Wikipedia:Non-free content review

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)

Moving forward – non-free content rules are not determined by number of arguments although they are concerned with consensus; they are not community standards in the same way as other parts of the encyclopedia because reasoning has to fit within the criteria. Secondly, I think accusing editors of lining up as if they were themselves incapable of independent thought is a personal attack which should be avoided. Thirdly, I would like to reiterate that in order to justify inclusion the contribution of each image to the reader's understanding must be must be clear. Some points from my own perspective:

• The double usage of File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg is inappropriate; one use should be removed. The current rationale refers to the one at the top.
• The commentary on File:Sarajevo Scout group.png should be improved to include dates of use, or some other way of placing it in context.
• The provenance of File:Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske.png is too unclear to be included. It is not included or referenced on the blogspot link given in ref #4, where examples of similar but actually different designs occur (with a little eagle in the center). If it cannot be satisfactorily referenced, it should be deleted. If it doesn't appear elsewhere in books, online, or so forth, then it is unlikely to warrant inclusion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg should be removed from Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine#Emblems, as the dual use in the infobox and the gallery violates WP:NFCC#3a. The information in the image caption of the image in the gallery can be turned into a footnote to the image caption of the infobox image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:36, 2 October 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)

UUI #6 is designed for paintings and similar images where the other article is about the image, not the subject of the image. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 23 August 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)

I've replaced the trophy with the logo and moved it to the results section, since that seemed more appropriate. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how that use is appropriate under WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this file be replaced by a cropped version of File:2009t20.jpg? It seems that would be freer than File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg and thus preferrable per WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: File:2009t20.jpg has not existed on Commons since June 2013. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009t20.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the common procedure is for transferring a file that was deleted at Commons to EN Wikipedia as non-free content, but that is what should be done here (after the unnecessary parts have been cropped from the image). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:02, 15 October 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 [1], [2] 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)

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 [3]. 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)

A problem with non-free images identifying an organization is that their purpose is just that: identification. Non-free images used for identification tend to violate WP:NFCC#8, because the omission of such an image doesn't make an article incomprehensible. As such, a non-free logo should not be used in a Wikipedia article at all, except if it is used in the context of critical commentary, which would be incomprehensible if the logo were omitted. The current consensus that it is acceptable to use non-free logos without critical commentary for identification of the entity the logo represents at the top of that entities article. There is no consensus AFAIK that it is acceptable to use non-free logos for identification of each single entity an article discusses and as such non-free logos cannot be used for identification purposes in sections. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg to hopefully get an experienced closer on board for this discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 16 October 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)

Actually, the screenshot shows a different version of one of the Camera Obscura's gameplay mechanics. Instead of the proximity-based charging system from the original Fatal Frame II, the Wii remake returns to the series' standard method of charging attack power by keeping the target ghost in the Camera Obscura's capture circle. —017Bluefield (talk) 20:08, 12 October 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 ([4], 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)
            • And they will be speedily deleted as copyvio. NFCC#1 is about whether a free image is actually available, not whether one could theoretically be created. All copyrighted images will fall into the public domain in 110 years or more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 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)
                      • The bit about it being black tie. How did you know that? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
                        • Because's its the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? And even if that isn't obvious enough, stating in text it was a "black tie event" is more than sufficient to avoid direct illustration. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kate Bush

Are 6 sound clips really needed? Werieth (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The artist has a very unique and distinctive style, but one sample would seem to cover that. Perhaps what editors need to do is discuss which sample best illustrates her unique vocal and rhythmic style.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that a lot of those are also included in the song page as well. Werieth (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to see a live clip added to most artists, but Kate Bush is not known for ever really touring and had only one tour very early in her career so I would not support such a clip as being relevant (even if one could be found) I actually think the tour section is undue weight for one single tour in 1979.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should lose everything but "Wuthering Heights" (1978) and "Running Up that Hill" (1985). I think these two selections best demonstrate the artists range and I believe her biggest hits.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the clips are all relevant. Kate as an artist has been known to have many distinct styles and, considering how those styles have influences artists of all different genres, I feel as though it's important to display the different styles through samples. Kate was a pioneer of rock, pop, jazz and electronic music and to limit the scope of the samples to only her more homogenized hits would deprive the article of displaying the other innovations of her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.141.32 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't use sound clip samples just to show the variation in music styles an artist might have. We need sourced discussion about each clip and more specifically towards the musician, otherwise it does not belong on the page. I think there's reasonably room for one or two samples, but certainly not 5 or 6. (And as a note, while Featured, it was pre-2008, when we had less strict NFCC enforcement at FAC) --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pre- 2008 less strict enforcement is a strange thing to say. Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict. Wikipedia is always evolving sometimes for the worse sometimes the better. The exclusionists seem to have the upper hand at the moment even when copyright holders express no interest as to if their images are used or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My pre-2008 comment is that prior to 2008, image/media use at FAC was reviewed but not with the scrutiny that has now come on line due to the Foundation's resolution on non-free media and subsequently at FAC due to more stringent review of the media. In other words, if the FAC of this article was post-2008, it likely would not have passed with all those media files. And our removal of non-free content is to support the Foundation's goal of making a free content work, using non-free only when necessarily to help understanding of an article. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • • "Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict." No one is appointed. We all volunteer. Less strict? I doubt it. Probably even more strict as the use of other people's intellectual property is not a right or a given. Editors here do not always agree...that's why its a review discussion and not just a unilateral decision.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Although the fact the rules do tend to change have made many people leave the project (including me; I used to be an admin but got so frustrated at seeing Featured and Good articles devalued after all the hard work and hoop-jumping people did to qualify them, and also the changing rules re: images that at one point was changing almost by the day, I now only casually edit as an IP and stopped contributing visual material about 4 years ago (in my former Wiki-life I began to advocate for a zero-image policy on Wikipedia, which in retrospect is actually not a bad idea as some pages are very hard to read properly on hand-held and pad devices because of heavy use of media). Anyway, to avoid being accused of tangenting, I have to agree that there's no need to have more than two representative sound clips. The huge article on The Beatles only has two. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• This featured article Ōkami has a number, five or six, of non free images with minimal rationales. Is this a candidate for review or a good example of how to do it and get past the enforcers and their friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It was a 2007 nomination, and I just removed 3 files for failing WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Given that that is my article (in the sense I brought it to FAC and the primary editor) I'm pretty confident that the NFC use on that article is acceptable. For example you remove the screenshot of the core mechanic of the game that is discussed in text and backed by sources. That's not an NFC failure.
    • As to this article, there is no maximimum number of allowed NFC - it is whatever the article sourcing supports and required for reader understanding. Hence arguments of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is useless. Photos of victims mentioned in passingSound samples that are just there but not discussed in the text in a manner to explain how they relate to the artist are not cases we generally allow for NFC, and thus those images are all failures. I'm sure there's a few samples that can be expanded up in text so they may remain, but we can't just pull a number of samples from songs across the musican's career if there's no text to explained how her style changed over time. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • (Fixing my statement there, as I forgot which sction this was) --MASEM (t) 00:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Are we still talking about the Kate Bush article?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, my fault as I was confusing this section with the one two above about victim photos (though the same issues of NFC overuse exist in both). --MASEM (t) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • No problem. Thank you for your reply.--Mark _{Just ask!} 06:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that two samples ("Wuthering Heights" and "Running Up that Hill", which can be considered as her career zeniths) would be enough to demonstrate her musical eclecticism and style. Other samples are just redundant. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Brahmanaidu Statue destruction 2011 Million March Telangana.jpg

