just used as eye candy. PS When working with NFCC, like copyvio, and BLP, the default is removal until consensus for inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To meet NFCC#8, we generally require sourced commentary, and not just discussion of what the logo looks like, as to establish contextual significance. Any image can be discussed without sourcing, and this sometimes is sufficient, but here as there's nothing else to make the need to show the logo important, it's not sufficient. Something along the lines of documented design choices or reasons to change, for example, would be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is indisputable that the presence of the logo's increases the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The only thing we can discuss is how significant the increase is and how harmful the omission would be. And how to weigh this to the other factors. --Egel _Reaction? 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is in fact easily disputable if omission harms the reader's understanding, as if there is no contextual significance, then the image absence does not harm understanding. Yes, they are related to the topic, therefore they do meet the first part of NFCC#8, but the topic about the scouting organization does rest on knowing the various logos used, in the present version, and thus beyond the main, current logo, are otherwise nice but decorative images and fail the second part. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then we are more in agreement than I thought. The arguments are correct, but the conclusion is not consistent. The logo is a significant part of the identity of a Scouting organization and therefore can tell a lot about the organization in question, if you know where to look. So there is contextual significance, so the image absence does harm understanding. As far as I can see, all the logos are the current versions. --Egel _Reaction? 14:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • One logo is fine for exactly the purposes you state - it is in fact the allowance we give for an stand-alone article on a notable organization. But any additional logos (for historical logos or subsidaries of the organization that do not have stand-alone articles) need justification for their inclusion, such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one. If that information isn't in the article, then the logo image is not necessary to comprehend the article and can be removed appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Where can I find the part "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one."? --Egel _Reaction? 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's what "contextual significance" means. Not just displayed, but discussed to some depth in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "how the design was made or why they moved to a newer one" has a low significance / urgency in the context of the discussion of the organisation as a whole. That are subjects to discus in a sub-section such as "History of the logo" of the section "History of the organisation" when the organisation has its own sizable article, in contrast with only a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. The logo itself has a high significance / urgency in the context of the information about the Scouting organisation as a whole, as explained above, and should therefore be included even if the organisation only has a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. We should use the opportunities that the rules provide us and not go invent ourselves stricter rules, for whatever reason. NFCC # 8 is clear to me: you can only use a logo when it is necessary for a good understanding of the organization, so for bands sometimes, often for companies and for Scouting organizations almost always. An explanation of the elements of a logo is needed because not all readers have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the logo. The explanation is not needed to provide contextual significance, because that is already present. --Egel _Reaction? 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one." is a nice rule of thumb (and nothing more) for some classes of images but not for the current main logo of a Scouting organisations. Review should done on the basis of the official rules, not on the basis of self-invented rules of thumb. --Egel _Reaction? 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I added the images back in, again, to keep the bots from tagging them for deletion. This, in essence, is the same discussion we had earlier (and still open on this page) about the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Savez_izvi.C4.91a.C4.8Da_Bosne_i_Hercegovine. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have sat this one out for a while solely because I didn't want to engage in yet another pointless debate. I want to note that Werieth is engaging in the same bullying tactics on Jergen used against me. Also, the demand that images be not placed in the article until this discussion is over is simply that, a demand. It is not actual policy and is made up. --evrik ^(talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually see the bottom of WP:NFCC the burden Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to ensure that it comply with policy. Unless there is consensus for usage it doesnt meet WP:NFCC and thus needs removed. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I should now also note that in placing the images back in the article to prevent them from being tagged by he bots and then removed prior to the discussion being over (which could take months), I have now triggered edit war with Werieth. Update I have added all the images back in ansd set them up so someone who speaks Danish, or is familiar with the images can write a description which will justify their being used in the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That was just reverted. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You dont include media, and then wait for justification for its usage. You have justification and then include the media. (You have things backwards) Werieth (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg

Use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No reference to this badge in the article text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just looking it seems the 723 communication as a group is actually being discussed in an entire section as are two other groups with their badges as well. First, I do not see any issue with contextual significance, which is the criteria in question. It makes no mention of any requirement that the badge be discussed in the article or section as the image is being used as to identify the select group it represents and wore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept that there are cases where the use of a non-free image for identification is acceptable, such as corporate logos at the top of the article about that company. I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article. Therefore, all the badges in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada)#Histories and crests of the old units should be removed. I do not question that those uses might be appropriate under fair use, but I don't see how they satisfy NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article.". Its Criteria 8. Contextual significance. The image may be used as it passes that threshold of context to the subject and is being used to represent the group as it was designed to do. It would significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to an understanding of the topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that a removal of this image from the article would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. There is absolutely no reference in the article to the image of this badge. The use is just for identification, which is usually only appropriate at the top of articles about the specific entity in question. Thus this use is a blatant violation of NFCC#8 and should be removed. The reader gains nothing through the presence of this image other than "Mhm, that squadron had a badge and it looked like this." Not having that short Aha moment wouldn't harm a readers understanding at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy should be backed with a link to such policy. There is none. It is not a blatant anything or this would be speedy deleted. Deletion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Using a non free image to identify a subject is allowed. There is no guideline that it be the user box only. It is used as a visual means of identification. That is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no Toshio. Stating that it can be used in the infobox is not a limitation to use only in the infobox. You overlook the full view of our policy on logos.

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Furthermore, sections should be regarded in the same manner as an encyclopedic article if a full article has not been created and use of portraits to identify subjects is common on Wikipedia and does not violate image use or non free content guidelines. However we do need to clean-up and fix issues on that page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use."

I understand the distinction, not how that relates to some perceived need to minimize non free use. There is a Wikipedia criteria for minimal use but that is in relationship to a subject not the project overall, which seems to be the point you are making. I know of no such need to minimize use of non free content unless it does not actually pass our policies or is a violation of copyright. The reason Wikipedia may use non free content is precisely because of fair use.

• "NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that".

What you are suggesting here is not accurate. You are stating that if a non free image can be removed and the subject still understood than it is a failure of NFCC#8. No. The actual criteria is: "'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". What that is saying is, if the addition of the non free image will significantly increase an understanding of the topic it may be used. It isn't about any understanding. Its about THAT understanding. So if the image is added because it does in fact add a significant understanding of the subject (in this case, a visual identification of a company and/or infantry type logo for this particular government agency or branch of the Department of National Defense within the country of Canada) then deleting the image would decrease that visual understanding.

• "The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that."

I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that we should be concerned project wide to an overall, overuse of non free content, but that is not part of the deletion discussion to say it is too many for Wikipedia for the individual argument. You have told me what you believe NFCC#8 means but I have challenged that interpretation. I am not attempting to upset or agitate anyone to make a point here. Unfortunately, in this discussion, you are taking the extreme when you say that by losing the logo identifying the squadron, that you lose nothing. That is simply not accurate, any more than removing the logo from any article that represents a company or team loses nothing. It may or may not be in one's view, but it passes criteria as a team or corporate logo for identification and I see no actual guideline or policy limiting the non free image to the info box only.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what I told you about NFCC#8 is the test used for many years now - we have to minimize non-free content in this way as its use is supposed to be exception and far less than fair use allowance would let us use (That's why its important that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project). If we can drop a logo and still understand the topic, it fails NFCC#8. We do make the case that if the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association as how it is meeting NFCC#8. But any other use requires explicit meeting of NFCC#8, meaning that contextual significance of the image of the logo has to be shown. Just displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP, and will fail here. This is a standard case where the images would otherwise be deleted without question, and no one has made a case that seeing the images is necessary to meet both parts of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that this has been dealt with properly if this is standard, but I would argue it really isn't. Could you provide a link to the policy or guideline which states that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project? I continue to state the obvious: your interpretation of a failure of NFCC#8 is incorrect as the policy is written. I also wish you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that you refer to with "[I]f the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association" as well as "displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP." I am unfamiliar with these.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First point, NFC rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", as well as from the Foundation's resolution "Such EDPs must be minimal. So NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work. Second point, NFCC#8 has two clear points (spearted by the comma in that). Let's put it another way. If you never knew that those logos existed and you read that article, is your understanding of the topic harmed? I'm sure it's not as as enhanced if the logos were there ("Oh, how nice, there's a logo"), but you certainly having lost anything. And if the logos were key to understanding the topic, there would likely be sourced discussion about the logos towards that purpose. That's NFCC#8 applied across the board. I will note that while NFCI#2 does allow for logos, this is assuming all other NFCC parts are met, and we're still failing NFCC#8 here. I point to the footnote of NFCI#1 where we do allow non-free images to be used in infoboxes without any other commentary about the image , and while that is written towards cover art, it is implicitly applied to logos as well. I will point out per WP:LOGO: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." --MASEM (t) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(As a note of process, Amadscientist dropped a note on my talk page that they had a response to this but lost it in pending edits and may not be able to retype it for a day or so, so this convo is still pending). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

As a free encyclopedia and an open source, freely edited project, our goal is freely licensed content. As free as possible. Public Domain is preferred but we are allowed to use images with various licenses as well. When using an image in any article for any reason, we should always use the freely licensed alternative when one is available, however if an image has significance to the subject and can be demonstrated, it may be used per our non free content criteria.

The Rationale section at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is basically a disclaimer/explanation/mission statement. It is not, for example, part of the policy or criteria. Also, it is not a part of the individual discussion or reasoning for an image itself.

Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.

How we do this, is to encourage the use of content with a free license (public domain - no restrictions) or, at least, CC 3.0 attribution license which is the license for use of Wikipedia's content, requiring attribution of the author or photographer.

• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

This portion explains that, to keep Wikipedia from possible legal issues, we limit the amount of non-free content. We do this in a stricter manner than US Fair Use case law (as there does not appear to be any actual Fair Use laws) as well as copyright law. How we limit the amount of non free content is set forth in the criteria and policies. Some ways we do this is to limit where non free content can be placed as far as article space only, no use is sandboxes, essays, talk pages etc.

• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

This is stating that we actively strive to only use what is needed per consensus using the policies and guidelines. (let me save this and continue before I crash)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say "NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work", what you are missing is that each article may not be of a single subject. Non Free Content Criteria is aimed at the subject and assumes an article, but in no ways limits it to a full article use. So, while the use of multiple Non Free images is not ideal, it is not a violation of policy or guidelines. In this situation each image identifies a separate entity and subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Give me a little while more before responding to get the rest in)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Full non free image use criteria check

(some bolding for emphasis and separation of text for individual clarity with bolded comments and numbers have been replaced with bullet points)

1. No free equivalent.Y Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.Y (no free image available and cannot be created)

(This portion does not apply as it cannot be transformed or replaced) Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

(This portion is not criteria, but a gauge for editors when uploading. It is not separated into A, B, C because it is not a part of the requirements, but suggestions on how to determine such. While the "test" is in two parts, a yes to one or the other is not an automatic exclusion. "Probably" is not absolute here, which is why it is not a required portion of the criteria)(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

• Respect for commercial opportunities.Y Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

• 1. Minimal usage.Y Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. (This section does not require that the full work not be used. only that it only be used is a portion will suffice. A portion of this image would be confusing and would not suffice) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

• Previous publication.Y Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
• Content.Y Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
• Media-specific policy.Y The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
• One-article minimum.Y Non-free content is used in at least one article.
• Contextual significance.Y 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. (As I stated above, the context is that this is the symbol of this entity, squadron or team. The visual identifier does increase the readers understanding of the group by showing the image that is its official seal or logo. Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone)

• Restrictions on location.Y Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
• Image description page.Y The image or media description page contains the following:
  1. YIdentification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
  2. YA copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
  3. YThe name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

I am off for a while, so I leave this discussion with that. Ultimately, this is up to the closing admin to decide if any consensus has been formed from the strength of the arguments made and whether or not no consensus would mean the image would stay or not etc.. Thanks for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguably all your points are correctly take except NFCC#8. The way NFCC#8 is read is not how you describe it, at least towards the second part: "Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone." There is a lot of NFCC that are removed from articles (I point you to our FFD logs) where if this was the reading of NFCC#8, we'd be keeping tons of images, because of course removing the image will be detrimental since you can't replace the visual representation with text easily for all of these. But that's not the metric. We are looking for discussion about the image - the whole contextual significance part. Again, take the example if we never had those images in the article, and consider the text that is presently there. My understanding of the topic has not changed one iota without those images because the images are not discussed at all in the current text. Because my understanding has not been harmed with the absence of the image, NFCC#8 fails. This is the baseline test used across the board, logos are not exempt from this.

Now, I will stress again that consensus has determined that when we're talking about the top-of-the-page infobox about an entity, published work, or similar work, where a single identify image would be used in the infobox or at the very top of the page to represent that entity, then the test for NFCC#8 significance is different in that as long as the topic has merited its own stand-alone article - reading that there is likely going to be a good deal of text about the entity or work, that the contextual significance is there due to the implicit aspects of identification, branding, and market associated with the topic when it itself is discussed at length (read: the footnote of NFCI#1). This is the only time that one can present a non-free image without discussing the image itself to meet NFCC#8. In the case of these images, the specific divisions do not have notability on their own and thus there is no implicit allowance for a logo without discussion about the logo image in order to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem trying to push his deliberate misunderstanding of policy again. The requirement to pass NFCC #8 is not and never has been (about from a few weeks about six years ago) whether the image is being discussed in the text.

The requirement is whether it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic -- something significant that would be lost if the image was not there.

The issue for the community to decide is whether or not the understanding the image provides is something significant, in the context of the topic of this article -- is it somthing highly relevant, or is it merely tangential?

That's what the arguments need to address. I have to say I think people trying to establish these images are more than tangential have got quite a challenge on their hands. But there is no policy requirement that they absolutely have to be discussed in the text. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the second part, whether omission of the image harms understanding of the topic. This is why generally (considering IAR) if the image or concept it shows is not discussed in any form in the text, omitting it is not affecting the reader's understanding of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. See 15:59 above "something significant that would be lost if the image was not there."

Omitting an image affects the understanding you would have with the image -- that's what can be lost by omitting the image. Policy is quite clear, intentionally referring to understanding about the topic, not understanding about the text. This has been gone through so many times, why do you insist on flogging this dead horse? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy is not to protect the inclusion of non-free images, it is to be able to make the exception for their inclusion. I've looked, and that's clear throughout the early stages of NFC's development (pre2008). (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 is a good example) that it is able when the exception is made to allow non-frees, and why NFCC#8 is written as it is - "significance" and "omission" are equally weighted tests. The only "protection" that applies to NFC is how we are encapsulating fair use law within the requirements of NFC to help protect the Foundation. Mind you, I am aware that there are editors that would want to be overly aggressive in removal of non-frees where they are appropriately being used and in that sense we have to make sure NFC is being treated fairly both ways (for inclusion and for removal); but we should not be calling NFC as a means of "protecting" the inclusion of non-free images. The Foundation asks us to treat these as exceptional as part of their free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(And to add, I see you were a part of these discussions then in 2007-ish, but in reading them now, I'm not seeing where you're getting this interpretation from in term of "protecting" non-free use, as well as the omission factor. All the discussion there seems to emphasis on discussion of the image in the text, or in limited cases what has become NFCI#1 + #2. It's consistent with how I'm arguing this.) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC cuts both ways. It's there to protect appropriate content, as well as to remove inappropriate content.

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24#New_Criterion_8 is a useful reference, showing some of the alternative wordings that were rejected. The point is that it is useful to think about what is gained by adding the image, what is lost by taking it away. "That understanding" it seems to me plainly means the augmented understanding of the topic with the image, that has just been the focus of the previous part of the sentence. It's hard to logically construe the phrase in any other way. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.

