Wikipedia:Non-free content review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:11, 9 September 2014

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/guidelines

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by .

File:Central Junior A.png

Consensus is the image should only be used on the Central Canada Hockey League article. TLSuda (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine on the make CCHJ page, and it might be okay on the one season page where the new logo was introduced, but not on the rest of the pages. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png

Consensus is the image should only be included on the main article. TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Disney Channel. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only appropriate on the one page. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. - Fma12 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vodafone logo.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, excessive use. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RPN9-9TV 2014 logo.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Syd.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a failure there. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:One More Try.jpg

If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: [1] which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Has Fallen

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png

See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was a "C" too much. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL Benfica logo.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:FC Porto.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viasat Sport (Sweden)

Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:FedEx Cup.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:England, Half English.jpg

Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sydney logos

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster (song)

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero mention of the "Monster Under My Bed" clip in the article, so there's no contextual significance for that clip. The other clip is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson's Boys

There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the common series logo is appropriate here. The individual covers are not. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Talk

There are two covers; is the USA cover relevant? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the US cover being just the wordmark part of the original cover. Fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country national football team

All non-free images except for the main infobox one should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like this has been dealt with, but agreed that previous versions used excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is essentially the same logo as File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg, but there are slight differences. We should keep the correct one and delete the other one. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Shelter

Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of two different recordings? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCF Seal.svg

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg

The image was deleted at commons for lack of evidence of permission. My limited understanding of WP:NFC#UUI makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use? Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this image is a violation of both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. While the mugshot itself is the subject of commentary in Indictment of Rick Perry#Mugshot photo, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.- MrX 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is nothing about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like a NOT#NEWS improper split. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - To add, while there is discussion of the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the focus) and would be a free image. (For example, this free image File:Trayvon_Martin_shooting_protest_2012_Shankbone_11.JPG includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- Mr X 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information purposes, an email (ticket:2014082810013198) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? Green Giant (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the sheriffs office photos are priced at $0.00 - so this photo is unlikely to ever be freely-licensed. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Wikipedia for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Wikipedia thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a free encyclopedia if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article about the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images are not free content for a free encyclopedia, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say smugshot, is a matter of widespread commentary in reliable sources.- Mr X 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEWS-TV on-air broadcast screenshots

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unneeded. Unless the screen format/title cards are the subject of discussion, that's just extraneous non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Fuldheim

File:Dorothy Fuldheim picture.jpg -- Likely fails WP:NFCCP #1.

File:DorothyFuldheim1920s.jpg, File:Oneoclockclub.jpg, & File:DororthywithTV5NewsTeam.png -- Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8.

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

~~To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAU Athletics logo.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox (song)

I was encouraged to use only one image. However, I'm torn between using either Canadian or American cover art. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more an editorial issue than an NFCR (you're acting responsibly from an NFC side). You may want other advice towards that, but my impression is that we nearly always use the first version cover for identification if there's a choice. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Printscreen of "The Weight of Chains" credits.jpg

Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails WP:NFCCP point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, I agree, please remove it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So High (Ghost Loft song)

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympiakos4.svg

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank

This image was originally used on the Ashkenazi Jews article. According to the page of the image, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. According to these conditions, the copyright policies are not broken. Is it OK to use her because there's uncertainty about this. Khazar (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of free images of other famous people that classify into that article; while I will no doubt agree that Anne Frank is also one of the more predominate names in there, we don't need her image when we have so many free examples already, and hence why it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trilingual Map of Paracel Islands (Quần đảo Hoàng Sa - Xisha Qundao).png

Absolutely replaceable with a freely created map of the area and tagged appropriately; if needed, please ask the Graphics Lab for help. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Does not meet NFCC#1, there is no reason to use a non-free image when a free image can be easily created by an editor using freely available libre and gratis content. Furthermore, for an image that is 3,756 × 2,787 pixels large and sized at 18.6MB, this is hardly "minimal use" as required by NFCC#3. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by .