IMO, it violates "Contextual significance". Just shows a statue being destroyed. Even text can convey the idea. It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The image is significant in many ways: a) Images of 12th century leaders were destroyed who weren't connected with the current movement. Later government & political sources felt that it could be due to militant (naxal) infiltration into the movement. b) The destruction of these statues also created fear & insecurity in the minds of people of other regions who are against the seperation as to what will happen to their properties & interests in Hyderabad after seperation. c) the event itself is a very siginificant milestone in the movement which showed the color of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the photo's okay, as 1) it doesn't appear to be a press photo based on the original source, and 2) it is showing an event from the past (though there's a moderate chance there may be others that photographed it and we could get a free image, but that's not an assurance). That said, it's being used on two articles but really only should be used on one, Early 2011 Telangana protests where the destruction of the statues is of specific discussion. The rationales currently there only list it for the Telangana Movement, so we do have a rationale problem (#10c), but again, I think the article the image can be used on needs to be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Early 2011.. article is a daughter article of Telangana movement article. Hence being used in both. Vamsisv (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(re Masem): No, clear NFCC#8 violation. "Showing an event from the past" is obviously not enough to justify an image. It would have to be showing something about that event that's significant for understanding the article and couldn't adequately be conveyed in other ways. What is that "something"? The specific way that guy has climbed the statue? The way the other guy is waving his little pink flag? There's nothing in the visual detail of the image that is pivotal to understanding the scene, beyond the generic information that "furious demonstrators climbed on statues and vandalized them", which can easily be conveyed in words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The pink flags belong to certain political party. Though the party denied having been directly involved but the picture proves their activists in the act. Thus the picture is significant because it proves the party's involvement in the violent acts of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We never use non-free images to "prove facts". For that purpose, we only use reliable second-party published sources. Everything else would be WP:OR. If you think it's important that that party was involved in the activities, find a reliable source that says so, and cite it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before the purpose is to show the landmark event of the movement. Many things changed in the course of the movement after this act. I'm not boxing it by saying it just proves the involvement of a party. Also there is no free image available - Very few images are available since media was also attacked during that event. Vamsisv (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Catwoman

This article has 12 images. The only free one is File:Julie Newmar Catwoman Batman 1966.JPG. I don't know if we should list them all in this section or just the questionable ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is excessive in my view. The same is true with the article Wonder Woman. If Cat Woman has a free image of a live performer, then one or two...maybe three (because the character is older and has a longer history of changes that would be encyclopedic to depict with discussion of costume and character development) of the comic book depictions is fine. But 12 is way too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg

Invalid rationale. Replaceable on this article with free alternative of live performance actress with free file.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Batmanreturnspostercatwoman.png

Invalid rationale. Purpose is purely decorative and does not represent the actual cover art for the motion picture. This is pre-promotional material to generate interest and attention. Caption is incorrect.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwoman&Catgirl.jpg

I actually agree with this one use. Seems to have a full rationale and has contextual significance. I have no idea how notable the character of Catgirl is, but it seems reasonable that such a development is notable enough for an image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman-batman01.jpg

I agree with the use of this one as well. it is highly encyclopedic to depict the original first use of the character. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman-ninelives-tpb.jpg

This one as well I agree with its use. This more contemporary work depicts the many versions of the character in one image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman.jpg

Lee Meriwether is notable as the first actor to portray the character I believe. There is an earlier serial from the late 40's or early 50s but I don't think there was a catwoman. Does anyone know? At any rate there is no valid rationale for this article and the existing rationale may be invalid as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:CatwomanB&B.jpg

This probably fails a number of criteria but I don't think we need to illustrate each contemporary depiction of cartoon series incarnations. I think one is fine and the another artistic rendering may be more encyclopedic.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwomanbaby.PNG

Invalid rationale. Little encyclopedic value in the image. Depiction is too generic in my view. Could be any mother and child.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwoman BTAS.jpg
• File:PfeifferCatwoman.jpg
• File:TBCatwoman.png