But getting back to this case 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) and the three logos at the bottom, if we applied what was the consideration in at least 2007 - whether there is significant discussion about these entities in the article that would allow for an image for identification. That's a fair question for consensus to decide on - in other words, I wouldn't dismiss the images just because they are logos used in an article but not about the entity of the article, but whether there was enough discussion about the entities in question that necessitated the logo (of course, barring any on-point discussion specifically about the logos themselves). In this case, I'd argue that these don't provide that - the three sections in that last para are likely pulling information from primary sources (there's a few sources listed but the details in the article text aren't fully backed by these - but I'm not questioning validity here), and thus fails the significance test; that is, there is not enough present in these sections that necessitates the need to visually connect the topic to its logo. (Or reiterating points from the 2007 discussion, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it needs a visual identifier). But that is a point of discussion, as long as it is understood that the reason to keep the images is not just because they illustrate those groups, but because consensus has decided that there's enough discussion of those groups that illustrating their logo would be appropriate under NFCC#8. And I would argue that this is a border-line case here - if there was just a bit more sourcing and text to help place the groups into a broader context instead of just much of the internal aspects, I probably wouldn't be complaining about the logos there. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just got back from vacation. I see the discussion has continued. I will read through more thoroughly but did glance some mention of the archives and consensus discussions of the past and the fair use policy of 2007 (the year I began editing actually). I am going to run through these archives and if I think this merits further eyes, this may have to go be for the village pump. I know all of us as editors like to believe we understand the policies and guidelines, but here we clearly have issue with some of the definitions to be used and whether or not the wording can be construed in any particular manner. Having taken part in a number of fair use image discussions myself, I will attempt to check on some of the consensus results pertaining to images, logos as well as text to see how things have been handles in those discussions and if they have any bearing on this discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

OK, what does the Foundation have to say about the subject. It was brought up earlier and when doing a search for NFCC#8 discussions I fell on the foundations policy: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy

Resolution

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license,"

(Lists resolutions 1 through 6. Of interest to this discussion in particular is the specific wording in resolution #3, which reads (bolding for emphasis):

3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

I do not believe I am stretching an interpretation of that to say that our Exemption Doctrine Policy SHOULD allow identifying protected works such as logos. Am I wrong here? Now, there is a good deal of reading and the debate goes back a good deal of time but I can surely quicken the research by attempting to work backwards as the 2008 debate I came upon obviously may not been settled to that extent, however...another important aspect of this discussion is also showing a change in wording that I think needs to be addressed as to whether that is where the policy has been somewhat confused here when discussing NFCC#8.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion was also interesting and I can't help but be slightly confused with Masem's take on the NFCC#8 discussion and when it was nailed down and why. I would also just say that I think I would have to side with one of the actual editors involved with that consensus than one who was interpreting it, let alone one who's interpretation I saw as being very different from an actual reading of the discussion. First, the specific wording was nailed down on July 22, 2007 and was edited into the EDP as having consensus from the talk page [30]. What was not nailed down and was removed later was the line "Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

Remember that some parts of what the Foundation's resolution is is guidance, not requirements. If we were to interpret the Resolution, the bolded section as you highlighted, exactly, then the German wiki would run afoul as they don't allow any non-frees, when the argument you're making is that they are required to for, in this case, identifying works. Instead, the statement says that one way that they would agree that non-free exceptions could be made would be for identifying logos - whether the project chose to allow it, and to what degree, is up to the project. So we can be stricter than the Foundation in that respect. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Masem, but you are incorrect. "should" has specific context. I am sure you have been in policy discussions were the difference between "Should" and "Could" have been picked apart. "Should" is guidance to attempt to allow it and "could" is only suggesting it as an option...period, with no strength behind it other than a suggestion. Also, I am sure you understand that individual Wikipedias cannot override their country of origins laws themselves where their servers may be located. English Wikipedia observes US law as our servers are in the US. In theory sure..we can be stricter however, that is not the case here. Our policy on logos spells out their exception for use and the policy itself does not state a limitation to info boxes and as I asked, how does that effect articles with no info box?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, if what you say is true, then the German wikipedia is violating the Foundation's "requirement". Heck, even commons would be do by that logic. It's not, you're completely misreading the statement. And remember, this is what the Foundation said, nothing on en.wiki can change that. The "should" is implying that if a wikiproject opts to include non-free, then the exceptions it allows "should" be of these "high value" media, which includes identifying images. We aren't required to allow identifying images, just that this is an example that that Foundation believes merits exception for use if a project determines that to be the case. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Before we get to deep in arguments I haven't stated, lets remember that there isn't a violation of the Foundation's resolution for another country to remain within their laws and I hope you understand that the foundation itself is asking that we consider these particular things mentioned when determining our standards. That is the discussion and debate. Not what Germany does.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, you made a statement that says we have to allow logos because the Foundation says so. That is absolutely not what the Resolution says. It uses the example of logo for identification as one possible reasonable allowance if the project chose to include it. Nothing strong that requires us to allow logos, as you stated. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I find nothing in any of our non free content policy or criteria that limits the use of non-free-images to article info boxes only and prohibits them from section use to identify the subjects of individual sections. In fact, from my understanding a section can grow substantially to develop into its own article and then have the use of such images in an info box...if an info box is used. Since info boxes are not required could there really be such a guideline limitation? If so, is this realistic?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at the talk pages, not just the main page changes, around 2007 (Archive 24 I think it was, but see the discussion about). NFCC#8's wording was written in considering allowing top-of-page infobox identification or when the topic was of significant discussion in the body of a larger article to allow identifying images (cover art and logos were combined in this discussion). It wasn't written in any more explicit because it was presumed at the time that was obvious.

Realistic, there has to be some line to separate out just dumping logos into article just because you can force them into infoboxes, and actually having the logo serve a visually important function in contextual significance. The top of page of which the cover art/logo represents has been unstated as unquestionably allowable because it makes sense - if you have a stand-alone article on a topic, meeting notability guidelines, there will be plenty of discussion about that topic, and thus the identifying image fits. Any other use where the image isn't itself the subject of discussion will likely fail NFCC#8, though that's not immediate. If we're talking about a logo of an entity in the context of a larger article, we have to determine if there's sufficient discussion about that entity to merit the logo. Just because an entity is talked about and it possesses a logo doesn't mean the user needs to see the logo to understand that part of the topic.

Much of this is unstated, but it was apparently because most editors recognized that identifying works were only appropriate at the top of the article. Even the ALBUM project, when it comes to album covers and alternate covers, has guidance to limit the number of alternative art covers used. So we never needed to be more explicit about what cases identifying images could be used. The most recent change in this direction may have been the addition of the footnote on NFCI#1 after we had an RFC to affirm that the use still made sense, and you can see by the RFC's listed - at least applied to cover art - that top-of-page identification use was the only clear matter. Logos would not get an exception from the same. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem, could you link to that discussion please. I know I ran across an RFC last night while researching this. I am truly reading all of these discussions and there are many, including the lengthy discussion of July 2007 where the specific context, reasoning and wording for our policy were hammered out, a very detailed discussion on a proposed change to NFCC#8 in 2008 and at least one other possible RFC that I saw that had not yet been closed and no consensus formed from what I saw. Let us continue to work through this if possible, but I respectfully reject any interpretation that relies on "unwritten rules". This policy has withstood debate since its inception. Even Wikipedia:Verifiability can't say that.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WP policies - including NFC - are based on descriptive measures of what is done in practice (and not prescriptive, putting out rules that don't meet practice), so there are effectively unwritten rules; identification images have long been of this nature. The RFCs in question are listed in the footnote for NFCI#1 (there's three of them). --MASEM (t) 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no unwritten rules that apply in this discussion as you are really discussing unspecified considerations that in truth have little relevance if no argument can be advanced using a specific policy or guideline as the reasoning for the decision. That is just basic. And the point is not as much to get you to change your view, but to simply defend mine and others positions over the last 6 years in regards to the use of non-free logos to identify the group or organization that it has context to. This applies to the article in general and there is no policy or guideline that prohibits it....in fact the actual template for logos has specific instruction for use in the article or a section.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Cart before horse; our policies follow practice including unwritten statements (or those that may be long-term patterns in XFDs and other areas that simply haven't been well documented) I will continue to point to removal of logos through FFD as justification to remove these. Further, just because we have a template doesn't necessary mean its use automatically makes the images right; there's already a new question about these "free pass rationale" templates if they have a valid use or not.

Ignoring cases where the logo itself is the subject of discussion, there's clearly a range of allowable uses of a logo alongside text discussing the entity it represents: we have no problem when we have a standalone article on the entity for using the logo at the infobox. On the other end, just because we namedrop an entity doesn't allow us to use the logo. There's some point where using the logo alongside such text but without discussion of the logo becomes reasonable, below that where it would not be appropriate. That line typically has been when the entity has sourced discussion about it, as if it could have a standalone article if one so chose. This is not an absolute line and its one determined by consensus, but I can't write that down because it's been a defacto point for FFD in the last several years. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's another analogy referring to a horse that may fit here but it doesn't have to do with a cart, but a stick...(a little humor).

With regard to our policies following practice, that is not entirely correct as that assumes that we just make decisions based on what "we" have done in the past. The entire basis of changing consensus relies entirely on the fact that a consensus can change, for whatever reason. "If" the current consensus is what needs changing....as I said, I don't believe there is a consensus for a number of your points. You claim there is a consensus that the use of non-free logos is limited to info boxes. Yet still have not explained how such a requirement is possible when info boxes themselves are a matter of consensus as content and not every article will have an info box. While you continue to use the wording in one section of the policy that refers to info boxes, you do not explain how such an exacting and precision use of the overall policy isn't inappropriate. Your explanation to the Foundations very position and guidance seems to be dismissed with comparisons to other Wikipedia. I can't speak for other Wikipedia but, in the English Wikipedia, we are actually trying to comply with the wishes of the foundation that funds our volunteer work and gives us something to donate to. Whether that is images, text, research or copy editing, it takes work to do these tasks and we have extensive written guidance. In an open discussion we speak of all our written "rules" and we might consider unspecified considerations as they come up, but we don't say there are unwritten rules that dictate our actions to interpret what almost all our guidelines state to be an excepted use of non-free logos to identify the subject in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the Foundation's resolution - in fact, I fully stand behind it. I have been pointing out that their resolution does not require use to include logos for non-free exceptions, and instead only says that this is a reasonably type of allowance for it. (It is important to remember that the Resolution was written after our NFCC policy was mostly in place and basically a response to it to standardize the en.wiki approach across all its projects. I am not excluding logo use in articles that don't have infoboxes; it's completely reasonable that if an article doesn't employ an infobox that a single lead logo image used for identification is acceptable for the same purpose. You notice this isn't spelled out exactly and this is exactly the type of unwritten consensus and practice that we have throughout the project. Most people involved in image maintenance recognize this and thus why we never have had to spell it out exactly, because its common sense. That's an example of why policy and guidelines are all descriptive and not prescriptive - we can only change when consensus changes, and as these practices have gone out for years, there's no need to change. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing that anything is required. It isn't important to remember when the resolution was written in regards to when the NFCC policy was put in place. Look, I really believe you are working with a false assumption. I feel you are confusing that something may not be spelled out directly as having an "unwritten consensus". Masem, you could use that excuse to argue either direction, but the truth is, we have enough guidelines that do spell out directly other uses that allow the end result to be, using non free images in sections as identification of the subject, without comment about the image itself. You have to demonstrate some guideline or policy which supports your position and I have to say...saying there is unwritten consensus is just a weak argument. It really is. I have demonstrated that the actual full guideline, including the lead (which is a summary of the entire policy) does permit this use, that the NFCC policy does not exclude it (in this case) and that there is sufficient contextual significance to use the image as identification of the subject as that is the purpose of the logo. There is no "common" sense here. Non Free guidelines must comply with US Fair Use law for a reason. For the proper use of non free content. We make up our own guidelines in a manner stricter than US law to comply with a minimal use as well as other considerations and the community has spent countless hours discussing the issues in great detail. The resulting guidelines and policies, as well as a change in the upload process, adding more detailed instructions for use, making it more difficult for non free content to be misused, along with our templates with full use instructions, are all that result. Unwritten consensus? We don't use such on Wikipedia. It isn't a consensus if it isn't discussed. Is there a culture of acceptance to such things. Yes. Is that right? I don't think so.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely easy to upload and use non-free content that fails to met our policy because some of the policy requires human review (NFCC#1, #3, #8), so until someone recognizes the problem, non-free can be misused. Even now, there's question whether the non-free logo rationale template is really appropriate since it takes the work out of thinking about why one needs to use non-free within WP. And again, I stress: our policies and guidelines are meant to be descriptive of practice so if practice and consensus change but the policy/guideline isn't updated to match, that doesn't change the fact that practice/consensus works that way. Ergo WP does indeed work on "unwritten rules" particularly if no one feels the need to update the policy/guideline to reflect the process better. In the case of logos, its been well established in practice that the only real acceptable place is when the logo is being used to identify, as an infobox image or top-of-page on an infobox-less article, the topic the article is about. (WP:LOGO even supports this: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria")). There is some limited allowances for using logo without commentary if there is another entity discussed in depth in the article in question, but most other times, just because an entity that has a logo is mentioned in an article, using its logo to identify it fails the requirement of being contextually significant (in other words, the overall topic is normally understood without seeing the logo of the subsidiary entity). Again, stressing: for any image, not just logos, a non-free picture to illustrate a topic but without discussion of a picture - unless it is the identifying image for the page topic - nearly always fails NFCC#8 - this is how this has been interpreted for years, and the policy and guidelines all point to that, even if you don't believe it explicitly says that. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, since an info box is not really a part of an article structure it cannot be assumed to be a part of the article in terms of any requirement. That being said, articles and sections are pretty much considered the same in regards to many guidelines and policies as a section may well be long enough for its on article. Images are used in section space as they would in any part of the body of the article. An image being used to represent the subject would be placed in the lead section. That is the separation in an article, not the info box. But some articles are not long enough to have a TOC and don't have a separated lead. How would you handle that? It is very much like a section of an article. But what is most important is that there no guideline that states that the image cannot be used in a section and the lead summary of the WP"Logos it states the content guideline as:

Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. There are three main concerns with logo use. First, they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria. Second, logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns. Third, there are editorial issues about adhering to a neutral point of view and selecting an appropriate logo and representation. The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Nothing in the criteria says anything about placement in the info box only, and the information in the body of the article is to allow use in info boxes, not to limit them to that. Portraits are not restricted to the info box. They may be used in sections. Non free content may be used in sections. There really is absolutely no reason non free logos cannot be used in sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NixonandMeir.jpg

Query, This is sourced to an official archive, Is this an official State Department photo, if so it could be freely licensed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say anything without more thorough research, but if the image is from NSA archive, then the publication on the site given in the source link might be the first publication ever, in which case it would be copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if the photo was taken by a gov't employee, then that would make it PD-Gov; on the other hand, if it was a press photo published by the US Gov, that still makes it copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• The image shows high-ranking Israeli and American politicians, so it was presumably taken by someone working for either country's government. If it was taken by the US government, then it is in the public domain. On the other hand, if it was taken by the Israeli government, then it is presumably not in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• I was unable to find this image at the Nixon Presidential Library archive or at NARA. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:Glenane.jpg
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster

An editor has removed these images from the page on the grounds that they are not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Having read the guidance I believe he is wrong and that the inclusion of these files is both related to the text and adds significantly to the readers knowledge when researching the army regiment.

My comments on the users talkpage are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is not needed to understand the organization, it is being used decorative File:Glenane.jpg doesn't need to be re-included as it is already used in the article about the event. Finally File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg isnt referenced in the text at all, thus failing WP:NFCC#8 part two. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Werieth is approaching this in an encyclopaedic fashion. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is an historic record of a very simple application form to join a very complicated regiment and is very much referenced in the accompanying text. The attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment's base at Glenanne is "parented" at the source article and the file is very relevant to that incident. That it is repeated in a sub article is of no consequence in my view. File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster are posters commissioned by political opponents to the regiment and show historically how there was a campaign against the UDR. They are required for balance of opinion. In an article as sensitive as this which has been fought over many times, editors must get the WP:WEIGHT of opinion correct otherwise the article will not comply with WP:NPOV. The removal of these two political posters could affect the NPOV balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to add that I am currently engaged in a rewriting process of the UDR article, as can be seen from the many changes over the last week. I have not arrived at the "Political comment" section yet but when I do I fully intend to make reference to the poster images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has it right for NFCC, which these all fail. The application form is "interesting" but not the subject of discussion in the article, and thus the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed by its omission and it fails NFCC#8. The Glenanne photo is inappropriate since it is duplicating the use on the appropriate article for the attack (where the photo is properly used under NFCC), and does not here aid in the reader's understand of the regiment. You don't need to show opponent campaign posters to meet the neutral POV - you can explain in text that the regiment has opposition. Basically, just because something exists, NFCC does not allow us to use an image to simply illustrate this - we need contextual significant that none of the tagged images show here. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant "context" here is that the topic of the article is the UDR. An image does not necessarily need to be discussed, if in itself it conveys something important to reader understanding in that context, beyond what could just be conveyed in words. I don't see a lot in the File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg over what could be conveyed in words; on the other hand IMO the :File:Original Anti-UDR poster does I think have a power and a forcefulness as an image which goes beyond what a mere bland text description would convey, and which I think does usefully convey to the reader the viscerality of the opposition that there was to the UDR from some parts of the community, which is a key thing for the article to communicate. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If these files were deemed to be out of context for non free fair use it was incumbent upon Werieth to discuss the images on the article talk page firstly as per WP:IUP#4. Had this been done it was (and still is) possible to modify the text to bring the images into line with the guidelines quoted although I believe the issue is moot in this case. All of the images are being used in a correct historical context and add to the reader experience. This has been done in a clumsy manner at a time when the article is being rewritten and tightened up. I suggest the images be restored and a period of time given to allow me to fully comply with the concerns stated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective is completely against policy, you dont write and article so that you include media, you include media because the article requires it. Not the way you want to do it. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fundamentals for editing the wiki is WP:GOODFAITH. You have been shown it by both myself and Calil on this occasion. These images (barring File:Glenane.jpg) have all been discussed at length for around 10 years and always been agreed by editors as adding to the experience of reading the article. Your position of authority (whether official or self styled) also carries with it a responsibility. From where I'm sitting you appear to have neglected that in your lack of good faith towards myself and the other editors involved at Ulster Defence Regiment. To explain: it isn't a case of making the text fit the images - it's down to how the text is written and what emphasis is laid upon the images. If I have made errors in my editing which have orphaned the images then I need to be given the consideration of being allowed to correct that. As has already been pointed out; you should have been polite enough to raise concerns about these images before deletion. If you had examined the talk page you would have seen that extensive rewriting is going on. Yes it is sometimes necessary to delete text or images for the benefit of the article but in this case I do not agree with your unilateral declaration without discussion. Nor do I agree with your violation of the 1RR rule. As Calil has pointed out, you are not exempt from sanctions and as I have frequently reminded you, you should pay attention to ALL wiki guidelines, not just the ones which suit your current agenda. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have an "agenda", it may have been discussed for years, however I doubt those who where discussing it took WP:NFCC requirements into consideration (this rarely happens due to peoples lack of understanding NFCC). I have made no assumptions of bad faith, if anything I have taken a fairly neutral position in regards to the motivation of your edits. My actions have been fairly impartial in that regards. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling the partiality of your edits into question. What I'm saying is that you are a deletionist and in being so you are losing sight of other criteria which matter. In other words your agenda is to delete. Discussion is the most important thing on articles and you failed to consider how the incorporation of these images could be discussed. A proper discussion on the talk page could have avoided all of this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, I am not a deletionist, why have I uploaded over 200 non-free files if my agenda is to just delete? Werieth (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS just did some number crunching and Im actually in the top 300 uploaders with regards to the amount of non-free files that I have uploaded. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have put my opinion to you. It's all very well you citing WP:NPA to me btw but yet you've ignored WP:IUP#4, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:1RR. Do I need to remind you that editors such as I give so much time to Wikipedia and we expect to be treated with a little respect when there is an issue. I am in the middle of rewriting that article as I've said manifold times now. How do you think I feel when someone deletes images without a collegiate discussion? I'm sitting here surrounded by books reading to start editing constructively yet I've spent my day trying to make a case for saving these images? Yes, there was a better way to do it - discuss, discuss, discuss, then you can't go wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is a personal attack. WP:IUP#4 doesn't apply as I am not deleting any files (just removing a use). GOODFAITH isnt an issue here either as I never said you where inserting these files in bad faith. as for 1RR, see also Wikipedia:1RR#3RR_exemptions. I do tend to take all relevant policies into consideration when reviewing the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend it to be a personal attack. You should have discussed the removal of the images however. Politeness is a standard wiki protocol. You could see the article was being worked on and could have made suggestions regarding the images, I would have welcomed that. Your link to your exemptions only applies to WP:3RR. As you have already been advised by a sysop you are not exempt for WP1RR as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you are not familiar with articles concerning The Troubles it would be a good idea to read this and other associated material. I have told you a number of times I am prepared to consider the images more carefully when rewriting material which may have been part of the causality of their removal. It boils down to the same thing however: you have not taken my objections in WP:GOODFAITH. You have shown no consideration for the rewriting of the article and above all - you have failed to discuss before removing the images. Thereby creating an unwarranted diversion from the real work of refining the UDR article. As said before, all of this could have been avoided if you'd adopted a policy of discussion as recommended by the wiki.

I repeat my earlier suggestion of restoring the images and allowing me the time to reconstruct the text (which was originally totally inclusive of the images). This is not a question of making the image fit the article, it's a question of using available material in the correct place and in the correct manner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

/facepalm . You don't get it, Feel free to improve the article, I will not re-include media that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. As you have seen above there might be justification for 1 file. You again need to re-examine NFCC. You shouldn't change text to justify a file. Before you add the file, the article should have a requirement for the file. When using NFCC you should ask can the article be understood without this file? If the answer is yes, the you should really question whether or not the article really needs the file. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, with respect but in my view it's you who isn't getting it. This article has been fought over so long that some items have become orphaned. I have told you on multiple occasions that is being addressed but can only be achieved over a period of time. I have suggested that you return the files so that the text around them can be restored to include what made them relevant in the first place. Furthermore, and after consideration, I suggest you remove the File:Glenane.jpg file from the sub article Glenanne barracks bombing rather than the parent article. For the avoidance of doubt, the Glenanne Barracks was a satellite base of the 2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment and contained two companies of 2UDR - no other troops were present. This makes the UDR article the parent article. Again, pointing out that no disrespect is intended towards you or your efforts but when the text for "Recruitment" and "Political comment" is properly restored, the article will be crying out for the inclusion of the images so all you've done is highlight the need for this but the files will eventually be restored with full supporting text. It follows that this discussion is a waste of your time and mine - despite your good intentions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The image File:Glenane.jpg has now been removed from Glenanne barracks bombing and restored at the parent article Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces. As agreed by all this file is relevant and used properly with the objection being that it was used twice. Now it's only being used once. Fair?

For further reference: I am in two minds as to whether or not the article on the Glenanne Barracks bombing ahould be kept on the wiki as there is a separate article entitled Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment which I believe should incorporate the information, thus rendering the Glenanne article an un-needed repetition. All things in time however. The UDR article requires a lot more work before I will be free to address other issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The image was perfectly fine as an example of the damage from the barracks bombing, and NFCC#8 would have been met there. The link from the Regiment page to the bombing page would have been just fine and why the image wouldn't need to be on the Regiment page. (And I've no comment if the Glenanne bombing page should be merged into the Attacks page, but if they are, that still makes the image better on that page than on the Regiment page since that's what the image is specifically about.) --MASEM (t) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I dispute what you're saying and I'll tell you why: there is no need for a separate article on every event the UDR was involved in, or the IRA for that matter. It's much more encyclopaedic to keep as much information as possible on the UDR article itself, to the point where it starts to become too overcrowded or too long. All of these separate articles have been created to add undue WP:WEIGHT to certain events as a result of the terrible infighting that went on for far too long on articles concerning The Troubles. The wiki is much better served in my opinion by the reduction of such articles. The Glenanne bombing was a direct attack on the UDR and that's where the info, and the image, belong. You might disagree but WP:BOLD doesn't. If you have a particular interest in articles on the Troubles may I respectfully suggest you join the discussion on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. If you don't have this in your area of interest I suggest, again respectfully, that you leave such discussions up to the people who have the interest, time to give, knowledge and sources to create and fine tune articles with appropriate collegiate discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will not disagree that considering the three articles together (the Regiment, the Glenanne, and the attacks) that there is probably one article too many, though all can't be reduced to one due to the size of the Regiment article. If it were that all the info on those three pages were just on the Regiment article (in the depth that the Glenanne part goes into) then yes, I can see justification for using the image there. But until this "merge" happens (and because its under the Troubles, its definitely one that needs consensus to do so) the Glenanne article exists as a separate topic, and the picture is only relevant there (it's showing a direct result of the bombing), with the use on the Regiment page excessive and inappropriate (the picture has little to do with the Regiment topic directly). All I'm speaking to is the NFCC aspects of this, which requires that picture to be on the Glenanne page for all purposes, while the Glenanne page exists as a separate topic. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In the interim I have copied the relevant information to the "attacks" article and am now going to request deletion of the Glenanne Bombing article as most of it, quite frankly, is cruft, just padding to justify having it. The "attacks" article is a list which doesn't warrant images, ergo the only sensible place to put the image is on the parent site - Ulster Defence Regiment. I'm not trying to thwart NFCC by doing this, in the words of Martin Luther King, "I have a dream". In my case it's a complete tidying up of all articles to do with the Ulster Defence Regiment and if you look at the parent article, its history and the talk page, you can see I've been working hard, in a collegiate and sensible manner, something which sysops are probably glad to see given the amount of time they've had to spend on the WP:BATTLE which has been going on for over 10 years. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As a non-NFCC issue of caution - the Glenanne article should be merged and made a redirect, not deleted, as it is a searchable term (particularly if you've copied information from it into the Regiment article, to retain the history). As the net NFCC solution, that is appropriate for the bombing photo as long as the Glenanne article is merged (or deleted). --MASEM (t) 14:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to redirect the article. It does sound like a suitable alternative to deletion though. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If not for Troubles, you could be bold and simply replace the contents with the redirect tag (WP:REDIRECT for instructions). But with Troubles that might be seen as a problem, and so a merge request (WP:MERGE) would be the right way to do that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that once I've finished with the item I'm working on at the moment. Thank you for the advice. At least something practical has come from this intervention although I would have got round to these modifications eventually. Just hadn't intended to be distracted so soon. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to do it with a redirect and I've learned something new as a result. Thank you again. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

I note with disappointment there has been no further activity on this item. After great pondering I would like to offer the following as a solution:

1. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg to remain where it is in Ulster Defence Regiment#Formation and recruitment. On the grounds that it illustrates an important historical document outlined in depth in the section

2. File:Glenane.jpg to be removed from Ulster Defence Regiment#Opposition forces pending the outcome of discussion at Talk:Glenanne_barracks_bombing#Discussion.

3. Discussion invited on File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster. I believe these are important illustrations of the depth of opposition to the regiment felt by at least one political party. It is my view that they have been orphaned by the removal of text which violated WP:WEIGHT. The section they were residing in Ulster Defence Regiment#Political comment is in my sandbox awaiting a rewrite which will take in the political comments and viewpoints encompassing the entire 22 year period of the regiment's history. Once this is done I believe the section will reflect the need for both images. I am happy to submit the rewritten section for reconsideration once it is done. In the interim I will not attempt to restore the images.

May I have comment/discussion on these proposals please? SonofSetanta (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Point 1, image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Point two, file should be removed. Point 3, after the re-write we can re-review the need for the images. Werieth (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Following our discussions (and some with others). I have taken this action: File:Glenane.jpg has been removed. The "Political comment" section has been rewritten, with an eye on what existed previously, and the new text at Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Non-constitutional_politics makes reference to File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg & thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster with the background for their production and deployment, properly sourced.

I invite comment regarding the proposed use of the two political posters on the grounds that they are required to illustrate what such propaganda posters look like in the context of the political argument surrounding the regiment. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing any need for the two posters in that section. Werieth (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The text in the section makes particular reference to them as a propaganda tool. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Right now both File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg] and File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg need to be removed. Werieth (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Update:
• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:The Yellow Crad.jpg
• File:The Blue Card.jpg
  • All of those files clearly fail NFCC and need removed. Werieth (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg. Properly discussed in the text.
• Keep File:The Yellow Crad.jpg and File:The Blue Card.jpg. Copyright is accurate and both items are properly referenced in the text and of historical importance. This entire section is the only section on the wiki which devotes any serious attention to these historical documents.
• Delete File:Corporal Eric Glass - 4 UDR.jpg. I accept the image isn't needed. After the A Class review I will discuss the options of starting a separate article or at least a full section to Cpl Eric Glass and at that juncture the image can be reintroduced. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These all fail WP:NFCC#8, just because something is discussed doesn't mean that it needs an image. Werieth (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my belief that the three historical documents I have voted to keep have a significance which greatly enhances the understanding of any reader of the sections they are contained within. I believe that the removal of these images from their respective sections would be detrimental to that understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The application form is simply that - it is an application form with all the usual fields one would expect to find on such (name, address, family, why one is enlisting). If there was some unique factor that was the subject of sourced commentary in the text that appeared on the form (I have no idea what, but I can envision extreme examples) then it might be okay, but it just is a piece of typewritten paper with all the usual fields one can expect. It does not aid the reader in any way. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes it unique is the heading. "Ulster Defence Regiment". It is so markedly different from any other form to join the British forces at that time. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just being different in name is nothing unique. The article does not say how this form is "markedly different" from any other recruitment form (outside of the name), nor do I believe this is the case given what information we see. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So, apart from deletion, what would you see as a possible solution to this issue? It is, in my mind, an important historical document. It must have been incredibly difficult to get hold of and I don't think it should be lost from the article. I realise that Wikipedia is not a repository for historical documents but I firmly believe that, in this case, the document fits the text and enhances a reader's understanding of the subject matter.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as the document is published elsewhere, it is not our responsibility as a tertiary source to include it. While it may be a historical document, it fails to meet the high standards we have for non-free use, simply because it is only just an application form. It would be the type of thing that would be in a museum display about the force, but something we just can't support without further discussion about the importance or differencing of the form. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you suggesting in fact that further discussion of the application form in the article would render the file more important in your view? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be further discussion of why the application form is unique (not just because it was specific for the regiment). There might be something that you can discuss from sources, but given the way the form looks, I don't see a singular piece of information that seems out of place for a registration form, and doubt that you'd be able to find this. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fresh proposals

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg - Following all our discussions I have agreed with Werieth that this file should be deleted. It has been removed from the article.
• File:Glenane.jpg - Following discussion a consensus has been reached that the image be removed from the UDR article (which was done last week) and any other pages where it is repeated leaving Glenanne barracks bombing as the only page where it appears.
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg - I am not in favour of this image but would ask copyright editors to consider its restoration in UDR article as it provides a POV balance. This has been shown to be quite an emotive issue with some editors in the past, and for good reason - Troubles articles need balance.
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster - Another editor has replaced this with no prior knowledge of the reasons for the file's removal. I have left him an explanation User talk:John and been open with my view that I think the Bloodmoney poster should be included again. He has indicated he may join this discussion. My own views are exactly the same as the ones indicated for Bloodmoney. I think it should be in there for balance.
• File:The Yellow Card.jpg - As detailed on the file's own talk page I firmly believe this image passes all qualification for staying. It stands alone now with its own section. The usage of this document and the repercussions arising from it are amongst one of the most contentious issues arising from The Troubles and I would like to see it remain. If you want more explanation in the section Ulster Defence Regiment#The Yellow Card then by all means I will oblige - I have the sources. In this case though it is the actual text of the card which tells the story so I would propose the section be left at its current size and let the image do the work.
• File:The Blue Card.jpg - This image has been removed from the article and I support its deletion unless another editor wishes to make use of it on another Troubles related page. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The John Gawlik House.jpg

A 1909 image of a US subject is clearly PD surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Depend if that's a publication date? As regards non-free, I assume the building's still standing in a comparable form? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And we're missing #10c rationales here on both articles it is used on. Unless we have assurances of being out of copyright we need to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeterminate copyright status. Without a publication date, we have to assume that it is unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The building still stands, so a freely available image could be created. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:1870 school room.jpg

An 1870 image taken in the UK, may well be public domain under EU-Anonymous, In any case it would be PD in the US as it's prior to 1923. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo has to have been published prior to 1923 to qualify for PD under that rule. "Published" in this context means reproduced in a book, magazine or newspaper, or issued as a postcard. We don't have any proof that it was ever published at all. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:2nd Nickelodeon Universe logo.PNG

Threshold of originality not met, this is a textlogo of US origin. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; I think there's enough original material in the word "Universal" (images of planets etc) that this one is over the line. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:County Limerick Council.png

Replaceable with alternative image, based on same blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy.jpg

This is a simple text cover, so threshold of originality may not have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; My opinion is that there's enough originality here that the cover qualifies for copyright protection. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo raybestos.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logybaymiddlecoveoutercove.JPG

This is picture of a seal (Canda has FoP). If the seal is dated prior to 1923 then this could be public domain. In any case a crest could be replaced by a drawing made from the Blazon surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Canadian FOP doesn't apply to 2D works such as this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg

I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in Pokémon episodes removed from rotation. While I definitely do not dispute that this is a notable scene, I do not see how this still image significantly increases a readers understanding of that section (the flashes cannot be illustrated by a still image anyway). The use in Photosensitive epilepsy seems to violate NFCC#8 as well. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable here as well as the epilepsy article. Showing the full effect would of course cause the same problems the episode caused with WP readers so we can't do that, but it is fair to with how much discussion there was over that to show one example of where than more than 50% of the screen was a flashing color cycle (implied by the red area) and how that led to the epilepsy factor. It wasn't just one tiny patch, it was basically the whole screen. So it's reasonable to show this in both cases. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to use a screenshot to illustrate that. The fact that the scene included a large patch showing an explosion illustrated with alternating red and blue flashes can be described by text. The part of the image showing the characters seems to be irrelevant for describing that fact. I would support including an animated version, but I do not see how a still image significantly increases a readers undertanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pokémon episode Beauty and the Beach - screen capture .jpg

The use of this image in Pokémon episodes removed from rotation#"Beauty and the Beach" (Episode 18) seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. The fact that James offends Misty by showing off his inflatable breasts can be described by text and a removal of this image wouldn't hurt a readers understanding of the section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the image is in the clear, but I am aware about the issue of this episode in the American version and know it was a source of contention among fans. However, key word is here is "among fans". I have no idea if one can find sources in reliable works that discuss this and the issues it causes, specifically relating towards what 4kids considered to be a level of indecency that would prevail through other works they did (eg just describing in text would not be sufficient if this information was found). It might be possible, but those have to be found to keep the image in place. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I found two sources

• Tobin, Joseph (2004). Pikachu s Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon. Duke University Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-8223-3250-7.
• Camp, Brian; Davies, Julie (2007). Anime Classics Zettai!: 100 Must-See Japanese Animation Masterpieces. Berkeley: Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 978-1-933330-22-8.

I am not sure whether that is enough to keep the image, though. However, I suspect there might be other sources (in particular sources published in the US, such as magazines, maybe newspapers), but possibly nothing that I could easily access. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pokémon episode 1 screenshot.png

The use in Pokémon, I Choose You! seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Per WP:NFCI#5, film and television screenshots are only acceptable for critical commentary. I do not see how this use constitutes critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Leela Krishnudu cover.jpg

Tagged as Non-free, but also claimed as GFDL, these can't both be correct. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

GFDL needs OTRS. Non-free needs FUR. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Wladyslaw Anders2.jpg

It is noted on the image, that this may be an official photo by the British military, if so would the copyright have now expired? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Zachara2.JPG

This is a playbill/program of US Origin. Whilst I am willing to be convinced otherwise, I find it unlikely that such an item would have it's copyright renewed, and thus this image would be in the public domain, the copyright in the playbill having lapsed (or not been registered in the first place.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is very unlikely that someone would renew the copyright to something like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WAPA-TV logo 2007 TAG spot.svg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-Textlogo, PD- shape? (Origin is Pueto Rico, which I reasonably assume to follow US practice.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Transfer to Commons. Most likely {{PD-textlogo}} by Commons' threshold these days. I put it here on en.wp out of an abundance of caution 4 years ago, back when we were (or at least I was) less brave about post-1989 shapes in logos. The font is well-known and well-used; the stripes are pretty much those of the Flag of Puerto Rico, the design for which has existed since the 19th century. --Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VRT (Belgium) logo.png

Threshold of originality may not have been met, PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WBRZ.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Malwa India 1823.png

An 1823 Map is clearly public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Utair-express2.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Unidosxingenieria.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Marshall cavendish logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met. PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:MitsubishiFusoTruckofAmericaLogo RGB.jpg

Threshold of originality not met. PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The three-diamonds shape with FUSO logotype is certainly not mundane nor within the public domain. The three-diamonds logo is copyrighted and trademarked by Mitsubishi (which means three-diamonds in Japanese), used globally by a large number of Mitsubishi companies, and defended legally as necessary. See [31]; [32] Use in the Mitsubishi Fuso article conforms to the Wikipedia Fair Use Standard.

I doubt that the Mitsubishi Fuso logo is eligible for copyright protection in the US, so I think this could be tagged with {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure whether this is eligible for copyright protection in Japan. I looked at [33] but didn't seem to be able to find a section clarifying this. The threshold for protection might be lower in Japan than in the US. On the other hand, even if it would be protected in Japan, the copyright might have been expired already (protection usually seems to last for 50 years). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Per common's page on TOO, for Japan "Logos composed merely of geometric shapes and texts are also not copyrightable in general." Fails TOO in US and Japan, can be treated that way, but we can at least minimally put PD-USonly if someone worries that the Mitsubishi logo could meet copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not copyrightable but File:Mitsubishi Fuso logo.png is better so I suggest that we delete this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Montgomery and Patton Discuss Operations in Sicily.jpg

Is this an official photo, either British or US? In either case it might now be PD if so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Motorcity.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Tooncast.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD Shape or PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Balducci's Logo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes infobox screenshots

• File:ST-TNG 11001001.jpg
• File:The Battle screenshot.jpg
• File:STIcarusFactor.jpg
• File:STBonding.jpg
• File:STSamaritan.jpg
• File:STtheHunted.jpg
• File:ST-TNG Rascals.jpg
• File:ST-TNG The Big Goodbye.jpg

These images appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. I've only spot checked some, there might be more. These images are being used at the top of the episode article without critical commentary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that a number of these files are being discussed at FFD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I relist them at FFD and close this discussion? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is duplicative of FFD. Close these. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Those that I already listed here don't seem to be discussed at FFD, so I guess there is no real duplication. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If these aren't at FFD, and that the use of screencaps through the TNG episode series is of question, then I recommend doing what was done with ST: Voyager images recently, getting the Star Trek project involved to determine which screencaps are unnecessary. They've been open to this pruning before. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all NFCC is fairly clear and must be applied strictly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ThreeMenWalkingII.JPG

Some of the uses seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7NavahoMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and possibly WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7StruggleMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7BushmanFamilyMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No commentary about this specific sculpture. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7Bali-cockfightMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:7AustralianyouthMH.jpg

Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Blue Submarine No. 6 characters

The following non-free images are being used in this article:

• File:Mei-Ling Hwang.jpg
• File:Myong-Hae Yun.jpg
• File:Freeda Verasko.jpg
• File:Sukune Tsuji.jpg
• File:Red Spot.jpg

Those uses might be problematic per WP:NFLISTS and possibly violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover1.png

If this is clearly a NASA image, then this is 'free' content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that NASA took the photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'd appreciate if I you used your common sense. Who else than NASA could possibly take a photo on the moon??? (Petulda) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover2.png

NASA image , so incorrectly flagged as Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The rationale sources it to NASA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ipse dixit doesn't seem to be compatible with WP:V. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't follow WP:V for copyright issues. In practice we know that the image is a still from a video clip of the apollo 16 lunar landing. NASA were the only people videoing the landings. If you really want a source it will have come from a lower quality version of this at around the 40 second mark.Geni (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at where that image is used (on the article about examination of the moon photographs), I strongly recommend that it and the two other connected images be replaced with screenshots pulled directly from the apod video Geni links to. For one, that is 100% sourced to NASA and PD-Nasa can be called. Second, it is a better quality than those photos, but still shows the "dust shape" that the article in question is trying to highlight. So we'll assure the freeness of the images and get better ones. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ap16 rover3.png

NASA image, so this could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? It has no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Movic logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lindlovens IF.png

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Daxnetworks.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Aib logo.JPG

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nbforrest-01.jpg

Forrest died in 1943, and this looks like an official service photo, so this might be public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably {{PD-USGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NCARB logo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Collaborates for Autism Logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is PD-textlogo to me. There are two images in the history. Are both valid logos? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note the image is not in use. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NewCBBlogo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:South Dublin County Council Crest.png

Image is replaceable with an alternative constructed from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The original Sunderland Stn.jpg

This is clearly a reproduction of a pre 1923 engraving. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete There is no evidence that the engraving was published in 1923. The first revision of the file tells that it comes from a booklet published in 1965. If that was the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in the United Kingdom 70 years after the death of the artist or 50 years after 1965 (whichever is later) and in the United States 95 years after 1965. The image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was using evidence in the image itself, The fashion and style of loco are not mid 20's. I concur that the image is currently lacking 'publication' evidence. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nonesuch Explorer Series logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, image is Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Northwestairlink.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Takasago logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, PD Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Npower logo.png

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NYCTV Life logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OKFlag.jpg

This is too simple, PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paddy Island 1868.jpg

An 1868 map of Australian origin ,would be public domain in Australia. by at least 1968. This is just a mechanical scan so... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a survey plan something which would normally be "unpublished" (according to the US definition)? It says that this was published in 1992. Was that the first publication? If so, then Commons:COM:HIRTLE tells us that the copyright expires in USA on 1 January 2048... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It still should have been PD-US in 92, even now unpublished works are only covered for 120years maximum. Or is there something else at play? -- Nbound (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to comment on a file's content after the resolution has been reduced. I don't see any evidence of copyright for the original. Perhaps an admin can look at the original image. What evidence is there this isn't PD? The Source indicates it's "owned" by the Queensland Department of Lands, which I would expect would make it PD.
This is essentially a plat map with annotated references to other surveys or documents related to land rights or ownership. "Publication" would seem have occurred (become publicly available to read or copy) when this was filed with and became a part of the records of the Queensland Surveyor General, an Australian land recording agency, apparently in 1868. I believe it became PD at the time of filing.

It's not obvious that the Source date of 1992 has anything to do with publication; I understand it to be documenting the date the original was scanned.
SBaker43 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

120 years from creation only applies if the work wasn't published before 2003. If it was published for the first time between 1 March 1989 and 31 December 2002, then the copyright expires on 1 January 2048, if that is later than 120 years from creation, per Commons:COM:HIRTLE. Due to a bug in US copyright law, there was no way for an unpublished work to enter the public domain in the United States before 2003.

The section for "Never published, Never registered works" at Commons:COM:HIRTLE should only be used if the work never has been published. If it has been published at any point, then you should find the correct situation in the "published" section instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PapaMurphys.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ReadingAnthracite.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, This is too simple? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Strigino logo en.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stvlogo.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bekins Van Lines logo.png

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bellevue College.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stemma comune Verona.png

Replaceable, with an alterantive 'free' image derived from the Blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

45th Launch Support Squadron#List of LCSS Launches

There are numerous logos. They are all tagged with {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force}}, except for File:SpaceX Dragon COTS Demo 1 logo.png, File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.png and File:CRS SpX-1 emblem.png, which I suspect might also be PD, so those three may need retagging. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that all of these are US government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, any SpaceX patches, even if the launch was under a government contract, are strictly in-house efforts. They would not be part of said contract...as with all launch/mission patches, they are a method of teambuilding. They are also far too complex in design to qualify for a PD-textlogo license. However, they are currently used under fair use in their mission specific articles, so the images themselves probably should not be deleted. They should, however, be removed from the 45th Launch Support Squadron article as an example of unjustified fair use. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on the image copyright discussion, as I just don't know enough about the law in that area to have a supportable position. However, I thought I should make it known here that I have in the past carried on a email conversation with an individual from the SpaceX communications/media dept. about use of some of their stuff on Wikipedia. If someone wants to frame a question for the company about the SpaceX image in question, I'll be happy to try to get it to the fellow I interacted with last time at SpaceX and see what can be done. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg

If this was published in 1933 and the copyright was not renewed, then this is in the public domain in the United States. If the copyright was renewed, then I guess this might still be copyrighted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Term Extension Act. If that is the case, then the uses in 4th World Scout Jamboree, Magyar Cserkészszövetség and Pál Teleki might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If the photo was published with a photographer byline within 50 years after it was published, and if the photographer died after 1945, then it is copyrighted in the United States regardless of whether the copyright was renewed or not. Also, we don't know whether it was published in 1933 or not. If it wasn't published before 1946, then there is no chance that it is in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's probably first published anonymously in a newspaper in Hungary Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Hungary or in another country that uses 70 years after publication of anonymous works. --Egel _Reaction? 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. If it was published in 1933, then you need to determine the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996. If it was in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it is probably in the public domain in the United States (you only need to check for any subsisting copyright). If it wasn't in the public domain in Hungary on 1 January 1996, then it enters the public domain in the United States 95 years after it was first published. The Hungarian copyright law currently uses 70 years from publication (for anonymous photos) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (for non-anonymous photos), but the laws in 1996 specified a different term, and it is the 1996 term you should use for determining the copyright status in Hungary on 1 January 1996 with regard to US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This photo was already the subject of discussion back in October 2012: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 2#File:Pál Teleki 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. My opinion is that, judging by the low quality of the image, it is a still from one of the newsreels produced about the jamboree; I was not able to pinpoint the exact source though I watched all three newsreels that are available on YouTube. The decision taken at the time of the Oct 2012 discussion was to keep the image as fair use. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If we can't find evidence of PD status, we are again stuck with treating it as non-free, as was the result of the last PUF discussion. However, in that case the rationales need to be checked. Currently the file has FURs claimed for a whopping five articles and is actually used in three. All the FURs have the same F8 argument: that it's the last photograph showing this person in a scout uniform. This is a patently bad NFC case. We have free pictures of this person. We even have another, free picture of him at this very event, wearing the same uniform (File:Pál Teleki Papp Antal Kisbarnaki Ferenc Farkas 4th World Scout Jamboree Gödöllő.jpg. At least it's claimed to be free; maybe it isn't, but in any case it makes this image fail NFCC#3.) The idea that him wearing a scout uniform is in need of illustration would be unconvincing anyway: this is just a picture of a guy standing behind a microphone. We know what the guy looked like. We know what scout uniforms look like. We know what standing behind a microphone looks like. Nothing in the combination of these three things is difficult to understand without seeing an extra picture.
I'm removing the picture from all but the most pertinent articles, for now, but note that it will have to be removed from that one too unless free status is substantiated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Blue devils logo.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KCVU FOX 20 Logo 2013.png

Threshold of originality not met?PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rite-Hite headquarters.jpg

This isn't a logo it's an interior. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is both listed as a logo by someone other than the uploader and as a photo taken by the uploader. I suggest that we assume that it is unfree and delete it per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rninfest2logo.jpg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks a bit problematic. Compare with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png (de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SPRINTER logo.svg

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file, so it might be copyrightable as computer software per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. If that is the case, then it is replaceable by a freely licensed SVG file of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The file page seems to indicate it was created by a Wikipedia editor from an EPS image, so the copyright status would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stbold.jpg

An 1871 image may be out of copyright and thus freely licenseable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it is from 1871? The source ([34]) doesn't list any year of creation. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Smallman Label.jpg

Threshold of Originality concern, this is simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg

Notes for the image mention that the image could be a 'service' photo, in which cases it would either have expired, or potentialy be a pre 1957 crown copyright image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:AMD Radeon logo.svg

Duplicate at Commons, considered PDShape/Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The SVG file is possibly copyrightable as computer software. See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The file page seems to indicate the SVG was created by a Wikipedia editor, so the copyright indication would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Aimee Semple McPherson

I really don't see justification for all 9 non-free files for an article about one person Werieth (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of the 9 , only three seem to be justifible: File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg (the arrival at the train station), File:ASM-reading_blackmailNote1.jpg, and File:ASM-cutting cake.jpg. All the others are duplicative of those non-frees and the existing frees. Mind you, copyright checks on these may be worthwhile due to age and possible lack of appropriate copyright notice for the time, but if they are all non-free, then the rest do not help the article per NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ASM returnFromDouglas01.jpg was published on June 26, 1926. The image has a listed Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Between 1923 and 1977 if this was not re-registered for copyright it would be in the public domain. As it stands it appears to have a license to restrictive for use on Wikipedia without being used within the NFC criteria.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These are all sourced to the UCLA Digital Library and a fall within the same license and dating between 1923 and 1977 and could well be public domain, but appear to have a non-commercial CC license.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming all 9 non-frees fall under this, we can still justify 3 of them as given, but we can't justify all 9. But if they can be put to a free license, that changes everything. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what was already discussed about the possibility of these being already in the public domain (in Sutton’s book I have perused some photos there published with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation are also claimed by yet another agency in their Bettmann collection which may indicate public domain, at the very least no clear ownership); if these are the files in question, inclusion for article justification are as follows: In general they they illustrate the wide range of diverse events and situations and life phases mentioned in the article about the subject and thus should not violate NFCC#3a (Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.)

1 --File:ASM-AngelusTemple Plaque 1923 02.jpg illustrates the ecumenical intent of the Angelus Temple. 1923, may be in public domain, appears in Sutton's 2007 book with permission by Church of the FourSquare Gospel Heritage Foundation, I have applied for permission nevertheless.

2--File:ASM-AngelusTemple Sermon 1923 01.jpg typical of what the subject did throughout her life This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

3--File:ASM 14hourService 1.jpg 1941 the all night services held during the war years illustrating the commitment she and her parishioners had to prayer and worship (much more so than the 1 hour on Sunday morning of many other churches). This file has CC license as per its originating websitelinked from the photo page.

4--File:ASM Semple Crawford1935.jpg to show that she was quite close to Rheba Crawford and McPherson's daughter Roberta, who figured significantly in her early to mid 1930's ministry but were later ousted from the Angelus Temple in emotive high profile media lawsuits, yet they later returned to mourn at her grave. Rheba Crawford is not elsewhere in other photos. This file has CC license as per its originating website linked from the photo page.

5--File:ASM convalescing in DouglasAZHospital Corbis.jpg 1926 includes Prosecutor Asa Keyes and assistant Joseph Ryan who figured prominently in the kidnapping grand jury inquiry mentioned in the kidnapping section; and not seen in other photos in the article. Also includes daughter Roberta Star Semple and Mother Mildred Kennedy and son Rolf McPherson, prominent persons in McPerson’s life the latter two not seen in other photos in the article. Also the picture depicts McPherson immediately after her emergence from the Mexican desert. Bettman Collection. May be in the public domain or at least no clear ownership, a related picture appears in Sutton's 2007 book.

If these justifications are needed to be included in the appropriate place on their respective pages, I shall place them there immediately.

From what I gather, images from the BETTMANN Archives / CORBIS are free to use anyway on Wikipedia as per:

http://www.corbis.com/BettMann100/ImageDonation/PDF/Corbis_Guidelines.pdf

Bettmann Collection which has has been opened for use by non profit entities Only images from the Bettmann Archive will be donated. Images must be available through the Corbis website http://pro.corbis.com)

From the talk page [[35]]

"Their images which are from the US Govt are in the public domain, as are all photos from pre-1923. They have also granted free use to non-profit organizations for some historic photos [Bettmann] (so Wikipedia)" Kwenchin (talk)"

Thanks. SteamWiki (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"granted free use to non-profit" does not meet our free use license requirements. We need the license to be free for all uses, redistribution, and modification by any entity in the world. So we still have the non-free image. If we can clear any of these as in the PD, that's great, but most of what you argue above is inappropriate - we don't need photos just to illustrate events particularly with the number of free and more relevant pictures of the woman already in the article. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll work at clearing it for PD, and put the CC notice (cc-by-3.0) on the others that have it which amounts to free anyway. At this time I do not see any renewal notices in my searches which at this time are preliminary. Additionally, there is a picture of the gospel car taken in 1919 from a book Einstein's (Sister Aimee) I could use (no copyright notice) and also see the same file elsewhere on the Foursquare.org website therefore I gather that is OK to use as well if add the PD tag? ThanksSteamWiki (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)|talk]]) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't tag these images as CC-BY-3.0, that has to be a license that is specifically added by the copyright owner of the image. (If they are given that way, that's fine thne). The "free for non-profit" is not a free license for our purposes, and has to be tagged with the appropriate copyright license tag. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Saga Group.png

I'm not sure if this meets UK TOO, It's text with a simple gradient. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg meets the UK threshold of originality, but English Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the British threshold of originality is irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Saint Benilde.gif

The subject died in 1862, Assuming the image is contempary with that persons lifetime, I find it unlikly that the the artist was still alive less than 70 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know whether it is a contemporary painting or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruppelt Ramey Samford 1952-07-29.jpg

This image is of a military press conference, thusly it may well be an official photo, and thus subject to PD-USGov terms, not the 'fair-use' ones currently used. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion for no source. It says where it was taken but not where the photo was obtained. Might be {{PD-USGov}}, but might also have been taken by a newspaper photographer or anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

According to this website the image is from United Press International. NtheP (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds as if it violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Savarkaringroup.jpg

This is claimed to have expired in it's origin country, Photo dates from 1944, If as claimed it's a government image, then I don't see why this is 'non-free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos are protected by copyright for 60 years since publication in India (50 years since creation if taken before 1908). Although it was taken in 1944, we have no information about when it was first published. If it was published in 1944, then the copyright has expired in India. If it remained unpublished for at least 20 years, then the copyright hasn't expired in India yet.

USA uses different rules. In USA, the rule is that an Indian photo must have been published before 1941 (unless it satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}). This is explained in the warning in the template. As it was taken in 1944, the photo is unfree in the United States and needs to be treated as an unfree work on Wikipedia.

The image violates WP:NFCC#10a. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SchenleyCasino.jpg

Given the commentary in the linked article, this image was logically taken at a time the building was extant ( prior to 1896). It is thus a pre 1923 image of US origin and could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on date of publication, though. When was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming contemporary publication, but this isn't confirmed in the file description :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The law for protection of the nation.jpg

text cover for an edict,law or decree of an official governmental body. Review requested because I'm not sure these are automatically non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that {{PD-laws}} applies here. Also, Commons:Template:PD-BG-exempt should apply for all Bulgarian laws. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:A.S.D. Cerea.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in A.S.D. Cerea 1912. Possibly PD due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ABC Spark logo.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ABC Family. Seems to be below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ANT1 logo.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OldAnt1.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ANZ-brand.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANZ Bank New Zealand. Appears to not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sophocles Budget Page.png

This is textual from output from software, If it is not user generated than it could be replaced with content that is. Additionally, I am not sure mere 'layouts' are subject to copyright apart from contents placed in them, and if User generated content, the facts could be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything copyrightable would be the choice of words and numbers (if those were chosen in some "copyrightable" way). As I can't easily see the text and the numbers, it's hard to make any judgement. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Siribhoovalaya DSC00403.JPG

This is a reproduction of an 'early' work almost certainly out of copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Set-game-cards.png

The symbols shown are simple geometric shapes. I am not sure these meet the 'originality' threshold. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Arms-east-barnet.jpg

Replaceable with alternative drawn from blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Arms-cheshunt.jpg

This image is replaceable with one derived from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Shot with martin.jpg

The notes for the image claim that the photo is pre-1923 and of US origin, thus public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It says that it was taken before 1923. However, we don't know when it was first published, so the copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ckfg.gif

Threshold of originality not met. This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Laconia, NH seal.JPG

This is a seal , the date is 1893, and if the seal is contemporary it's pre 1923, so public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jack TV 2011.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, this is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Girl From Yesterday Still.gif

This is a photo still from a pre 1923 work. So this is public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:AlajosStobl.jpg

This is a photo of a statute, the sculptor died in 1926, No information is given on when this specfic image was published though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged replaceable. It seems reasonable that the statue was published during his lifetime and presumably without copyright formalities, so it should be safe to assume that the statue is in the public domain. However, the photo of it might be unfree, and is replaceable by a free photo of the same statue. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be easily public domain, not a fair use image..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When and where was the photo of the statue first published? Without any publication data, we will have to assume that the photo is too recent. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg

It is claimed this is PD-India, but the image currently seems to have 'license soup'... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unfree in USA as it wasn't published before 1941 (source claims that the bridge was constructed in 1941, also watermark says 9-11-41 which looks like a date), so it has to be listed as unfree on Wikipedia. It is free in India if it was published before 1963, but we have no information about the publication history of the photo. Tagged "no fair use rationale". --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Knlu.JPG

Does this qualify for exemption as the symbol of an academic body? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would assume that Commons:Template:PD-UA-exempt doesn't cover this. Maybe it's covered if the academic body is run by the government... --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Great Midwest Conference logo.gif

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bean3.jpg

This has an OTRS permission, so does this only cover the photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:OTRS/N instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Antun Blažić.jpg

Presumably taken before 1943, but no publication date. Source is listed as another Wikipedia, which isn't generally good enough. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Added interwiki link. There is something which might be a source on the other Wikipedia, but it's written in Serbian, so I can't tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It says "Scanned from the book Yugoslav People's Heroes, Youth, Belgrade, 1975". -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:1000TRLira.jpg

According to COMMONS: Currency , Turkish banknotes can be freely licensed. Re-licenseable or replaceable with a free image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be nonderivative. See also Commons:Commons talk:Currency#Turkey. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:InPlaceofStrife.jpg

This is the front cover of an 'official' report presented to the UK Parliament as a command paper, Surely this would be covered under OGL, given it's offical status (and original publication by HMSO) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Some works by the British government are licensed under the OGL, some are not. Do you have any source telling that this one is available under OGL? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at present, but other command papers have been re-licensed under OGL.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a problem I have with UK government works: many works have been licensed under OGL, but it's usually not indicated on the works and I usually have no clue about how to find out which works the OGL covers. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:International Tennis Federation.png

Threshold of originality concern, Is the tennis ball enough to make this original? I'm not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Rapsar (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ipa-map.gif

Not a logo, Does this qualify under an Australian equivalent to OGL as a govt work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What does Open Gear Lubricant have to do with it? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. Maps almost always are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BNT logo 2008.png

Does this meet TOO, I'm not sure given that it's only simple word/text arrangements to form the logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BNT2 logo.png

Simple text and geomertric shape arrangment in single color, TOO may not have been met. Textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a text logo.--Rapsar (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Inish Times Logo.PNG

Threshold of originality might not have been met, Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Interkosmos patch for GDR Cosmonauts.svg

Notes suggest that as a state symbol, this may be exempt? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it isn't, would it even be eligible for copyright? It's just the East German flag (which is pd) with a border and three letters in a fairly generic font. --W. D. Graham 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or is this a user-created SVG based on (but not copied from) the design of the official insignia shown in a photo? Maybe we should ask the uploader what license he wants to release his work under, and tag it with that (for the SVG), along with {{PD-GermanGov}} and {{insignia}} (for the underlying design). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, that may not be of any use here, as the uploader has been indef blocked. But since it is only used in one article, only on en.WP, and the patch is at least partially visible in a photo on that page, I guess it won't be a big loss if this image is deleted. I'd say just delete. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think anyone has given any rationale for deletion at all. The question as I understand it is whether the image should be used as a fair-use copyrighted image, or regarded as public domain. Regardless of who made it, I think it falls very far short of the threshold of originality, and should be treated as pd-ineligible. The East German flag is pd, you can't just add a border and three letters and claim it's original copyrighted work. --W. D. Graham 21:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadian Ramped Cargo Lighter.jpg

Notes claim this is PD in Canada? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is copyrighted in the United States if the author submitted a copyright renewal to the United States Copyright Office. I saw a few renewals for his other books when I checked this some time ago, but I couldn't find this book. Would need a more careful check of the copyright renewal records. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:CasinoExterior585.jpg

Would it be reasonable to assume this image is contemporary with the building and thus is public domain? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously taken between 1893 and 1896, but when was it first published? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:CemalAzmi.jpg

Duplicate at Commons, Subject died in 1922, but this image doesn't give a publication date. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Cop18 cmp8 logo.jpg

Commons considers this a text logo, but requesting a review here because the globe inclusion makes me wonder about that call being wrong. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Farley Edition of Domesday.JPG

This is a self-made (by the uploader) image of an old book, the uploader originally uploaded this as non-free, but I am skeptical that they actually needed to do that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The book is PD. The photo is unlicensed. Anyone could take another photo of the same book, so this violates WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Debussy Premiere Arabesque melody and chords.mid

I am requesting a review, Debussy died in 1918, making the original composition PD as of 1988, Is this issue here the specific arrangement? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:FerruccioNazionale.jpg

This is a simple news photo, and so falls within the scope of PD-Italy surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only in the public domain in USA if it was published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice or before 1964 without a copyright renewal. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Exposition Hall 1898.gif

This image is stated as having come from a 1909 postcard, assuming this is first publication this is a 'freely' licenseable image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg

Claimed as PD-Pakistan as well as non-free, but apparently sourced to UK academic source. Is this an 'official' photo, if so as crown copyright this would have expired surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. British academic institutions use images from multiple sources, so there is no way to tell who took the photo without more information. {{PD-Pakistan}} requires evidence of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:LoweringLESSToLunarSurface.jpg

This image is claimed as having not been published with a notice, but also contains a non-free image tag (because it's apparently not covered by the typical NASA one.), There are some others like this in the 'disputed' category, which I will not nominate separately. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The source link is dead. Was the NASA document published in 1970? If so, then I suggest that we simply tag this with {{wrong license}} until someone has been able to obtain a copy of that NASA document to check for copyright notices. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:MasterCard Logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Acceptance mark (that use also violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG). Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this is the logo used on their cards, so would be the most appropriate one to use, to identify their products. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Below TOO for me as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Former Visa (company) logo.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Acceptance mark (that use also violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG). Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment IANAL, though it seems to me that it fails the originality test and should therefore be free, and thus usable, and should be added to the article. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Below TOO for me as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Adagio (Sweetbox album)

There are two non-free covers used in this article, both in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Adagio JP.jpg and File:Sweetbox Adagio RS.jpg. I think one of those covers should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. I don't know which of the two is more appropriate to keep, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Addicted (Sweetbox album)

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted RS.jpg and File:Addicted KE.jpeg. Again, I think one of the two should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Addicted (Sweetbox song)

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted SE.jpg and File:Addicted SE.jpg. One of them should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Synclavier II Demo 2.ogg

The rationale for the use in Additive synthesis#Timeline seems not to comply with WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale doesn't seem to explicitly mention the article where fair use is claimed. The use might also not comply with WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now edited it so that it mentions the article (Additive synthesis) explicitly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it passes WP:NFCC#8. A sound sample of a synthesizer significantly increases the reader's understanding of the synthesizer. It is the most effective way to transfer information about how a synthesizer sounds, and it will also illustrate what the synthesizer is capable of. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable by free media - any freely available software and/or composition can be used to demonstrate the effect that was introduced with said synthesizer; it is not required to have the actual demo sound used here. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the Additive synthesis article, the sample is used on a row about Synclavier II in a table that is a historical timeline of additive synthesizers and devices implementing additive synthesis. The sample sound demonstrates the particular synthesizer, not a particular effect, so it would be awkward to replace it with a sample generated from scratch. I searched for but didn't find freely available samples of Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are trying to demonstrate the sound of the synthesizer unit itself, then its just a matter of finding one of the claimed 50 Synclavier II units that exist today (per that article) and getting a free sound sample off it, instead of the composed sample. The question then becomes of how accessable those Synclaviers are. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone called for Synclavier II owners at gearslutz.com. There were no replies. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if no one got replies, the question remains: can someone from the public get access to one of these devices with reasonable effort and make a recording, or are they all secreted away in private collections? If it is the former then it is just a matter of waiting for that to happen, and per NFCC#1, we would not allow that non-free sample since a free one is possible. If it is the case that all the existing synthesizers are tied up behind closed doors and would require extraordinary efforts to access, then yes, the non-free may be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Could be created" in WP:NFCC#1 is certainly open to interpretation as to the minimum probability required, and we can only guess the probability anyhow. From foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy: "An EDP [such as WP:NFCCP] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A freely licensed work is not available. The Synclavier article has existed for about ten years without an audio sample uploaded, if that is any indication as to whether we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file. My estimate is that without an extra push we should have to wait another 10 years. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Could be created" here is interpreted to mean that a member of the public can somehow create the image or audio, not whether it has happened or not over a given period of time. So again, the question remains - are these units all behind private doors to be sufficiently considered inexcessible to the public? --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. That is not common knowledge. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have inquired for a free audio sample from Synclavier European Services. Waiting for their reply. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Violates at least WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE is a guideline, and about images. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Finnish Broadcasting Company has some model of Synclavier. Following that lead. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That unit is reported (in a 2007 discussion) to be missing the original computer (although it can be replaced with a Mac) and there seems to be some other problem with it as well. It's probably a newer model too, as apparently its arrival was reported so late, in ([Anonymous] 1991: Synclavier Suomeen. Musiikkiuutiset 2 1991). I've send a message to Pentti Männikkö, who is a sound producer at Yle, asking about it. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the composer Jon Appleton a message asking whether he could release a sample, as there is a video of him playing Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He gave a positive reply. I'll try to negotiate a Creative Commons release of one of his Synclavier audio tracks or an excerpt. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also asked Richard Atkinson, who appears to have a working Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Jon Appleton agreed to license one of his Synclavier tracks under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. It has thus been demonstrated that it is possible to create a free alternative to this file. I will proceed to upload it to Commons shortly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jon Appleton - Sashasonjon.oga if anyone's interested. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Zenit sea launch.jpg

This is not a 'unique historic image' as claimed. It could be replaced by a free image. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree it isn't particularly historic, I would strongly challenge the assertion that it could be replaced by a free image. Sea Launch conducts rocket launches from a converted oil rig in open water on the equator. The only vessel nearby is a command ship also operated by Sea Launch, and as a result I cannot see how it can be reasonably assumed that a replacement free image could be created. --W. D. Graham 21:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Sea Launch article actually has a free image of such a launch, which obviously defeats this argument. The claimed use on other articles, such as Ukraine, is obviously invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KTVU 2 logo.PNG

Currently tagged as non-free. Probably copyright-ineligible as WP:TOO isn't satisfied. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Chris McCandless.png

License Ouvert at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:npd}} on Commons. The user on Commons states that the copyright status is "unclear" and that it is used under a fair use claim in addition to being licensed as "Licence Ouverte". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:I-TliCho-flag-new.gif

This was treated as free (PD-shape) by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ukr hckylogo.png

Considerd UA-exempt at Commons perhaps erronously. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:John Patrick Bedell Washoe County Jail photo.JPEG

The use of this image in 2010 Pentagon shooting seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image seems to merely serve an identification purpose in that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:OpenWire graphical editor on Embarcadero Delphi.jpg

An OTRS permission is pending for an identical image on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wait or actively assess Keep: Hi. Actually, it was I who changed the licensing tag to non-free fair use. You see, Mitov insists that Embarcadero has given him permission to use the screenshot of their software. He says they were very nice about it, they are his business partners and they assured him that he has permission to use it. However, I still do not believe they gave him permission for free use. Embarcadero Delphi is non-free commercial product; its copyright holders will never give permission to use it under a free license like Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. It is uncharacteristic of companies like Embarcadero. At most, I believe they allowed him to freely publish and reproduce the screenshot but I daresay they'd flip if they see a derivative work of Delphi.

We should either wait for Commons OTRS results (which is probably a decline) or ask a person with OTRS permission to check the email sent. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we leave this discussion open and wait until Commons either has deleted Commons:File:OpenWire Editor installed in Delphi XE3.jpg or added an OTRS ticket. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like the image on Commons is deleted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Starz 1994.png

Threshold of originality concern, Commons treats this as 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The image on the Commons was uploaded by an editor with only nine edits, so I would not consider his opinion to be definitive. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of Seoul.svg

Commons treat's this logo as free, are Governmental symbols exempt in South Korea? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that we should wait until Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Seoul.svg has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Matrix of the seal of the University of St Andrews.jpg

This image is duplicated at Commons, the item shown being of a sufficient age that it is in public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect the user who copied it there from this wiki was mistaken, as the upload was their very first edit to that wiki. I am nominating the copy on Commons for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Tagged as "replaceable fair use". The fair use rationale appears to state that the seal is in the public domain because of age. The seal looks old, so the claim seems reasonable. In that case, it violates WP:NFCC#1 as anyone else could take a photo of the same seal. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so I understand - a photo of a PD sculpture is copyrightable even though a photo of a non-PD sculpture is not since it is a derivative work? VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the 3d to 2d transition that creates the new copyright - there's enough in the 3D-ness of the PD work that lighting and shadows created by the photographer are considered to be copyrightable elements. If it was a 2D-to-2D work, the image would be considered a slavish reproduction of the original, bestowing no new copyrights. Note that a photo of a non-PD sculpture does create a second copyright, that of the photographer on the photo itself, while there is still a copyright to the original sculpture as well. Hence if we determine that a non-free image of a 3D work where there is no freedom of panorama, we really want a photograph that is licensed free, even though it still is a deritive work of the sculpture - it is just one less copyright aspect to worry about. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes logical sense. Thanks for explaining! VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons:COM:ART. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:DTS logo.svg

Commons treats this logo artwork as 'free' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Joymati6.jpg

Commons treats this image as PD-india (based on the 1934 date seemingly) but gives no further information, The source link being geocities is dead. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-India}} requires evidence of pre-1941 publication, but none is given. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joymati6.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Codetel preverizon.jpg

The Commons Equivalent is treated as being below TOO, but I am not so sure given the complexity of the logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:EXA-WHITE.JPG

The equivalent image on Commons claims to have permission for release under Creative Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Higgs mass metastability.png

Vector conversion listed is shown as free, if it's a derived work of this why is this also not free? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably below the threshold of originality. If not, then it violates WP:NFCC#1 as the information in the image isn't copyrighted. The SVG file is a copyrighted computer program licensed under a CC licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A graph of data does not fall under copyright.[36] There's nothing in this graph which goes beyond a simple visualization of the data. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal of Baltimore.jpg

The seal has a date of 1797 , Is the seal artwork contempary? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the infobox in the article about the city, the city was incorporated in 1797. It seems reasonable that the number 1797 may appear in any symbol for the city, regardless of the age of the symbol. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

According to our article on it, Seal of Baltimore, this seal was adopted in 1827, so is definitely PD-old/PD-1923. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Humaun Azad (1947-2004).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Humayun Azad bibliography and List of converts to Nontheism. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army officer rank insignia

Clear violations of WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been - for years. What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Your edit comment says: "This image has been listed for review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Australian Army officer rank insignia". What image? There are no non-free images on the page now that you have removed them. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, if you are going to indulge in what looks like an edit war, you need to explain to your combatant that NFCC enforcement is exempt from edit-warring, 3RR, and similar rules / policies / guidelines. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a bug with WP:TW's edit summary. Just because no one has noticed the issue doesnt mean that there wasnt an issue. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand.

As I said: What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this is to review if their use is proper. And in this case, no, there can be a reduction in the non-free image use by showing one insigna that uses all the elements, and then text-descriptions for all the rest, as to satisfy both NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a relevant useful reply! I will modify the page accordingly, and when I've finished, I would very much appreciate your feedback on whether I have accurately interpreted and implemented your advice. It is indeed a pleasure to hear from someone suggesting ways to solve the problem, rather than those simply complaining. Yours sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation of your advice. I will appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of though I think you can go fewer and show the General level - which has all three elements (crown, star, swords), outside of the table, explaining that the insignia uses three major icons as shown, and then run through as you do on the tables. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of - Good!

though I think you can go fewer - Possibly. (Probably?) But what's the cost/benefit analysis?

In my (no doubt biased) opinion, I think the PRIMARY goal should be user-comprehension, and (of course), I think the way I've done it facilitates user-comprehension. (Personally, I'm rather unimpressed by computer programmers, etc., who believe the primary goal is to make things easier for computers. And before we go any further, I quickly hasten to state that I do NOT put you in that category.)

So, is what I've done acceptable? Or are there remaining problems? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension, particularly here in which all we are doing is showing without telling what the importance is of these ranks (eg its very weak at NFCC#8). It is completely reasonable to show an example that can be extrapolated to others, which is why I'm saying that if you show the General's insignia which has all 3 distinctive elements, and explain how such elements are presented on the rest, you're still cutting down NFC but leaving the important one, and using text to describe the rest, helping to meet both goals. (another option that I'm not sure about is if you showed one and then has very simple line drawings to show the icons on it, though I'm not sure if those would be called derivative works or not). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension - Agreed. (i.e. That was the point I was trying to make.)

It is completely reasonable to show an "example" ... - That was/is indeed my intent.

which is why I'm saying ... - Yes, I understand that.

I realize you are being very polite and very diplomatic, but I don't have a feel for how you view my question: "What's the cost/benefit analysis?" (BTW: It's bedtime here - I won't be responding in the next 20 hours.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the cost/benefit analysis is far different for WP than any other educational work, because of the Foundation's goal to encourage free content creation and distribution. Non-free harms that but its recognized that some is needed to complete the educational work - each use is a cost in light of non-free policy. Arguably, the insignia could be fully described in text, not incredibly hard and glossing over some details, and still be of nearly the same education value (because they are only presented and not discussed in any more detail, there's little educational value in seeing them all) But I recognize that maybe one would be better to have. But I do fully recognize that if you select the right one to use an example, the rest can be clearly extrapolated from that without a lot of excess text. Multiple examples are thus not necessary to achieve the same benefit. Of course, as noted below, one montage image, provided by those that own the copyright, is just as good from the non-free aspect and much better for the overall page, so that's a better one to use. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well having them all did fail WP:NFG. Though could one image, with all the rank insignias, fail NFCC (something like this)? Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Montage/composite images like that would be great, but they have to be made by the copyright owner themselves. If you or a third-party put those together in the same fashion, it would be treated as an image with X uses of non-free, where X is the number of images used. If the copyright holder does that and puts it out as a single image, then it's a single image to us, too. Note that here, not knowing the relationship between the Veterans and the actual AU Army, I don't think that image could be used, but a bit of Tin Eye and I get this page [37] which DOES appear to be the same image and from the defence agency of AU, would presuambly are the copyright holders. It would be reasonable to crop that image to the appropriate line (making note of that) and using that single image as a lead image here. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression the owner doesn't want that: "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only" [38] Or does US law allow it? And the insignias are a low quality photo/drawing hybrid. --Egel _Reaction? 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

US's Fair Use allowances in copyright law should override that; as part of the guarantee of copyright is that you cannot forbid fair use, irregardless of what warnings/restrictions you place. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, I have a problem with the definition of "the owner" of "the copyright". (NOTE: I'm talking about so-called "copyright" images from sites other than defence.gov.au) Quite clearly, the copyright is owned by the Australian Government. Yes, the so-called "owner" drew the image, but I think it's a rather large stretch to say "the creator of a reproduction of an image who's copyright is owned by somebody else is suddenly the owner of the copyright." Yes, they are the owner of the copyright of that particular reproduction (whatever that might mean). But they are most certainly NOT the owner "the" copyright (whatever that might mean). Comments? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, if I created a derivative work of a work still under copyright, then for current purposes of non-free evaluation , there are two copyrights associated with the new work - that of the original creator of the image, and my own copyright. I myself may chose to use a free license, which doesn't touch the original owner's copyright work, but for purposes of non-free, is a better option since there's fewer copyright hurdles on the image use. (Hence, for example, we do require that we have freely-taken photographs of still-standing sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

a) Wow! That was a quick response!

b) Yes. That's what I thought I'd said. Are you agreeing with me, or are you pointing out a difference? If so, what's the difference?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I'm agreeing with you. You do have a claim of coypright on a derivative work of sufficient creativity, but you're not claiming the full copyright. But in regards to this case, we do have, to be for all purposes, an image created by the copyright holder (the one off defence.gov.au) so we can use that here. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! That actually seems both logical and reasonable. (Clearly, you are neither a politician nor a lawyer.) ("Over and out".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Red River Rivalry Logo.png

In the article AT&T, the use of this image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, especially as the article's text content about AT&T's sponsorship of the game is a single list item. The logo is entirely decorative. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the logo is only valid on the article about the rivalry. Remove from there. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rbhlogo wikipage.jpg

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any need for the image, though, as there doesn't seem to be any article about the company. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo noul adevarul.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Adevărul Moldova. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The bird seems to be copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TomandJerryHitler.jpg

The use in Adolf Hitler in popular culture violates WP:NFCC#10c. This use and the use in The Lonesome Mouse appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both. In the article about the cartoon, it's only briefly mentioned that an edited version runs, and is nowhere near the significance of the "censorship" of the Censored Eleven, for example. Similarily fails for the same reason at the pop culture one (again, if it was a scene from the Censored Eleven, possibly, but without significance and just as an example, fails). --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Plugz.jpg

The use of this cover in The Plugz might violate WP:NFCC#8. It also doesn't seem to fall under those cases usually regarded as acceptable per WP:NFCI#1, as the article is about the band depicted on the cover and not the item to which the cover belongs. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the group's disbanded, it is reasonable to use non-free to illustrate them. While it would be better to have something akin to a press kit photo, in this case using a known photo of the group from one of their album/single covers is reasonable. (Yes, it's cover art, but here also likely the best photo of the band that is known about). Not really a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg

(Apologies in advance if this isn't the right place to bring this query.)
File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg is currently being used in the main infobox of the article Yeezus, and is being claimed under fair use. However, I'm not entirely sure that it meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection – what exactly is being copyrighted? It's certainly not the disc or the jewel case – the orange sticker, then? Personally, I would have thought that this image would be ineligible for copyright, and that we could probably create our own free version in as high a resolution as we'd like, but then IANAL. I welcome any thoughts on the matter. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Nothing unique in the image to warrant copyright (reminds me of when the non-free cover was replaced with a free commons version for We're New Here) If the pink figure in that cover was no issue, neither should the orange sticker here. Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Speedily delete per WP:CSD#F7. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Giovan M Salati.jpg

If it was first published in 1989 as claimed, then it must be a recent painting. If it isn't a contemporary painting, then doesn't this mean that the painting isn't better than anything that any Wikipedia contributor could make? Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it known whether any other images of him exist? If not, then how could an image be made that would not be a derivative work of this one? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's almost certainly an original 19th-century work, and there is no reason to assume the book publication in 1989 was the original publication. Near 100% certain this is actually PD, although it is of course annoying that the uploader didn't copy the source attribution of the original painting that must be given in the book if it's of any value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Brookside

I don't see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

I cant see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Two are photos with very reasonable justifications, old lineups, including one showing a since-deceased member. All the rest are brief song clips. Only with the latter group might one reasonably question the need for so many, though I don't see it as excessive given that song clips are obviously irreplaceable and are as short as a free iTunes preview.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sound clip on band pages should only be used when talking about their distinctive song, since otherwise for truly notable songs it would be reasonable that a sound clip there in discussion about the song itself. But clips about the band should be chosen with a lot more careful regard. Without even looking, though, I'm sure at 2-3 sound clips can be fully justified in the case of RHCP due to their odd style, and to highlight that in light of their major hits (eg "Give It Away", "Californication"). Note that it is not a matter of fair use (outside of the specific limitations we put on length to avoid problems), but minimizing non-free usage. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirteenth

Given the number of free files (55) is there really a need for 10 non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can musical notation be necessarily copyrighted? Obviously the performed work is copyrighted but the sheet music itself? I do agree non-free should be trimmed out removing any non-frees in favor of free examples, but the question is if the sheet music is copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, notated music is copyrighted the same way as a book is. Like a book, small excerpts can be used under the Fair use principle, but its use is limited on WP by WP:Fair Use. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Space Mouse

I don't see justification for 11 non-free files especially given how similar they all re Werieth (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as there's very little different between iterations, only a couple images appear to be needed. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pixie Lott - Bright Lights.jpg

I don't see how two screenshots from the video enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. A free picture of Ms Lott would surely suffice. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Tinchy Stryder & Pixie Lott - Bright Lights.jpg

I don't see how two screenshots from the video enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. This seems especially redundant as it shows pretty much what the cd cover (File:Tinchypixiebright.jpg) shows. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Venezuela football association.png

This image is considered too simple by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple in the US, but what about Venezuela? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Socialistische Partij Anders.svg

Commons considers this too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of Netrunner Enigma 13.06.jpg

Netrunner is 'free' software according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is needed evidence the site releases material in compatible licenses, that the screenshot showed in the computer has a similar license, and that they have the rights of these works. I requested speedy deletion there. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Associação Esportiva Araçatuba logo.svg

According to Commons, this is below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is too simple, the real question is, is it ineligible for copyright in Brazil, the country of origin? If it is copyrighted in Brazil, it shouldn't be in Commons. That's what you should have said in the deletion discussion. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WKSU-FM logo (new).png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 08:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Current eCornell Logo.png

This looks too simple to be protected, but not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Faller Logo.gif

Logo may fall below TOO, what standard does DE apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Alerta.jpg

WP:NFCCP #8, the poster doesn't add much to the article. An equivalent free image could be reasonably found. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the above assessment. It illustrates the Cuban perspective warning about the US and has great contextual significance. How do you suppose a free version could reasonably be found of original art? Seriously? Original art from a historic, notable period in time. Having said all that, it doesn't have a valid rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the case that we use non-free if a free image can't be found - the question is if we don't affect the reader's understanding of the topic if the image was not present, and in this case, for two reasons, it does fail this. First, the image is not discussed at all in text, but that's probably because on Military history of Cuba, the image really doesn't apply - it's more appropriate to the Bay of Pigs invasion. I'm not saying it meets NFCC#8 there, only that it has a better chance, in discussing the Cuban reaction to the US threat of invasion. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Masem just stated accept I do disagree that the image doesn't apply to Military history of Cuba. It has the contextual significance for both articles mentioned...but it does require critical commentary. Now...that could be easily fixed by adding the commentary...but it would have to be properly referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who character images

This section is intended to list the cases from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_25#Huge category that might be problematic. I will look at the category later and list those that might need discussion. Feel free to list some as well. I think we should list them under a level 4 heading, like ====[[:File:Whatever.jpg]]====. The sections sorting the discussions by type (screenshot, book cover) use level 3 headings. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowing how the DW articles are organized and simply glancing at names, I suspect most are appropriate single character images used in the infobox in articles about that character (barring something like Romana, the Master, and the Doctor). That's not to say they're all clear, just that I suspect they are in reasonable use on notable character articles. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

delete nothing to do with the story.188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete In a story with many memorable images, this has to be the most mundane screencap. It doesn't add anything to the article. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Planet of Fire.jpg

Used in Planet of Fire. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

By the look of it it shows the Master having caught the companion. That seems a pivotal bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

keep Master is a key villain in this story, plus Peri is a new companion here. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Twin Dilemma.jpg

Used in The Twin Dilemma. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

keep This is a famously controversial moment. If needed, expand article to include more detail. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Delta and the Bannermen.jpg

Used in Delta and the Bannermen. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Paradise Towers.jpg

Used in Paradise Towers. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Celestial Toymaker.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Celestial Toymaker. Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in The Celestial Toymaker, as the article is about one of the serials and not specifically about the character the image depicts. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep shows main villain, who is unique to this story (on TV) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Does show the main and supporting cast - but A shot of the sensorite face (rather than it's back) would be better [sensorites unique to this story]. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Gunslinger.jpg

Used in A Town Called Mercy. That article is about a specific episode and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the entire article, there is a section about the design of this one-off character which is more than sufficient justification for keeping the image on the episode page. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Eldrad.jpg

Used in The Hand of Fear. That article is about a specific episode and not about the character the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

keep Shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no discuss about the character's design within the episode article so the image does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

commment Add it in then. I mean If showing the main villain of a story isn't "useful to the reader", then I'm not sure what is. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Book and CD covers

File:Doctor Who The Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true - the article is about the story, which exists as both a TV show and a book (often the books have significant differences to what was screened on TV). It's the same principle as articles about songs with multiple notable cover versions, where the covers from all the relevant releases are included in a similar fashion. (eg Tainted Love) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Per WP:NFCI#1, images of covers "...from various items..." are are acceptable "...for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." There is no critical commentary about this book in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy#In print. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, unless the novelization is notable for its own article, the cover is not required on the episode article. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy (audio).gif

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the album. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who The Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Goodluckcharlie1.jpeg

Also nominated are:

• File:Goodluckcharlie2.jpeg
• File:Goodluckcharlie3.jpeg
• File:Goodluckcharlie4.jpeg

Recently uploaded mages used only in the infoboxes of TV season articles that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8. They were removed from the articles for this reason and tagged as orphaned, but the uploader has since restored them. AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This seems pretty easy. Invalid rationale for the following reasons: Description is not of cover art, or the season but of the characters, no source is given, not actually the cover art but the publicity photos used in the cover art, portion used is incorrect as this is only part what the actual cover art created, while the answer to low resolution is answered as yes, all of the images were increased in size to 300px (although this I went ahead and fixed), purpose of use is incorrect and should be "to identify the subject by season" at the very least. It is possible this image cannot be replaced with a free version but I will take a quick look.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A check of flickr shows one image of cast members that can be used with a suitable CC 2.0 license and there are other images that could possibly be turned into a similar license by request. I see this done often. So there is no valid reason to depict illustrate the actors with NFC, but a screenshot that is discussed in detail in the article would be fine. If this were actual cover art with the proper titles and an obvious change from season to season with a valid rationale I would support it with a keep !vote, but this is far from what it says it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've added three more images that I've just become aware of. These suffer from exactly the same problem regarding their use. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Aussie, I hope you don't mind but I dropped those images down to their own section as the original images and those suffer from different issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Shake it up images

• File:Shakeitupseason1.jpg
• File:Cast-of-shake-it-up-season 2.jpg
• File:Shakeitupseason3.jpg

See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCPN logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCLV-FM, WCLV (AM) logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WELW logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCRFlogo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WCSB logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WDOK logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WEOL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WTAM logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WNCX logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WOBL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WQAL logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gasoline Alley

Is there justification for 7 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Pinnacleinclogo.png

The Commons Deletion debate deemed this below TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ph seal zamboanga del sur.png

Despite the wording of the template, Commons considered this to be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PETRONAS 2011.svg

Commons apparently deemed this below TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly

I cant see justification for the images except the primary cover Werieth (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It helps the reader understand the context of the game.

• Gameplay screenshot(s): provides the reader with a concrete example of the Gameplay information, as well as a subtle compare-contrast between remakes.
• PZ2: Wii Edition cover: provides secondary identification, as well as concrete evidence of it being a Wii remake of the original. Plus, it shows two main antagonists: Sae Kurosawa and the Kusabi.

—017Bluefield (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those reasons meet the bar set forth by WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the screenshots do help the reader understand the context of the game, both in setting and in gameplay. —017Bluefield (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But per the second part of WP:NFCC#8 the omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Werieth (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. Without the screenshot, the reader won't precisely understand how FFII's Viewfinder mode, or its HUD components, work(s). For the original version's Camera Obscura, the power charge focused on the player's proximity to the hostile ghost; not time spent watching it, as seen in almost every other installment. —017Bluefield (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One screenshot to go along with a sourced gameplay section for video games is considered standard practice (and one of the items listed at NFCI). NFCC#8 is met by assuring that the screenshot showcases key gameplay features that are described and sourced in the text (in the concept of a video game, it is very hard to narrow the game to a single screenshot and talk about that image in context). Any more than one screenshot must require more normal application of NFCC#8. In the case of an HD remake, if its just to show the graphics in the HD and not talk about new gameplay features or to go along with sourced discussion of what graphical improvements have been made in the HD version, then the second screenshot, in HD, is not appropriate (as appears to be in this case). --MASEM (t) 06:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:VA-VA-VOOM-NICKI-MINAJ.jpg

This appears to be simple text, as does a generic Parental Advisory. Below TOO? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Power 108.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WENZ logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:107.9 The END logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WERE logo.png

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 05:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WGAR-FM logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 05:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WHWN logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 05:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WKNR logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WWGK logo.png

Threshold of originality likely not met. Levdr1lp / talk 06:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Unpakt logo.jpg

There is nothing in this media above TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Provides identification for the subject of one article. Keep. 1-555-confide (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's not the issue. It's a simple text-only logo and thus instead of being non-free, likely should be free (and thus kept without a problem). It's too simple to be creative under the concept of "Threshold of Originality" (TOO) to qualify for copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nature Air logo.svg

There is nothing in this media above TOO, although it's an artistic script. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Volkov Yartsev VYa-23.jpg

I disagree that we need a possibly non-free image for this. The gun is pretty common, found in several Russian museums (here for example) and there are several PD photos of it in volume two of the book by Chinn (US gov't work) of the exemplar tested at Arbedeen. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can't see how this meets WP:NFCC#1. Hobit (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• If this is a Russian photo from 1940 or 1941 (when the gun was introduced), it would actually be free as {{PD-URAA}} though. There are some books which have photo credits detailed enough to establish this; I'm going to go through them and investigate that angle (see if this photo shows up in any of them). Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Family-Game-Night-Yahtzee-Bowling.jpg

I don't think this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#1. The image itself is not the subject of commentary, but rather appears to illustrate how the game is played. Presumably a free mock-up of what the bowling pins look like could be made. Deleting this image would be in line with previous precedent at NFCR for a screenshot of Plinko being played failing NFCC, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 19#File:Plinkoseason37.jpg. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice Vickery.jpg

Given the date of the image, I'm disputing if this needs to be considered Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Brisbane School of Theology.jpg

Threshold of originality not met? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VanillaForums.org Screenshot.png

Software is described as being GPL, presumably the concern is the user content shown. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:ETV-Rasoi-Show-logo.jpeg

This is logo artwork, so unlikely to be a self work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• So retag it, and inform the uploader. Next. :) There's ~225 active cases on this page. I don't think we need to bring simple ones like this, yeah? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Maynard Jackson NGE.jpg

Used in four articles and violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of them. The rationale does not comply with WP:NFURG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:After School - Shampoo sample.ogg

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in After School (band) and Virgin (After School album). None of the two articles would suffer from acute unintelligibility if the sample were removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bisnode logo.png

This images is below TOO according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Keystone Library Network's Logo.png

This is a logo which does not meet Threshold or originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg

I tagged this file for violating WP:NFCC#10c as part of the NFCC task I perform. The file obviously lacks rationales for Economy of Turkey, High-speed rail in Turkey and Turkish State Railways. Is the content of the section File:TUVASAS-ROTEM HSR-350X.jpg#Fair use rationale what is considered a valid rationale per WP:NFURG? I would argue this is not the case and thus the file also lacks a rationale for EUROTEM. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Canal+ Cinéma logo 2009.svg

Commons treats this logo as not having met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Evangelion retouched.png

Treated as a textlogo on Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jcp logo.PNG

In the commons deletion disscussion, this image was deemed not to have met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Bnt-sat.png

According to Commons, this logo does not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

File:TattleTales Logo.JPG

Possibly a PD-textlogo failing WP:TOO? RJaguar3 | u | t 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To Tell the Truth

I request a review of whether all of the non-free images (except for the infobox logo) satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am of the opinion they do not. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think [39] provides context needed to fully understand the time period and how the show looked. The cast shot could be done with individual free pictures, so unless free images of them don't exist that needs to go. Most of the rest don't add enough, IMO, to meet NFCC#8, though the black and white logo might if there were some non-trivial coverage of the logo change (which I doubt). Hobit (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The cast shot is public domain (pre-1978 publication in the US with no notice). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'd (obviously) not looked. I'm assuming the same doesn't apply to the screen shots from before 1978 for some reason? Could you explain? Sorry, I'm a bit clueless on this... Hobit (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Sure. Currently, the images are tagged as non-free. I have no idea whether the episodes from which they came has copyright notices. Even if they lacked copyright notices, case law says that pre-1978 broadcast of a copyrighted work does not constitute the kind publication that would trigger the copyright notice requirement. See Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Rubinowitz, 217 U.S.P.Q. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1981). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UniversalTelevision1975.png

Clearly logo artwork, and not uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After the Lights

There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:After The Lights Sweetbox RS.jpg and File:Sweetbox After The Lights KE.jpg. One of them should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rahula College Crest Color.svg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya. Might be in the public domain due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nutsmagazine.jpg

Whilst the image helps identify the magazine, I don't see why the article needs a particular cover image, when the publications logo is already included in the infobox. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, Playboy has a fair number of images including a cover. Seems as reasonable to have a cover image of a magazine as it does an album cover of a record (maybe more). Hobit (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:City-of-Gilroy-seal-350px.png

This is a seal of a California Local government agency. Aren't these freely license-able? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Works produced by the US Gov't are public domain but that provision does not apply to state or local gov't under it. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is the normal thing we do with seals of cities in city articles? Hobit (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They are generally considered like logos and can be used the identifying image for the city. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jedi Knights.png

It was argued that this picture goes against WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, although I believe the justification I gave on both criteria is valid and helps user's understanding of the subject in question. LusoEditor (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out on Talk:Jedi, to visualize the general appearance of what Jedi are, there are plenty of free images of Jedi cosplayers that work as well as the non-free screenshot, and per NFCC#1, should be replaced with one of those. The article is not talking specifically about the two Jedi shown, only using them as examples, but so can any cosplay pictures with the same educational relevance. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, cosplay is just an attempt (never as accurate as a picture from the source material which is a visual representation of the author's vision) to replicate what is shown on the movies. I would agree that a cosplay picture could be used to represent fandom or pop culture, but not the subject itself. LusoEditor (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Within the films, there's so many different styles (due to species) that it's hard to talk about accuracy. It would be one thing if it was, say, a combat suit with a lot of fine details, but here we are talking robes, a lightsaber, and arguably a specific way to fashion a bit of hair. Yes, the robes do have a certain cut and tailoring on them, but the fan-efforts are as close enough to accurate as needed for an encyclopedic topic, and hence why non-free is replaceable here. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Film-wise, the robes are pretty much the same for the various species. And again, the fact that it's a picture of master and apprentice also conveys the relationship and ranking between the two. I still think that as far as fictional characters goes, a picture from the source material will always convey a more accurate representation to the readers while not contradicting any copyright law (since it fits under fair-use) and that a cosplay picture would be more appropriate to a fandom section. LusoEditor (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a copyright law issue, at least in the aspect that we need to worry about Lucas/Disney coming down and suing Wikipedia. Instead we have a free content mission that allows exceptional uses of non-free but only when free media can't serve the same purpose, as to encourage free content development. While I understand the need to be accurate, there is very little difference from a off-hand, out-of-universe discussion of the concept of a Jedi using non-free compared to free cosplay images. If we were talking specifically about these characters, that's a different issue but we're talking the broad concept of a Jedi, and we don't need to use them to show the general look and feel. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article as it's written is not about the broad concept of a Jedi, it's about the fictional organization in the fictional canon. In fact, is bordering WP:NOTPLOT. Even if it was rewritten to cover the broad concept, this image would still relevant at the section for fictional characters in the franchise for identification and depiction of its marketing characteristics as presented by LucasFilm+Disney. Diego (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just as we wouldn't use a picture of someone pretending to be a person to illustrate that person, we should not be using fan art to illustrate something from a movie. So meets NFCC#1 unless someone can find a free version of something from the movie (which isn't impossible, just unlikely). Clearly meets NFCC#8. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not how our non-free policy works. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opinion is noted, but I'm not at all clear what basis you have for it. Care to explain? I am pretty sure we don't dress people up to look like someone else in biographical articles. Nor do we use fan art to (for example) illustrate what a power puff girl is. I'm not sure how what you are proposing is any different. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This is not an article about the specific characters of Obi-Wan Kanobi or Qui-Gon Jinn where it would be inappropriate to use a fan recreation to represent them, just as it would be inappropriate to use a person dressed as a famous person to represent that person. But we're talking about the general concept of a Jedi and since, even within the official media, numerous ways they are dressed and depicted, there is no reason that a well-done fan recreation in pose (photographed freely) can be used to do the same encyclopedic purpose of showing what a Jedi is typically dressed like and what they use as a weapon. It would be similar to using free photos of Civil War recreationists instead of non-free photos (well, if such existed, most should be free by now, but the point is there) to show what the Blues and the Grey were like in real life. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd hope that using recreationists wouldn't go well as the sole image for what the Blues and the Greys looked like (yes, assuming all that was copyrighted). Hobit (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But again, this is not just about apparel. The way they work, master and apprentice together, is also present (and weaponry of course). I still think that one "encyclopedic purpose" is to be as accurate as possible. And nothing like a picture from the source material to do so instead of cosplay. From my point of view, Jedi are part of a franchise that is non-free by default, therefore any visual representation of them (except fandom or pop culture) has to come from the source material, just like any fictional organization. LusoEditor (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • That picture (the non-free) gives no impression about the master-apprentice relationship (yes, I know it exists) nor do I think you can necessarily do that with any scene from the movie, the only thing that differentiates it from any possible fan made version is the visual effects, which are not part of the article. I shouldn't have to impress how big the Star Wars fandom is and from that , and to what extents those fans go for accuracy in their work; ergo, it's difficult to argue that we need the movie still to be accurate. I realize none of the Jedi-related images at commons are of them same quality to be used for this article currently, but as Star Wars remains a popular franchise it remains completely possible that a free image of high quality cosplays is possible. (Now, to throw a different angle, I *could* see a screenshot from .. oh, let's say late in the Phantom Menace when Anakin and/or Obi-Wan is facing the Jedi council as a means of showing several facets of Jedi that cannot be captured by fans - the variety of species, the Council itself, and possibly (Can't recall if there is such a scene) the appearance of Anakin and Obi-Wan in the same scene together in front of the Council as to show the master/apprentice better. And of course, the outfits.) --MASEM (t) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• The reason to have this image is the same one we include images for any other copyrighted media (be it movies, comic book characters and album covers): for identification and display of its marketing characteristics. A cosplay image may be adequate for Jediism, which is about its influences in the real world, and also at Jedi#In popular culture which should deal with fan reactions. But this article is mainly about the fictional characters from the movie franchise, therefore the same rules apply as any other copyrighted media, and the same reasons why we don't find a fan art substitute adequate are at play here. Diego (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have no clear-cut allowances for images for identification of fictional characters, however, unlike the NFCI for cover arts, so that same logic does not apply. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That still wouldn't make reasonable to replace this with [40]. The reasons to display the franchise's characterization are sound and stand on their own. Diego (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You can't replace a cartoon character with a real-life photo, obviously. But when we have something that exists in a physical manner and that can be recreated relatively accurately by fans, then yes, we need to consider. Note that I'm talking about the concept of the Jedi - I would not be saying the same if we were talking about Obi-Wan Kanobi, where no matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it wouldn't be the same as either Alec Guinness or Ewan McGreggor's version. As there is not one Jedi in the films, we're not in the same position. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How does having more than one Jedi change anything? No matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it will not be equal to any of the Jedis in the films. Diego (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You're trying to show what a Jedi looks like, right? There's nothing in the article talking about the cinematic details of the Jedi or their design or the like, ergo, a fan-made (high quality) Jedi costume is just as good as a movie shot to show what a Jedi looks like - a person typically wearing heavy earthen-tone robes. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Homer example is completely different as Homer Simpson is a character, Jedi is not. Homer Simpson has an iconic look represented by a very specific drawing; Jedi is an entire group of fictional characters that span multiple formats and vary wildly in appearance, and the distinctive traits which are usually associated with Jedi (typically robes and a lightsaber) can easily be demonstrated by a free equivalent (NFCC #1) or with a description (NFCC #8). If "Jedi" was a character played by a specific actor then that would be an apt comparison, but Jedi have been represented by numerous actors and depicted in countless media in too many ways to count and there is no "the Jedi", there are Jedi. There are no Homer Simpsons, there is the Homer Simpson. That's quite different. A better comparison would be comparing Jedi to Stormtrooper (Star Wars), which has a free image. - SudoGhost 05:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe fictional characters and organizations should have picture from the source material as primary visual representation, not only to not mislead the reader but to present a more accurate representation. Free images of stormtroopers should be used for pop culture section of the article, for example, because it indeed shows how these fictional characters are being represented by fandom. We are talking about fictional characters, therefore there can't be free equivalents. All there is are fan made attempts to replicate the source. An article of Jedi or stormtroopers should have pictures of Jedi and stormtroopers as presented on the source material, and not pictures of people dressed as them. Again, it's misleading to the reader. LusoEditor (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Your belief is inconsistent with WP:NFCC. You're saying there can't be a free equivalent when there already is. We're not talking about a fictional character, we're talking about a fictional group, that's the key difference and why most of these comparisons (Homer Simpson) are irrelevant. There is no way a free image, which conveys identical information can be misleading when the only difference between that one and the non-free image is WP:NFCC #1. Both would equally serve the same purpose on an encyclopedia, so to claim that it would be misleading is itself misleading and again, inconsistent with WP:NFCC. - SudoGhost 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have been reading through the discussion, the image and the article. This is not an article about the film or even a specific character, but of a characteristic or trait found in a fictional story. This, if wide in scope and encyclopedic, would cover all the genres where this trait is found such as film, television, novels, comic books etc. If that is the case, and there is no discussion of the specific costumes, characters or situation and how the depiction relates to the subject, it isn't even needed in the article and is just decorative. Now, having said that...the article might be improved by having a section on the film versions of Jedi characters (from a real world perspective). Is this file needed for that depiction or is there an existing non free image depicting Jedi that could be used.

As for the argument that a cosplay image could be used in this article to depict Jedi, that is not actually accurate is it? It is in reality not a primary source where the characteristic or trait/subject is relevant but is a "reaction" to the primary source material. Coplay Costumes could well be used to depict costumes in general (depending on quality), but can cosplay be used to depict the actual character? No, as that would indeed be inaccurate as cosplay is not the subject as seen in the primary source. This is important when you stop and think about the possibilities of having a non free image of William Shatner removed only because there are now non free images of cosplay and fan films available. Should non notable fans begin uploading images of themselves for Wikipedia articles. No, these things cannot replace the original primary source. An image of a fan dressed for The Rocky Horror Picture Show may have encyclopedic value in The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following but since there are so many professional depictions that are available of the character and free we would use something of that nature, not a fan made cosplay image.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're still using the comparison to specific characters, which do not apply to this article. William Shatner plays a specific character, a person cosplaying that specific character would not illustrate that character in a way that conveys the same information as the actual actor. This article is not about a character. In no way would a non-free image of William Shatner be removed just because Jedi has a free equivilent, the two are in no way comparable. Shatner has a specific look, Jedi do not. Given the extreme variance in appearance and traits that Jedi have, what would a non-free image convey that a free image could not? Nothing. That is what is important. The article is not Specific Jedi or even Jedi in Films, where a non-free image would make more sense. Luke Skywalker is a specific character, and in no way should that image be replaced with a free equivalent, as none would serve the same purpose. The Jedi article is not the same in any way, however. Even if an image is required given the only common aspects of Jedi can be explained in text (WP:NFCC #8), a free image provides exactly the same information as a non-free one. No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate. - SudoGhost 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I used a character as an example in a potion of my comments as this article is referring to a characteristic. It isn't about an object or a person, but a fictitious position or title, a Jedi Knight. Even being non specific, you don't address the encyclopedic issue of scope or any of what I addressed about use depending of relevance. You just focused on the Character analogy, which is a possibility and where this leads by saying that amateur cosplay can take the place of non free images of the primary work in non specific articles only because there is no assumption of...what....originality in the subject. Or is it the assumption that the character is so broad it can be my dog in a costume?--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate" Uh, I am afraid that is just not accurate. Specific actors have played specific roles. Jedi, as a fictional title or position is portrayed by VERY specific actors in very specific roles. If the article discusses the two actor's portrayal of the specific Jedi characters in this specific film...it most certainly does pass NFCC#8 and as cannot be replaced with a free image and deleting it would effect that understanding.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, who portrays Jedi? Can you provide a list that is shorter than 50? I'm almost positive that more than that many actors and voice actors alone have portrayed Jedi, so how are they "very" specific, when Jedi have been portrayed by so many people? That is the opposite of specific, so no specific actor is required to portray something that has such a varied appearance. The article is about Jedi, not two specific ones out of countless others, so the image most certainly does not meet NFCC #8 by any means, as what is being illustrated there is far from critical to improve the understanding of the topic. Maybe for those specific characters at their respective articles, but certainly not this one. - SudoGhost 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Cosplay is short for "Costume play". If the contention is that these images can be used for generic characterizations in general, I would dispute that as not only not the primary source, but not the intention of any cosplay image which depicts people "at play" in a costume, which has limited encyclopedic value as relevant to any primary subject.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since the subject of the article is a fictional organization, a picture from the source material which gives a visual representation of such organization or its elements will always help increase the readers understanding of the topic. What I can agree with, is to change the text that accompanies the thumbnail in order to make it more relevant to a specific part of the article. LusoEditor (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• What the text says is irrelevant, the image itself is the issue. There is nothing this image conveys that a free image could not, that's the problem and why it fails WP:NFCC. That it is from "the source material" does not make it more informative when the elements of the image common to the article's subject are very basic and can be conveyed with a free image or even in the text itself. - SudoGhost 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That a cosplay picture can be used and convey the same information and accuracy as one from the source material is your opinion, not a fact (thus the discussion). I (and apparently others) happen to disagree and have justified my opinion more than once. LusoEditor (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But there's no contextual significance in the article to explain why the accurate film film is necessary to see over the nearly accurate cosplay versions. For a reader who has no idea what a Jedi is coming into the article, the fan image does as good a job of showcasing their appearance as the non-free, which means we have a free equivalent per NFCC#1 and non-free may not be used. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But again, how can a cosplay picture be as accurate or present a more valid representation of the subject than one from the source material? Specially when we're talking about fictional characters. And this is not just about apparel. This picture represents an example of two individuals with fictional weapons, of different ranks, from that same fictional organization, working together. I still don't understand how can a cosplay convey the same. Not to mention the precedence that logic would open. LusoEditor (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article. The only difference between a free and non-free image is just that, the license. How can they not convey the same information? The only thing different between the free and non-free would be the specific individuals which, again, does not matter since the article is not about any individuals. - SudoGhost 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article." Look, a lot of this is about the real world perspective and encyclopedic value. No, we are not talking about anyone who can slap on a Don Post mask, pose with their light sabre collectable and call themselves "Jedi". That may well be relevant for Jedi cosply but not for Jedi knight.

By the way.....I should probably point out that a cosplay image of the copyrighted costume design of Jedi Knights are in fact in violation of Commons standards on the subject which can be reviewed at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter under "Costumes and cosplay"[41]. The costume is original, not in the public domain or suitable license. The issue is far too complicated for this proposal to be acceptable in the argument. Cosplay images cannot be used in this manner and uploading of copyright reproductions are a violation of Commons guidelines in most instances.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to add that it does matter which people are in the picture because they are an example of characters that represent Jedi. Cosplay pictures can only represent cosplay, because that's what that is. To show it as an example of Jedi is misleading to the reader and goes against any encyclopedic purpose. LusoEditor (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Jedi is not a specific person or a small specific group of people, it is a very large fictional organization with countless members, at least hundreds of which have been portrayed in media, so there's no need to present a specific person as to exclude them would not be a detriment to the understanding of what a Jedi is. So no, it doesn't matter which person is in the picture since Jedi is not defined as a specific individual. - SudoGhost 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For comparison sake: To represent soldiers in an article, you would use a picture of actual soldiers, instead of kid or someone (who isn't a soldier) wearing a soldiers suit/cammo/whatever. Since pictures of actual Jedi don't exist due to their fictional nature, we have to go to the source material because that's as accurate as it can get. You argue that those two don't represent Jedi due to that organization having thousands of elements. But to go back to the soldier analogy, you can use a picture of two bald soldiers to represent them, although soldiers with brown/blonde/etc hair exist within the army. The ones on the picture don't represent all Jedi, but do represent elements of the order thus making it an accurate representation. LusoEditor (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We also have free images of soldiers, so that's a moot point. I didn't say those two don't represent Jedi, I said those two individuals are not the only representation of Jedi, their presence in the article is not critical as there is nothing at all that image illustrates that a free image could not. Your argument would make sense if WP:NFCC wasn't a policy, but Wikipedia looks at it through the scope of NFCC, not through "we should only use official images if we at all can". Official does not equal more accurate, both convey the same information in the same way in the ways that matter. - SudoGhost 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But we don't have free images of Jedi. My point is that the same way we don't use people dressed as soldiers to represent real soldiers, we don't use people dressed as Jedi to represent Jedi. Just because it's non-free, doesn't mean cosplay and related fan attempts can replace it. Wikipedia doesn't forbid the use of non-free media. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to make a case of it, and looking at it from a non-WP:NFCC point of view, and nobody said Wikipedia forbids the use of non-free media, but it's not necessary here by any stretch. - SudoGhost 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as I read it and with the examples given (particularly given the examples provided as argued to be kept by former WMF lawyer Mike Godwin). Particularly with the case of the Jedi costume which is very non-distinct, and that most cosplayers are using their own variations that keep the common look. I would at least say that cosplay of Jedi is not a cut and dried case given how it is handled at Commons. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Those examples of what were kept are being used as examples of what not to upload and why costumes images are sometimes kept. Non distinct isn't a factor here unless you can provide a cosplay image to discuss that is an actual derivative of the costume to determine just how non distinct the specific image would be. The Jedi costume is copyrightable as a unique design with very specific pattern, material etc. Variations don't really matter since they are derivatives themselves of the design and are still covered by Commons guidelines. But this really does demonstrate that the idea was not to policy or guidelines as even on Wikipedia it is a copyright violation to upload images or copyrightable designs you make yourself. I'm not talking out of my butt by the way. I am a replica costumer. I can take images of my costumes that are based on public domain designs like the replica costumes from Horatio Hornblower films and television shows. The designs are in the public domain. I cannot make replicas of copyright characters or the copyright designs, but I can make the individual pieces that are public domain. Put them together and try to sell them as a character costume and you are in violation of copyright. How can we begin to make claims about costume images we know nothing about aside from the face value we perceive. It isn't a spiderman costume unless it was officially sold as a "Spiderman" costume. Make it yourself and no, you cannot call it a spiderman costume. At most it is similar to the style of spiderman (again, unless an official depiction/costume). So, I can upload images I took of Planet of the Apes characters as they toured as long as the costumes are only secondary in nature and not the full aspect of the image, I cannot reproduce the costume designs and take a picture for Wikimedia Commons as that violates copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the language of the "KEEP" discussions for both examples and its clear that Godwin says that as long as photographer is making the image under a free license, there's no copyvio involved "It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful." Given that commons has 1300+ images of people in costume, including, off the bat, 3 images of near-perfect Star Wars characters representations, I believe you have misread the intent there. I do agree that there may not be worldwide allowances for their use, hence the warning in the Costume template there, but the US here, we're good. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are reading the deletion discussion of a specific image but your reading does not take into consideration that the taking of that image was secondary in nature (spiderman with girl) where the other image of the Pirate was not considered original enough of a design to be copyrightable. There is always copyright involved when taking images of copyrightable characters, it is how the image is used and what it is of as the main subject or subjects that are considered. You believe I misread the intent given the number of images, regardless of whether any of those are outright copyright violations even for commons? That is a very weak argument Masem and has no logic other than raw numbers that can only support sheer volume and not adherence to guidelines and policy or a correct assessment of those polices.