File:Central Junior A.png

Consensus is the image should only be used on the Central Canada Hockey League article. TLSuda (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine on the make CCHJ page, and it might be okay on the one season page where the new logo was introduced, but not on the rest of the pages. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png

Consensus is the image should only be included on the main article. TLSuda (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Disney Channel. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only appropriate on the one page. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. - Fma12 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vodafone logo.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Vodafone. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, excessive use. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:RPN9-9TV 2014 logo.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in numerous articles, but might not meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States, so the copyright status in the Philippines in irrelevant. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --MASEM (t) 16:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Syd.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in discography article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a failure there. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:One More Try.jpg

If this is the same album cover as the top image on this page, then it seems that {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.) --Elegie (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The record crease does appear to be an artifact and not part of the original cover, but I found this: [2] which would be assured a PD-logo image that can replace that one there . --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Has Fallen

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack. George Ho (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --MASEM (t) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2012 Coca-Cola 600 logo.png

See WP:NFCC#UUI §14. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean WP:NFC#UUI §14 ? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was a "C" too much. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on the main article and the 2012 event page where the logo was introduced, but not subsequent pages. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL Benfica logo.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in S.L. Benfica and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:FC Porto.svg

Violation of WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in F.C. Porto and O Clássico. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in O Clássico. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viasat Sport (Sweden)

Inappropriate use of logos. Only File:Viasatsport.png should be in the article. The other ones violate WP:NFCC#8 and usually also WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:FedEx Cup.svg

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs. This logo has been used since at least 2009 when it was uploaded. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on this. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:England, Half English.jpg

Is this image free in the UK? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just inside being considered copyrighted in the UK. It is best to tag it PD-USlogo (clearly free stateside). --MASEM (t) 19:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Sydney logos

Affected: File:Usyd new logo.png & File:University of Sydney new logo stacked.png

Per WP:NFC#UUI §17, we should only have a logo in University of Sydney, but not in the other articles. We also only need one of the images since they are almost identical. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely on the two logos, one or the other should be used, as both are effectively the same coat of arms only one is needed to represent that. Agreed the logo should be on the main school page. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster (song)

There does not seem to be a need for two sound recordings in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero mention of the "Monster Under My Bed" clip in the article, so there's no contextual significance for that clip. The other clip is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson's Boys

There are too many book covers in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the common series logo is appropriate here. The individual covers are not. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers Talk

There are two covers; is the USA cover relevant? George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the US cover being just the wordmark part of the original cover. Fails NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basque Country national football team

All non-free images except for the main infobox one should be removed for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like this has been dealt with, but agreed that previous versions used excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andhra Pradesh Emblem.jpg

Fails WP:NFG in Emblems of Indian states. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is essentially the same logo as File:Official Emblem Of Andhra Pradesh.jpeg, but there are slight differences. We should keep the correct one and delete the other one. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Shelter

Shall we have more than one image? George Ho (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of two different recordings? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCF Seal.svg

This should only be in Pegasus (mascot) and University of Central Florida. In List of Presidents of the University of Central Florida it violates WP:NFCC#8, and in all other articles except those three listed, it violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the copyright office of the United States really register this? Is the amount of creative and artistic authorship in this work sufficient? I guess without the 'horse' they would reject it. Is the horse (together with the typefaces) enough of a modification of the taijitu to push above TOO? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very far above the TOO, primarily because of the horse art (if it was just the taijitu with the text aspects around it, that would be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg

The image was deleted at commons for lack of evidence of permission. My limited understanding of WP:NFC#UUI makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use? Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this image is a violation of both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. While the mugshot itself is the subject of commentary in Indictment of Rick Perry#Mugshot photo, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that the photo itself has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.- MrX 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct. We don't need the image to identify Perry, and we are not talking about his biography. We need the image to identify the mug shot in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the Mugshot photo section, where the mug shot is specifically discussed.- MrX 21:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is nothing about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like a NOT#NEWS improper split. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - To add, while there is discussion of the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the focus) and would be a free image. (For example, this free image File:Trayvon_Martin_shooting_protest_2012_Shankbone_11.JPG includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article thought it made sense to create a separate article so that the bio didn't get bogged down with detail.- Mr X 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information purposes, an email (ticket:2014082810013198) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in "Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? Green Giant (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the sheriffs office photos are priced at $0.00 - so this photo is unlikely to ever be freely-licensed. Green Giant (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Wikipedia for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Wikipedia thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a free encyclopedia if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article about the subject at hand. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images are not free content for a free encyclopedia, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say smugshot, is a matter of widespread commentary in reliable sources.- Mr X 20:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WEWS-TV on-air broadcast screenshots

Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8. Levdr1lp / talk 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unneeded. Unless the screen format/title cards are the subject of discussion, that's just extraneous non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Fuldheim

File:Dorothy Fuldheim picture.jpg -- Likely fails WP:NFCCP #1.