Are the files in question. Werieth (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do suspect - but without doing a source check - either one (but not both) of the recent live action movie shots could be used since I recall that the outfit was critically discussed. But nearly any other appear is going to require sourcing that discusses the look of the character (we have the identifying one at the top that works in general), which I doubt will be readily available. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that we actually have such strength for use Masem, if you read the actual text: "In the 1960s, Catwoman's catsuit was green in color, which was typical of villains of that era. In the 1990s, she usually wore a skintight purple catsuit, before switching to a black PVC catsuit that recalls Michelle Pfeiffer's costume in Batman Returns (except not stitched together).". it seems this could easily be illustrated with the original Julie Newmar image that is free. Would that not mean that the Phieffer image doesn't pass criteria NFC#1 replaceable with a free alternative?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a few at commons and uploaded a few more from Flickr to show the costumes. I need to check the copyright commons guidelines on the mannequin and the wax figure with File:Old timey selina kyle (3262626624).jpg and File:Michelle Pfeiffer wax model.jpg. We also have the Lee Meriwether version with File:Catwoman original Chicago C2E2 2013.jpg and the purple version with File:Catwoman and Penguin 2007.jpg. I created Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles as a proposal to see if we can get consensus to replace many of these non-free images that just show versions of a character or costume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That said, if we go back to the discussion about the Jedi image above, it would likely be considered improper to use cosplay images as replacement for any of the "representation of the character" images (an image to show a person in cosplay as showing the popularity of the character as a cosplay target - that's okay). Photos of the actual costumes on wax dummies may seem reasonable but now we get back into copyright territory where the costume could be copyrighted (I am not 100% sure of this, however). --MASEM (t) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Costume to cover the costume copyright issues at commons. The wax museum image doesn't seem to have a decision at commons. If wax museum images are considered utilitarian as historically educational then they can stay. If not then we have a huge problem with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wax_museums at commons. If the Pfeiffer non-free movie image is just to show the costume change then we do have File:Catwoman San Fransico WonderCon 2009 .jpg which shows the same costume. Our third pillar does state that we should strive to use free images where we can.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967, the template from commons means nothing. It is simply a disclaimer, not a license. Costumes do have a copyright however, like many images between certain dates, the copyright had to be mentioned when published. Such copyright is attached to the film credits and counts as published copyright disclaimer. This gives the production company copyright of costumes, but the designer may retain partial copyright or none at all (see Star War helmets for example). Wax figures are not historic representations, they are entertainment and would be the same as showing another theatrical representation of the subject. If it has relevance in discussion it could be used...if the costume copyright is not still in force. In this case Warner Brothers still owns the rights to all Batman Costuming. With Cosplay, you must have a specific reason to show it and, again if it is the copyright of the studio it won't work of Wikipedia. Just because Commons hots it, doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the servers are both owned by WMF then if it is acceptable on commons it should be acceptable on en:wp as to copyright. See the final statement of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay where the community decided to host images of costumes. If there is case law in the future or the WMF changes their minds then we may have do delete all the images. Until then the warning template is there for commercial re-users. This is the same as the warning template we have for images of people. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights The images should be fine in articles until one of the above changes their status.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons do NOT have the same policies or the same goals, although they are similar. Your logic is simply incorrect. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. As for that discussion, it isn't even an argument here. Read it. Cosplay of copyrighted costumes are not even acceptable unless they are secondary in nature and only in limited circumstances. You use the discussion here as license to something ti does not even allow.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have clarified. If any image is accepted at commons then there should be no legal reasons not to include it in an en:wp article since the servers are governed by the same laws. I had this issue with File:ACMI 14.jpg where some users don't think we can legally use it in Academy Award. Since we have a free image we can't use a fair use one. This discussion just ended up with no image in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg - if the article discussed physical appearance of the character, would it be allowed? What I mean by that is, an image of the Halle Berry version of Catwoman could illustrate the many liberties taken with the character if in conjunction with text describing this. A description of Hathaway playing a version of the character more in physical line with the comics than, say, Michelle Pfeiffer or Berry's versions - would that work rather than a paparazzi photo of Hathaway taken at some random public event? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images at Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

I closed a previous discussion about the use of non-free language in this article, which I reproduce below. My language in the close wasn't great, but I stand by the outcome, which was consensus to remove the care bears image and no consensus on the game cover (the third, a film image, not being in the article at the time of closing, and this prevented consensus engagement on the game cover). I removed the care bears image, which has subsequently been objected to. Given the imperfect close, and the fact that the film image has been readded, I think it best to revisit this issue. I'll notify the interest party. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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 [5] and [6] 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)

---

---

(Starting fresh discussion here) As with the Catwoman thing here, I would argue that unless there is critical discussion that either focuses on the other versions of the character (or aspects thereof) , or that compares/contrasts with the earlier one, it is not our place to document via non-free illustrations of the other versions of a character. Eg, just because there is another version of a character out there, we don't need to illustrate it unless there is appropriate contextual significant for that specific iteration of the character. These character articles can use a non-free for the default infobox image if that is how they are first presented as an image for identification, but that's it without additional discussion. In this case for Alice, the Disney version is reasonable to keep but the others are not. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43021516@N06/4382428505/ published in 1916. We have many PD similar of the same character so there is no need to use modern non-free.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg (the 1951 Disney image) is currently being used as free. The three non-free files are carebears, the Burton film, and the American McGee's Alice box cover. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah , I didn't see that was free as well, so yes, reasonable to keep. Of the other three, there may perhaps be reason to use a non-free of the video game version of Alice given that there was discussion at the time of the game's release of the gritty version of the character, but I would replace the box art with a character image if possible. The live-action film was a flop and thus I doubt there is significant discussion about that character relative to the established Alice character, and there's zero need for the Care Bears one. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in that this still does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and it's omission would not be "detrimental to that understanding". It is not possible to use this (or probably any still) to show what is a moving dance. LGA _talk^edits 04:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, it, in fact increases the understanding why Cyrus was not only criticized, but panned by music critics, television critics, pro-family associations, youth parents Thicke's mother, and basically anyone who watched the show. Also, Cyrus performance went viral and it is subject of several internet memes. You can't say that fails #8 without giving a valid reason to fail #8, because I have had contact with people who didn't watch the MTV's and they were like "Really, what she did". So, yes, this increases the understanding of the topic: the MTV performance added to relevant sections. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, thanks for notifying me about this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• But you can only tell what she is doing with a description so the image adds nothing. As for the lack of notification but apparently it is not deemed relevant to notify uploader. WT:Twinkle is the place to talk about that. LGA _talk^edits 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete in both uses. We don't need to see a photo of known people with the description "twerking" to understand that the dance move was criticized (I am surprised we don't have a picture of twerking on the article about it, but that can be done with a free image). This is far different than something like Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy where the action performed was not a common action that could be simplified. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete in both uses per MASEM.--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Adds significantly to our understanding, and omission would be detrimental. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please explain how not seeing the image would be detremential. It's explained Miley twerked against Thicke, do you need to see that to understand that? --MASEM (t) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I would argue that the removal of the image would prove an issue, as it is rather difficult to explain what "twerking" is in words only. The image succinctly illustrates this, and why it was controversial.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We have an article on what twerking is, including a free image of what it is (and more can be made freely). The non-free fails NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: neither use in Blurred Lines or We Can't Stop adds anything significant that can justify the inclusion of a non-free image and the facts are already expressed in prose with only states that the twerking took place at that event involving Cyrus and Thicke. There is no reliably source critical commentary about the image in either article. Readers who don't know what twerking is can easily refer to the linked article on the topic where a free image, actually a video, which is even more informative, is available. ww2censor (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Brian Wilson

Obvious violation of minimal usage, 5 sound files are excessive, 2-3 are normal. Also File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png isnt needed. Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All sound clips convey every musical cornerstone of Brian Wilson's recording career from his beginnings as a freelance record producer in the early 1960s to a self-performing artist in present day. From his high-budgeted various artists Wall of Sound teen group period (surf rock); his minimal, reclusive, drug-addled, auto-biographical period which heavily reflects his well-publicized mental instabilities referred to multiple times throughout the article (psychedelic); his brief but notable foray into quirky synthesizer experimentation (art rock); and finally an example of his music as a credited solo artist (baroque pop). Although Wilson used The Beach Boys as a proxy for his released work between 1961–1988 (and for that reason, it may appear as though they place higher priority for inclusion in The Beach Boys article), a high emphasis is placed on the samples The Beach Boys - 'Til I Die and The Beach Boys - I'll Bet He's Nice because:

• "'Til I Die" has been cited as the most "personal" song Wilson had ever written. It is auto-biographical by nature, and provides a glimpse to the viewer of a period in Wilson's life often discrepant in journalism. Wilson is largely believed to have been in a state of complete inactivity between the times of the albums Pet Sounds (1966) and Love You (1977). This is blatantly untrue, and the sample does well to help disprove the myth and ultimately enhance the article by providing an audible summary of Wilson's work with The Beach Boys AND a summary of Wilson's output during the 1970s, which dramatically differed from other eras.
• "I'll Bet He's Nice" stems from recording sessions intended for a Brian Wilson solo album. The song's credit to "The Beach Boys" is arguably nominal; Wilson himself plays every instrument in the sample, and also offers lead vocals. Additionally, the same extra justifications above can be duplicated for this particular sample as it can serve to convey Wilson's work with The Beach Boys during the 1970s. Not only that, but it also provides an example of Wilson's voice shortly after it very noticeably deteriorated from excessive drug use.

As for File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png not being "needed," that reasoning is awfully vague. It is a photo of Wilson during sessions for the album Pet Sounds, a work for which he is most known for. Within the article, the only other picture of Wilson from around its recording sessions is removed by two years, was photographed from a far distance with many other people in view, and by itself poorly exemplifies his person and demeanor in the 1960s. Wilson was primarily known as a studio musician and record producer, and so a photo of him in that context highly enhances the article space it accompanies. Another function the photo serves is to provide a space in which to comment on the thick-rimmed glasses he was often photographed wearing for a short time in the 1960s. Some of the most iconic photos of Wilson show him with these glasses. I'm not sure how it is supposed to be obvious that this photo must be removed. Looking at other articles for guidance, John Lennon is also portrayed two times in the article for the 1960s spaces: once during his early "mop top" period and another during his later "psychedelic" period. The principles are nearly identical for Wilson.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Werieth here at least on sound samples. Yes, for an average band or musician, 2-3 is probably the norm. However, this is someone that has been a significant influence on music, and given that he both sang and arranged songs, examples of both are not unreasonable. Arguably since all of these songs appear to be notable on their own (where the song sample could be include if not already), we could relocate one or two there, but I don't see 5 being excessive for someone like this (though I would encourage trimming if possible). As for the photo, I think it's rather reason to include - he wrote glasses despite not having vision problems. If his glasses-wearing was a noted iconic image of him during that time, that would be one thing, but I think we're talking about during a closed session, and that can be described in text. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets break this down:

• File:Brian Wilson I Just Wasn't Made For These Times.png

Also used in The Beach Boys, Nothing is iconic about this look, and can be described in text.

• File:I'llBetHe'sNice.ogg

Also used on Love You (album), doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

• File:Melt Away Brian Wilson.ogg

Also used on Brian Wilson (album) doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

• File:Sping with Brian Wilson.jpg

Used correctly on American Spring and not critical to this article.

• File:The Honeys - He's A Doll.ogg

Not used on other articles may be appropriate here

• File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Also used on 'Til I Die doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

Werieth (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that there are times we allow duplication of sound samples between the artist and the song/album where there is reasonable discussion for both; the question is here if Wilson's personal efforts are called out for the song, or if its just dropped as a representative work. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Even then we can reference the other article where the file is being used. 2-3 should be kept the rest should be left on the other respective articles. Most are not detrimental if removed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically you're right, the article doesn't "need" anything. What about the things it "could" or "should" have? The usages of those files are relatively minimal, being present on only two articles at the most. I still say the photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds is definitely iconic. You will undoubtedly see a photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds sessions in every documentary or related piece about him, and he's sporting those glasses in almost every photo.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not a documentary, we are writing a free encyclopedia. We already have a free image of the person, including a non-free image of him in glasses where he is known for what he produces and not his personal visual appearance is not needed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's established that absolutely no media is really needed in the article. That goes for the image used in the article's infobox. "The reader already knows from prose that Wilson is a 71-year-old man, so what's the purpose of an image that serves nothing except to convey unneeded information like hair color or wrinkles?" The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves. Of course the infobox photo doesn't impose itself. Neither does the photo of Wilson circa 1966 where it is accompanied by text describing his life at that point. Nobody should feel as though it is odd to find several photographs of Brian Wilson in different stages of his life on the article for Brian Wilson. They likewise should not be shocked that an article for a popular composer marked by several different musical approaches throughout their career contains at most one sound clip for every decade they've been musically active. The four sound clips are irreducible because they perfectly display everything he's prospered to and is identified with, which is basically happy pop, sad rock, synthesized lunacy, and his present day activities. I've already explained why the article's quality benefits greatly with the addition of a relatively iconic photograph of Wilson taken during the most profiled event of his career. There's no reason to have walls of text lacking a suitable visual accompaniment when one with an apt rationale is readily available.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the statement it's whether they make the article look neater means that your whole approach to non-free media is flawed. That approach is fine for free media. However the standards and bar for inclusion for non-free media is significantly higher than just being eye candy. Given that such a large number of these non-free files are accessible on other articles, and we have a free image for his primary visual identification we could easily trim down the non-free files to 2-3 and not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely, but they're only used on one other article. I would agree if the same photo was used in several other articles wherein the subject is only tangentially related. Then it would be overuse. But it's a photo that focuses on the article's subject and nothing else. For that reason, it actually has an even more logical placement in Brian Wilson than it does on The Beach Boys. I'm not sure where you're basing the claimed "2-3" benchmark from.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." is absolutely wrong. We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance for the image to be used while minimizing the number used. We have a picture of Wilson, and the only thing is that he wore these glasses during a specific recording session. Did it impact the music? Did it impact his association with the rest of the band? Did it inspire a song? I'm not reading this, just that he happened to look like that that day. As such, the image is not needed, as currently described. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance" No duh. And I've already established numerous explanations of contextual significance. Nothing more need be said by me about the purpose of those images and clips. I'll still reiterate for you why his appearance at the time is notable for inclusion in order to appease you:

• He is not wearing garb associated with his extroverted live performance era. He is wearing distinguished garb associated with his intimate studio producer era, and the psychedelic era for which he was part of to a great extent. This same layout and reasoning is also applied in the John Lennon article to no complaints.
• He is wearing formal attire to a pop music recording session which (as I recall hearing somewhere) was unusual for younger producers at the time according to The Wrecking Crew musicians.
• It is a photo of him with nobody else in frame.
• The photo was taken at the most crucial period in his life.
• It accompanies the Pet Sounds section well for being a photo taken during Pet Sounds.
• The Pet Sounds recording sessions are directly related to the music; it is a photo of him as he was creating the very thing for which he is (arguably) most notable for.
• Wilson is very-much-so known for his idiosyncratic personality, and so yes, doing something weird like pretending to be nearsighted is not a closed case of strangeness. This trait of his was exerted in full force around his "bed" period during which he became a subject of lore and mystique a la Syd Barrett.

Because numerous rationales have been established, I reiterate, "the question is whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." Do they? I say no. Let them stay; they're not hurting anybody.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"they're not hurting anybody" - wrong. Every piece of non-free in WP harms the free content mission set by the Foundation which is why the goal is to minimize the amount of non-free used and avoid uses that are otherwise replaceable. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NFL on Fox

This concerns the use of what is currently nine separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:

• WP:NFCC#3a: having nine separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
• WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
• WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, yeah, there is absolutely no need to iterate the small changes in the onscreen scoring banner with non-free media. Most of these sections are unsourced, meaning that we're looking at original research at how important these changes are. It's a fricken' scoring banner! --MASEM (t) 22:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The small changes can be a big thing in some certain situation. For FOX, after introducing this Digital On-Screen Graphics during NFL on FOX, they ended up applying to ALL of their sport broadcast. It's not a fricken scoring banner, it's also a branding as well as whole. Unsourced or not, this is pretty important. Although the images should be cropped to just show the scoring banner, as I feel the picture of the whole game is somewhat distracting. Bentoman (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

NFL on CBS

(Much of the argument is the same as for the NFL on Fox discussion above, but for convenience I shall reproduce it here, adapted.)

This concerns the use of what is currently six separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:

• WP:NFCC#3a: having six separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
• WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
• WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Same as above. There's no need at all to use non-free here. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Same as the one for my argument about FOX Sports graphics, it's all about the branding issue, and it is very important regardless. Bentoman (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:ThisTV WBNX-TV Akron-Cleveland.png

Text logo. Solid background version possibly available. Levdr1lp / talk 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably okay without removing the gradient/shadow, but it would be more assured if we could use a version free of the shadow. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried to remove the blueish shadow, but due to the color of the text (white to light grey) it does not show well with clear or white background. If there were a solid colored logo (maybe a screenshot one from their website) it would definitely be PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Added version w/ blue background. I used the source file for the foreground, and sampled the blue background on the website for the background layer in the file. Technically, the blue shadow is still visible if you look very, very closely, but it's barely detectable. Levdr1lp / talk 00:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Carlos-Smith.jpg

We seem to have a dispute between two editors, User:Werieth and myself as to the appropriate usage of this iconic photo. I call it an iconic photo, User:‎BD2412 just today assigned the Category:Subjects of iconic photographs to the central figures in the photo. I hope, if you are unfamiliar, you can see the attached articles, particularly 1968 Olympics Black Power salute to see the significance of the event. Within 5 hours of the importance of this photo being so assigned, Werieth removed the photo of it from Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres, the event where this photo took place. When I reverted it, rather than stopping to address the dispute, the user continued to remove it from Doug Roby, the then USOC Chairman who issued the punishment for the protest--probably the most significant thing this man did in his life and removed the claim of fair use from the photo itself.

As best I can determine, this photo was taken in 1968. Copyright is negotiated by the Associated Press. Our low resolution copy of the photo, acquired from another online encyclopedia, is the first thing to show up in google. To my knowledge, AP has never protested. Its been on Wikipedia for almost exactly 9 years, I would think the absence of a claim against due diligence would not hold water. If ever we have a case for fair use, for the place and individuals involved with this photo could be made, this would be it. I think a reasonable argument could be made to add it to Harry Edwards (sociologist), which links to the article Werieth removed the photo, as well. And this goes on to the overall look of Wikipedia. For us NOT to properly cover such material would be censorship and is borderline racist. Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I am an intellectual property attorney. There is no reasonable objection to this photo being fair use for 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, as it is the photo depicting this notable event. Frankly, there is no court that would find this to be anything but a fair use for a fairly broad range of related articles, given the age and historically wide redistribution of this image, and Wikipedia's non-profit educational mission. bd2412 T 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes fair use law would allow us to use it, however Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far far more strict. Acceptable usage needs to be viewed in that perspective. I am not disputing the usage on 4 primary articles (Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Peter Norman, 1968 Olympics Black Power salute) However because we have an existing article on the image usage outside of them cannot be justified by wikipedia policy. Werieth (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The photo is absolutely appropriate at 1968 Olympics Black Power salute but utterly not appropriate at Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres; that latter article is just about the summary of the event, and the photo does not aid the reader's understanding there. (You do link to the Black Power salute in the lead, so the importance of that event - and the picture - are accessible there). We use a stronger requirement than fair use, which the photo would likely fall under on the Men's 200 Meter event page, but fails the minimum use of non-free of our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Trackinfo Please remove your comment calling me a racist. That is a personal attack. I am not censoring anything. Feel free to add notes and a link to 1968 Olympics Black Power salute wherever relevant. The usage of the file however must be restricted. Werieth (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not call you a racist. It would be racist on the part of Wikipedia to censor remove this important part of history of the struggle. It would be equivalent with Wikipedia ignoring the Greensboro sit-ins, Selma to Montgomery marches or not showing File:Wallace at University of Alabama edit2.jpg. You may not be part of it, but there are factions out there who wish to rewrite this part of history with racist malice a forethought. Each little chip at removing an element of the truth helps their goals, whether you do it deliberately or not. Trackinfo (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You called me a borderline racist. I am not attempting to hide or suppress any facts. I am just trying to ensure our media usage is in compliance with policy. Keep in mind each one of the topics you referenced has its own article, guess what so does 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. I am not removing anything from that article, I am just attempting to follow our m:Mission to keep usage of non-free media to a minimum. Please note I am not referring to the file as fair use for a good reason, wikipedia policy in regards to copyrighted material (Non-free media) which includes fair use material, among others, is about 100 times more strict than that. Werieth (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You do know what censoring is, yes? Removing one use of a picture is nowhere close to censoring. We'd have to remove every mention of that topic, including the article itself, to get to that. Werieth's removal is simply to reduce non-free where it is not needed given that it is used much more appropriately elsewhere, and you are running the lines of no personal attacks by grossly mistating the situation. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not make any accusation of any individual editor being racist. I did not issue any sort of personal attack. To quote myself "For us NOT to properly cover such material" is in reference to Wikipedia in general. I clarified, our failure to properly cover the facts of the struggle plays into the agenda of racists who wish to rewrite that story. If there is any misinterpretation that this is directed at any individual, I apologize. Trackinfo (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Removed from all but the main 1968 Olympics Black Power salute article. This was additionally being used in as many as three biography articles, where it was used in lieu of a portrait in the infobox. In that function it was obviously replaceable with other images, and the point about the salute doesn't need to be visually repeated beyond its main statement in the dedicated article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree. The image represents the single most noted moment in the lives of its subjects, and this event is discussed in each article. Is there another image capable of conveying this moment? As for the image being replaceable, the question then arises, what free images of these subjects are available? I realize this is not a point that we usually dwell on, but we face fewer potential entanglements in reusing the same image for related purposes than in making fair use claims to multiple images. Perhaps these three articles could each instead use a version of this image cropped to the particular athlete. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • As long as the three athletes are still alive, a free image could be taken, and thus a non-free is not allowed to be used. (We don't require that a free image currently be available, just that one can be made). --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I also disagree. The issue is not filling the void of an image of the athletes. THE SALUTE, the act that is still the most notable event in their lives (over and above winning Olympic medals, setting world records, NFL careers etc) is irreplaceable. I can probably come up with my own pictures I can clear of the individuals, I certainly have pictures of the statue created from the iconic photo at San Jose State University. Those are a grossly poor substitute for the actuality. This issue is under discussion, with only a handful of participants so far (likely ever). I think Future Perfect jumped the gun on taking action before a consensus is reached. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        • We have an article on that salute that is linked from all involve athletes, which the user can link to to learn more. Also, no you can't make a free image from that statue - artwork in a fixed medium in the US does not have freedom of panorama, meaning that photographs of such art are derivative works and retain the copyright of the artist. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Above, someone wrote that the photo was taken by the Associated Press. Per WP:NFC#UUI §7, we need significant discussion about the photo in order to keep it, which normally means that the photo only can be used in an article about the photo itself. The article 1968 Olympics Black Power salute only discusses the subject of the photo, not the photo itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Trackinfo (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing user talk pages. Werieth (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I notified other editors who have been specifically involved with the file in question. Proper notification. Exactly what Werieth failed to do when initiating this attack on the image. My contributions are publicly visible. Look at the text of what I wrote to those involved: "A file you have been previously involved with is under discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg" Furthermore, there should be a notice on each page the image has been removed. If nobody else posts such a notice, next time I have time to edit, I'll search for the appropriate template. What I told Werieth to do back on October 11. It is not in broader interests of wikipedia as a worldwide information source to keep these backroom discussions limited to the very few who know they exist. Trackinfo (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal from the bios. It is the thing those athletes are most known for and is an irreplaceable iconic moment in history. This passes NFCC 8 by a Kentucky mile and makes the rest of the NFCC its whimpering little bitch. Keeping it out of the currently undeveloped article on the competition itself I get, but not these bios.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • First and foremost, we don't allow non-free images of living persons. The page about the salute is linked to the athletes involved, the reader can click through to learn more. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no prohibition on using non-free images of living persons, we just don't use them when the image itself lacks significance. All non-free images are subject to the same criteria for inclusion in an article and can be used in more than one article even if both articles are linked. Such use of non-free images happens all the time. The moment captured in that photo is discussed in-depth in all of their bios and it is clearly not an image you can simply replace with some recent image of them as old people speaking at some conference.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You especially can't recreate this image or suspect a fresh might be taken as Norman has been dead since 2006.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then that's a reasonable use, but not for the others that are alive. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things: first, it is an obvious consequence of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use) that a single image should not be used in more articles than necessary. Where we have a central article dealing specifically with this particular aspect of their bios, we don't normally also include the same image in the more general parent articles without good cause. Second, there is one aspect that has not yet been sufficiently discussed here: what exactly is "iconic" here, the historical moment or this particular photograph of it? That's not the same thing. Of course the historical moment is important, but there are multiple different photographs of it, obviously similar but taken by different people from different angles, and I don't see that this particular photograph has any privileged role in being significantly "more iconic" in memorizing the event than the others. In this respect it's not like "Tank Man" or "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" or the like, which are truly unique photographic representations. It's also not being used as to support commentary on the photographer's creative work as such, which is normally the standard exception for commercial agency photos. Given the fact that it's a commercial AP photo, the bar for using it must be particularly high, so we'd need to have a particularly good argument why we need to use this particular photo and not any of the others that exist, some of which might have less commercial interest attached to them. What about screenshots from television coverage of the event, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting hairs, if there is a decent free image depicting the iconic event as it happened then provide it by all means and we can settle this, but if all you have are other non-free images then it is a moot point. The photo captures a moment and that moment has been discussed in some detail by reliable sources and is discussed to significant extent in the bios of all of these individuals. You cannot recreate that moment and without a free replacement for the image no argument against using a non-free image will actually touch NFCC. Minimal use does not in any way require limiting how many articles an image is used in as each article should have a case-specific rationale for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing up WP:NFCC#2 with WP:NFCC#1. WP:NFCC#2 has nothing to do with whether something is replaceable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#2 does not effect usage of this image, even if there is one that is even more compliant with that specific criteria. Any non-free usage meeting NFCC#2 would be fine if it meets all the other criteria. He is not presenting an argument that it does not meet NFCC#2, only that other images might be even more suitable under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#2 is not satisfied because the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §7, as mentioned above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC

That is only if they are used outside the noted exceptions and NFCI#8 easily covers this image.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI §7 is only satisfied in the article Associated Press photo of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, and that article doesn't exist yet. The other articles contain zero critical discussion about the photo, and the photo therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 and WP:NFCC#2 in those articles. See also {{db-f7}} (which the photo currently satisfies). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeating yourself and ignoring what I said is not a way to discuss things. That argument only applies outside the noted exceptions. Said exceptions include one saying "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance" and this image would be covered under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If WP:NFC#UUI §7 isn't satisfied, then WP:NFCC isn't satisfied, even if one or more point under WP:NFCI might be satisfied, as the use isn't valid fair use under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, failing that criteria does not mean it would be invalid fair use nor does any image failing the NFCC inherently mean it is invalid fair use. Meeting the NFCI means it is acceptable under the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, that is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NFCC. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFCI, then it is usually acceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually unacceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under both sections, then it depends on which is the strongest criterion. WP:NFC#UUI §7 is one of the strongest criteria as it is based on the limits for fair use under United States law. WP:NFC#UUI §1 is almost as strong, although exceptions tend to be made if a person is in prison for the rest of his life. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCI#8 would trump it any time, because educating about important moments in history is more important than some technical quibbling.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC (all 10 points) trump WP:NFCI. NFCI lists cases that generally pass if and only if they also pass NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation requires use to not use non-free images of living persons save in rare cases, generally when the person's appearance is the subject of critical discussion. This is not such a case. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? We are talking about a very blatant case of the person's appearance being the subject of critical discussion. Non-free images of living people are not acceptable merely for visual identification of the individuals, but that is not what we are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about how he looks, which is where visual aid would be helpful. We're talking a documented event that they happened to participate in, and that doesn't need the visual aid on the bio page to understand per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What they participated in was a visual statement, so, yes we are talking about how he looks. It may not have discussed their fashion sense or whether they dolled up their hair all nice and snazzy, but their appearance of protest is very much the subject of critical discussion and you can not do it justice by merely putting it into words.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That fails NFCC#8. A statement like "He is noted for his participation in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics", with link, with respect of a bio, is clearly understandable without the use of visual aid - the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed by its removal and thus NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If an album cover is discussed in an article about an artist do we remove the image of it from the article since there will be a link to an article on the album? We do not, so your argument is the only thing failing here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do. Album covers are only allowed in articles about that album (NFCI#1), or unless the album art is described in a critical manner about the subject. Artist articles are not allowed to use album art without significant commentary. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Read my comment again, please.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I did and its still the case that that we would almost never put an album cover (a work typically done by someone else other than the musical artist) on an article about the musical artist to represent the musical artist's work just because it happens to be the musical artist's most notable/recognized work, though of course we would certainly link to that. But I also believe we're talking apples and oranges. Album covers are typical abstract art and difficult to explain in text. Here is a photo that is fully describable in text (at least, on Carlos' page) and only represents one aspect of the whole 1968 Olympics statement. This might be their claim to fame, the event being important, but there's nothing suggesting the image itself is so iconic and not replaceable by text on the bio page to be needed. (This is similarly why we don't regularly use album art on musical artist pages). --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly did not read my comment very hard, so I am not even gonna bother talking to you anymore. Good day to you sir.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