The issue here is whether or not a cosplay image can be used as a deletion argument for a non free image just because of a design element within said image that may well be a copyright violation using a derivative work.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Jedi" costume with a specific pattern though (or even a vague idea of a pattern), so that doesn't really apply here. You're still talking about specific characters whereas this is not. What you said would most certainly apply to Luke Skywalker, but not so much to Jedi. What you're saying also seems at odds with what's already at commons, since there's an entire category of Stormtroopers on Commons and they have a very, very specific appearance whereas Jedi would not. I'm not saying that should be justification as I don't know if those images have been discussed on commons, but I know that Stormtrooper (Star Wars) has had such an image up for years. - SudoGhost 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Were you aware of the copyright issue that was decided about the storm trooper costume specifically? It is considered functionary in the UK but have intellectual property protection in the US. Commons (not Wikipedia) allows source country copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, it's still free to use on en.wiki if there are country restriction codes - as long as commons has argued to keep the image, en.wiki will treat those as free, but just like any other free image, reusers of our content need to verify they can reuse commons images in their country. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a pattern for a Jedi costume. Simplicity sells it and has the "right" to copy the design.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not using the pattern, we're using the result (akin to the difference between sheet music and the performance of that music both which can be copyrighted). But that's assuming the design started from the pattern, and I would suspect in many images this is not the case. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if true that would still mean this image fails WP:NFCC as it would still be a freer alternative than this image. Both would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, both would convey the same information, so there's no reason to use the non-free image, which might be appropriate in Jedi in film but not Jedi. - SudoGhost 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A clothing design cannot be copyrighted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but a lightsaber might be more likely to be (although I doubt it would be inappropriate for Commons, as there's an entire category of them there). - SudoGhost 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not accurate. Clothing designs may be copyrightable. In this case we are not talking about functional clothing but artistic costumes meant to create a character. And I suggest you mention your theory, that clothing cannot be copyrighted to the Simplicity pattern company, as they would beg to differ.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before on the article's talk page, I feel that the cosplay images are not an free equivalent so I feel that WP:NFCC#1 is met, but I am not sure about WP:NFCC#8 and I wish more of the discussion was focused on that aspect so I could accurately form an opinion about the image. Since Stormtrooper was brought, I thought I would search some of the other Star universe, Klingon has two non-free images, Romulan has one non-free image, Vulcan (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image to represent the blessing gesture and Borg (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image of an official prop display at a museum. Maybe Borg is a good example in that we might be able to find some official museum display that we could use as a free image for the article. Aspects (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be discussing the NFCC#8 issue and that while this discussion is ongoing the relevant prose could be added to strengthen the NFCC criteria. I also thought about museum pieces and the issue still is whether such images still violate the copyright of costumes. For example on the article about Star Fleet uniforms I was going to upload a few images from flickr from the official costumes on display and the same issue arises, copyright of a creative work of William Ware Theiss, the original intellectual property holder. We have to wait 75 years form his death for his copyright to be released to public domain even if the costumes are only trademarked by Paramount (unless this falls within the non re registered period for older copyright works up to the mid 1970's, and Theiss failed to register copyright). This may also apply to props if they are completely original designs that have more than a functionary purpose. It isn't an easy issue. It depends on the individual situation and the work in question.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have argued that there is a better non-free image to use here if one is talking about the Jedi, similar to this that shows the Jedi Council with young Anakin in the center. This only only shows how they are dressed, but the variation in species, and the ranking concept , achieving several purposes at the same time. The only facet not shown that the above non-free gives are lightsabers, but that's not the core of this article (and we have what appears to be a free user-rendering of one on that article). Mind you, discussion of the Jedi order in additional non-primary sources would likely strengthen the rationale for an image. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded this picture because, not only was a copy with better quality of the one the article had for a long time, but it also shows the Jedi on the field, instead of the "ruling" council that merely gives directives and appoints missions. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's yet another reason this specific image is inappropriate; you replaced a jpg with a png, which is completely contrary to WP:IUP#FORMAT and WP:NFCC #3, because I guarantee you that the image you uploaded is of a higher (or as you say "better") quality/resolution. I'm certain of this because this instance is far from the only time you've done this, and the reason you've done it is specifically the reason why you shouldn't. - SudoGhost 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I used PNG because it was the original format of the picture, but also for no compression artifacts. Second, the picture I uploaded was of lower resolution but of better quality when compared to the previous one (which was full of macroblocking). WP:NFCC #3 asks for lower resolution/bitrate when compared to the original file, not another copy. And third, you didn't even know why I did this in the first place, therefore you can't claim that I should or shouldn't have done so. If I've done anything similar in the past (which I rarely do unless I see a necessity for), doesn't explain any future uploads I do. Baseless assumptions are unnecessary and completely off-topic. And if it's decided that the problem is the format of the picture, then I'll gladly upload a JPG version of it. But first I'll wait for a consensus on the rest. LusoEditor (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The format of the photo is far from the only issue, it's just another drop in the pond as to why this picture has no place in the article. I can most certainly claim you shouldn't have done so, when Wikipedia policy says to use png and you specifically replace those with another format because you feel it is a better quality. The reason Wikipedia uses png for film screenshots is exactly the opposite of the reason you've been replacing them, so I most certainly can say you shouldn't have. So this image fails WP:NGCC #1, 3, and 8 and WP:IUP. The format is a surmountable problem, but the others most certainly are not. - SudoGhost 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the original image that you replaced mirrored on another site and reuploaded it, since it was at least the correct format. I can say for certain that using "480 × 310 pixels, file size: 240 KB" as opposed to "450 × 290 pixels, file size: 12 KB" is quite inappropriate; increasing the size and resolution is not appropriate and not in keeping with WP:NFCC #3 by any means. Please stop uploading higher resolution images in png format just because you think the image looks better; it's supposed to be minimal usage and in jpeg format (for films). - SudoGhost 23:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just Wikilawyering using any and all policy or guidelines to argue any manner of reason to find fault. Look, he can upsize any image he finds on an internet site found off wiki as long as it is still small enough to pass minimal use guidelines on Wikipedia. He CANNOT upsize them on Wikipedia above the original upload size. The policy is: "If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible, and not be a substitute for the original work, because to be fair use, it must be minimal." To be clear, this says nothing about uploading the image in a higher resolution than the original file found. It just says it must not be not be a substitute for the original work. If it is a screenshot from the original work (the video or film itself) it must not be upsized as it is the size from the "original work" (that being the video or film). A site on the internet is NOT the original work and therefore cannot be claimed to be a substitute for the original work. By the way the language about formatting says "Should" not "must" or "is required".--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to chill out with the "wikilawyering" bit, as that accusation doesn't even make sense with what I've said. If I was "wikilawyering", I wouldn't upload a version that didn't have that problem and reinsert it into the article myself. Someone "wikilawyering" wouldn't fix the problem he's pointing out, since that problem is no longer a justification to remove the image (not that it was in the first place). The reason I brought that up is because this isn't the first time the png format has been an issue. Please be more conservative with your use of "wikilawyer" in the future, given that it isn't applicable here. - SudoGhost 00:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Colbert Dinner.JPG

This file was deleted as noncompliant with NFCC#8 in a previous discussion with little participation. It is relisted following a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 19. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unneeded. All those pictured, we have free images for, so it's not a matter of showing who these people are. If there's some reaction that we're supposed to get (as the FUR suggests), I'm not seeing it, alone or in context, just that Colbert's there and Bush is reacting to something but without any clear means "how" he is doing so. Unless there is significantly more context here, this is inappropriate non-free that fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be having an article on a subject (the dinner) with no pictures. Aren't there _some_ free pictures taken by those attending? I don't agree with Masem that because there exist free pictures of those attending NFCC#1 isn't met. But I'd like to hear how we know free pictures don't exist. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that an article have an image, free or non-free or otherwise. Given that this event is in the past, then we can't assume there can be a free replacement of the dinner itself (though perhaps there is one out there). But that said, there's no need to have a picture of the dinner event when there's nothing of visual impact happening here. We can use free pictures of Colbert, Bush and others to illustrate the article, which provide better context for the reader than this vague non-free screencap from CSpan. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement to use images, I agree. But that doesn't lead to the notion that we shouldn't have them. First question is to see if free images exist. Second is to figure out if we need an image here. I'd argue yes--it's darn hard to explain what things looked like with just words for something this complex. But let's figure out the first part before we have that discussion--it may well be irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • There were clearly cameras there ([42], we just need to find decent free images. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, if we can adequetely talk about an article without an image compared to including a non-free, we don't include the non-free. "No image" can be an equivalent for a non-free image if we're just talking talking heads of recognizable people. And just because we know other cameras were there does not assure us a free image can be had, particularly given the elite nature of the event. We would have to make these people release their images for free , which is not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Because the broadcast rights are sold commercially, all photography other than the broadcast rights holder is limited to free images (ie Non-Commercial). But free images still require a Fair Use justification on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Not sure about any of that. People taking pictures on their own could chose to release them into the public domain if they chose to (or put them under what Wikipedia would consider a free license). But we'd need to find pictures with such a license or get someone to release a picture that way. Given the number of people there, that should be possible I'd think. Hobit (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• In any case, we don't need this image. As Masem rightly said, it doesn't actually tell us anything. The faces of the main participants, especially Bush, are so small anything non-trivial in their facial expressions is basically indiscernible. What else does the image show us? Does anybody seriously think we need visual illustration of the colour of the curtains or the design of the flower decoration to understand this event? Somebody on the DRV went so far as to suggest we need this so the reader can see "how close Colbert and the President were". As if that couldn't adequately conveyed through a simple description ("Bush was sitting on the podium just two seats away from Colbert"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It conveys the formal nature of the occasion and the closeness of Colbert to the President. The image is significant in illustrating the subject of the article, facilitating critical commentary as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. The quality of the image is due to some NFCC requirement. A higher resolution image could be obtained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with Hakweye regarding the role int he article, and note that how close Colbert was to Bush, and how formal the occasion was, play a role in understanding how the reception was so charged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously saying a reader couldn't adequately understand the idea that "person A was sitting two meters away from person B" without being shown a photo of it?!? That's just beyond ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I do not see "meters" or "metres" in the article at all. NFCC says we have to look at the use in the article, so your example is invalid (besides, I doubt any source would say "X was sitting two metres away from Y", and unless that information had a source, it would not be allowed in an FA). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You are missing the point: the fact that the seating arrangement isn't even mentioned in the article is even more reason to reject that claim of an NFCC#8 relevance. If it's not even worth discussing in the text, why would it be in need of illustration? My point was that even if it was found worth being treating, it could be treated adequately in text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I didn't miss the point, sorry to disappoint you. Indeed, I find that having sources not discuss the distance between Colbert and Bush makes it even more important that we illustrate it, so that readers can see for themselves one of the reasons why Bush would have been "ready to blow". There's a difference between saying X is (Redacted) at home, where he can't here you, and saying X is (Redacted) when you are within punching distance and yet at an event where X is bound by societal standards to shake your hand and smile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
              • This may all be very interesting, but as long as – as you yourself say – reliable sources aren't discussing it, it's OR, and hence not a legitimate consideration for justifying non-free content. Per WP:NFCC#8, non-free content is only used where it is necessary to ensure an adequate understanding of the content of the article. By "content", the criterion refers to legitimate, encyclopedic content, i.e. sourced content. An idea that would constitute illegitimate OR if expressed in text can never be an idea that justifies the use of non-free illustration to get it across to the reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                • No, that is simply wrong. The whole purpose of WP:NFCC#8 is to permit images that enhance our understanding of the article. Seeing it in the image conveys it much more powerfully. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • This is why NFCC#8 is of two parts: first is about aiding comprehension, but the other is if one's understanding of the topic is harmed if the image was not present, and because the scene is an extremely typical formal dinner/speech setup, the picture can be omitted and the topic still understood. Your argument is a serious misunderstanding of NFCC and its allowances. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • Would you have realised that if not for the image? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • "On April 29, 2006, American comedian Stephen Colbert appeared as the featured entertainer at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which was held in Washington, D.C., at the Hilton Washington hotel. Colbert's performance, consisting of a 16-minute podium speech and a 7-minute video presentation, was broadcast live across the United States on the cable television networks C-SPAN and MSNBC. Standing a few feet from U.S. President George W. Bush,[1] in front of an audience of celebrities, politicians, and members of the White House Press Corps,[2] Colbert delivered a controversial, searing routine targeting the president and the media.[3]" Obviously, yes. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Scutisorex thori skeleton.jpg

I doubt that the image adds sufficient value to the article to justify fair use. It is suggested that it is used to show the "strong, interlocking vertebrae" of the animal, but another non-free image in the article does so better. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. If the author of this illustration could make this illustration, somebody else can make another. That goes for the other ("better") illustration too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone else removed it from the article, so I speedy deleted it as "unused fair use" --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG

Article already has a recent cover in the infobox, thusly use of second cover image, should be supported by commentary in the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and 8 in Mayfair (magazine). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Legend of Korra

The Legend of Korra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an animated TV series. In the article feedback, many readers write that they miss images of the characters. My question is - would it be NFCC-compliant to provide such (unfree) images, provided that every pictured character and the process of their creation (influences, models etc.) is discussed? (There are sources for that.) Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A per character image wouldnt be permitted see WP:NFLIST, However if you can get a cast photo that is created by the original creators (Not fan or WP user created) 1-2 of those would be OK given the independent third party sources are found to back up the content. Werieth (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that is not true. WP:NFLISTS doesn't say that a non-free image per character would never be permitted in a list article. It only says that images showing multiple character at once are preferred over using a single image per character (per WP:NFCC#3a). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In practice, we would never have a list where each character was individually illustrated; it is very hard to imagine that one can't find at least one image that reasonably collects the major characters together in one place, but even if such was the case, it would likely be that only 2-3 major characters would be allowed images, unless of course, the character design was specifically discussed in depth, but otherwise to just illustrate, no. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The Virginian (TV series). The editors at The Virginian seem to have got round multiple cast images by uploading to the commons with the claim of no copyright mark. Can this only be used for pre 1977 or does the year move forward. Most television images (not screenshots which could not have them anyway} do not seem to have a © (letter C in a circle) stamped on them.REVUpminster (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything from 1978 onward typically has assumed copyright whether marked or not (see Commons:Hirtle_chart). For television shows, as long as there was a copyright message somewhere in the show's broadcast (typically at the end), that applied to the whole work, thus making the screenshots copyrights as well. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The images are publicity shots, and I agreed screenshots would not be able to include a copyright mark.REVUpminster (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there using publicity shots (note how on commons they have links to both front and back to assure copyright markings are absent) is completely fine. Most modern shows likely can't do that. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Free Music Archive Logo.jpg

Threshold of originality possibly not met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PD-Text. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:ZONG network.jpg

Image may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PD-Text. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Net50s.jpg

Complex logo. Single frame from a video broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo may have been published before with the copyright symbol prior to the image the broadcast was taken from. Unless it can be positively proven that there was never a copyright tag added to that logo, we have to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant "the broadcast the image was taken from." The article where this was used says it was a "still shot" used to identify the broadcast network. Typically these are shown for a few seconds between programmes. Unfortunately the source is only given as "Youtube" without a specific Youtube URL. —rybec 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And it could be on there for all of 1 second of the 5 second interstitial. Basically, we require positive proof of being non-copyrighted, and because we really can't get that without access to the old broadcast, we're going to have to assume non-free (as it won't meet TOO). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS 1971 id.svg

Logo that may fall below threshold of originality. Single frame from a network ID broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't fall under TOO, it actually would be one of the few old PBS adverts I'd keep since there's a reason why the letters are shaped like heads as explained in the text, and the original of the "P" that still remains part of the current logo. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where it's hard to predict whether the US copyright office would grant or reject copyright registration and thus we should treat it as non-free. I'd say the image should be removed from PBS#Overview. There's zero discussion about the logo. It is thus completely unnecessary in that section and violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)