File:DorothyFuldheim1920s.jpg, File:Oneoclockclub.jpg, & File:DororthywithTV5NewsTeam.png -- Each fails WP:NFCCP #3a and #8.

Levdr1lp / talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that she is deceased, it is unlikely the infobox image is a problem per NFCC#1 (we can't take a new free image of her). The others though are excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: If a free equivalent were found, then the infobox image would have to go, right? Similarly, in the absence of a free replacement, can I safely assume that one non-free image used to identify a deceased subject is generally acceptable? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an equivalent free image could be found, then yes the non-free infobox could not be used (Mind you, it would probably need to be a picture taken during her years in the broadcast industry since she was a public figure, nothing like a childhood photograph). In the case of people that have been deceased for some time, yes, we allow non-free on the presumption we cannot generate a new free one. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg

This image is non-free because of gloss, especially in the UK. I wonder if this gloss-less version is free in the UK. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the awkward placement of that might be considered an artistic point, and as such, might be UK non-free. This should be tagged PD-text US only. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image from the link that I gave you freer than the current image? --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (I rescind the struck question. As I realize, I paid attention to the pink "BUZZCOCKS" banner and not to "NEVER MIND". --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

~~To which "awkward placement" do you refer? The text "NEVER MIND"? --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I almost did not notice the "THE" at top of the "Z". Probably that's the "awkward placement" to which you refer. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the displacement of the Z by "THE". US would definitely be fine, but could likely fail in the UK. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAU Athletics logo.png

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 as it is used in subentities to Southern Arkansas Muleriders. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be only used in the Muleriders main article. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox (song)

I was encouraged to use only one image. However, I'm torn between using either Canadian or American cover art. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more an editorial issue than an NFCR (you're acting responsibly from an NFC side). You may want other advice towards that, but my impression is that we nearly always use the first version cover for identification if there's a choice. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Printscreen of "The Weight of Chains" credits.jpg

Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails WP:NFCCP point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." bobrayner (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, I agree, please remove it. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So High (Ghost Loft song)

Do we really need two covers here? Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, cover version cover art not needed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympiakos4.svg

Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17: used in articles about sub-entities of Olympiacos CFP. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only needed at the CFP article. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank

This image was originally used on the Ashkenazi Jews article. According to the page of the image, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the subject in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. According to these conditions, the copyright policies are not broken. Is it OK to use her because there's uncertainty about this. Khazar (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of free images of other famous people that classify into that article; while I will no doubt agree that Anne Frank is also one of the more predominate names in there, we don't need her image when we have so many free examples already, and hence why it should be removed. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trilingual Map of Paracel Islands (Quần đảo Hoàng Sa - Xisha Qundao).png

Absolutely replaceable with a freely created map of the area and tagged appropriately; if needed, please ask the Graphics Lab for help. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Does not meet NFCC#1, there is no reason to use a non-free image when a free image can be easily created by an editor using freely available libre and gratis content. Furthermore, for an image that is 3,756 × 2,787 pixels large and sized at 18.6MB, this is hardly "minimal use" as required by NFCC#3. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 == [[:File:Disney Channel Germany 2014.png]] ==
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box2
+  | title =
+  | title_bg = #999
+  | title_fnt = #FFF
+  | quote = Consensus is the image should only be included on the main article. '''''[[User:TLSuda|<span style="color:#886699">TLSuda]]'''''</span> ([[User talk:TLSuda|talk]]) 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
+  | width = 30%|halign=left}}
+:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
+----
 Fails [[WP:NFC#UUI]] §17, except in [[Disney Channel]]. [[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 35: / Line 42: @@
 :: I agree too. - [[User:Fma12|Fma12]] ([[User talk:Fma12|talk]]) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
+----
+:''The discussion above is closed.  <span style="color: #F00;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div><br style="clear:both;" />
 == [[:File:Vodafone logo.svg]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards