Could you be more specific. The cule image relies on a subjective criterion of enhancing understanding so I'd like other editors opinion about it. Sandman888(talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Franco0001.PNG - "Source" says nothing about publication date (publication is not the same as creation). "Source" actually may have gotten this image from Wikipedia, so "PD" claim is circular and incorrect.
No-one gets the PD-Italy template, nominator/uploader/editor(s) unaware of several elements in copyright, could use expert help but no-one knows any experts. If un-published is source country = country in which it was created? Sandman888 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Culers.jpg - Fails NFCC#1. "The origin of the nickname culé for a Barcelona supporter, is derived from the Catalan cul (English: arse), as the spectators at the first stadium, Camp de la Indústria, sat with their culs over the stand" is free prose and conveys the understanding perfectly well. Alternatively, both posteriors and low walls still exist; a free alternative could be taken as an example of the practice that precipitated the name. Now moot, but there is also no detailed and specific rationale/purpose (NFCC#10C).
File:FCB second crest.jpg - Purpose is "The image is used to identify the organization FC Barcelona". File:FCB.svg does that. NFCC#3A - "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." No articulated significant contribution to reader understanding (NFCC#8).Эlcobbolatalk20:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