delete or delete policy UUI #7; burden is upon the uploader 5 years ago to anticipate the raising the bar to include kissing the AP's ass. we have higher standards here than any university on the planet. or burden is upon the policy proposer to change the policy to meet the consensus here.

Trackinfo is correct, there is a systemic bias here: this is a community of privilege. we prefer ideological purity over history or fairness. who cares what the outcome means to information bias about minority communities? we prefer text over image. we prefer blindness over viewing the truth. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a higher bar, to create a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can use and redistribute, as opposed to academic standards that merely look to keep things within fair use. You're free to start a new online encyclopedia that doesn't have this restriction, but we're bound by the Foundation to minimize the amount of non-free we use. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

fair use is allowed; this is not a "free-content encyclopedia"; don't blame the foundation, they have nothing to do with your dilemma: either delete this image, or delete UUI#7. the forks have already begun, there's nothing ordained that this encyclopedia should retain it pre-eminence; it could very easliy become myspace, as all the reasonable editors go elsewhere. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, you see that icon on the top left of the page, the one that says "Wikipeida: The Free Encyclopedia"? The Foundation's mission is free content (free as in absence of copyright limitations, not cost). Yes, there are forks being created, that's one of the things we actually allow for, but WP itself will remain a work aimed at free content. (And remember, the UUI criteria are not irrefutable allowances, they are just generally acceptable cases, as long as all other NFCC are met) --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL - policy by icon: if it's so free, how come the foundation is in a trademark flamewar? face facts, you keep pulling back the football, and redefining the "free" mission, depending on whose content you want to delete. you still have a policy, that you choose not to enforce in this case; therefore, it does not exist. let the uploads of "fair use" AP material continue. stop the hypocricy - do not import policy from commons, that does not have a consensus here. Duckduckgo (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation has set a free content goal across all projects, including en.wiki, which allows for limited use of non-free media. Note that no one has said this image can't be used at all; we are only saying that the only reasonable place (and specifically, perfectly in line with policy) for the use of this image is on the event that it depicts, the demonstration at the Olympics. It is not appropriate nor necessary on the biographies. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Rationales given on image page seem reasonable and so far I have seen no reason for concern. If AP wants to sue Wikipedia let them have a go so it can set a more clear precedent. Ellomate (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This is an iconic image that clearly qualifies for fair use on articles related to the 1968 Olympics. As for the bios, I don't see anyone actually linking to a living persons issue in the fair use guidelines. The relevant text seems to be Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2. Clearly this image has encyclopedic value beyond what one would get recreating this image. Interpreting this as a "no fair use images in BLPs" policy is a simplistic misunderstanding of the guideline.--Bkwillwm (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No one questions the use at the 1968 Olympic page, it will stay there. As for the issue of living persons , the Foundation themselves set this, per m:Resolution:Licensing policy. ("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.") --MASEM (t) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • someone questions its use at the 1968 Olympic page: "The image should not be used." [7]. one questions why you would link to a meta table article which merely lists what each language is doing; perhaps you meant the foundation page [8]. one questions whether you agree that minimize fair use means zero. if not, then prove it by enforcing the policy with those who espouse this. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see anyone in this discussion saying the image can't be used at the page about the demonstration at the Olympics; that's clearly the appropriate page for its use. Yes, I mislinked to the resolution, but you found the right page, but that doesn't matter. For purposes of non-free, "minimal use" can include zero. An article that can be understood with only text and free images doesn't need a non-free image, hence minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

There's currently two images of Trayvon Martin in the articles Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin, and there should probably only be one, per our rules on minimal use. One of the images was recently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 19#File:Trayvon Martin on the backseat of a car.png but since discussion was minimal I am bringing the matter here. Are two images warranted in the articles, or should there be only one, and if so, which one? -- Diannaa (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree there should only be one and it should be the one of him wearing a hoodie as that photo is iconic. In the Shooting of article, it is discussed about his wearing of the hoodie at the time of his shooting and how many people across the US rallied while wearing hoodies in support. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 10:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Currently, as far as I know, there are only two images we have of Martin. I think there is contextual significance to both of these images to justify them both being used. The rationale for using the photo under review here is that it is presently being used for a visual depiction of the subject to illustrate for the reader an approximate age at the time he was shot and killed. And the hoodie photo is being used in context in relation to the protests, rallies and marches. They will only be used for the two articles, thereby minimizing their use. I see no reason to delete either one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the one with him in the car. It fails WP:NFCC#8. It's a picture of Martin and it is not substantially different from the hoodie image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC

Keep. I'm not really seeing the logic here. The picture of Trayvon in a hoodie was used in the protest nationwide as a result of the accusation that the hoodie played a significant role in Zimmerman's decision to label him as suspicious. The car photo simply shows what he looked like before his death.

• Delete the car photo, no reason at all for two non-free images per our policy. One works well enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wide World Of Sport Logo Small.PNG

Image is not discussed in a critical manner at Nine's Wide World of Sports. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 22:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Vanessa logo.svg

Excessively large non-free file. Several details in it are only shown if you render it at a very high resolution, e.g. [[File:Vanessa logo.svg|3000px]]. Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unilever brands

I took this to WP:OTRSN, but the section was ignored, so I'm taking it here before a potential copyvio is noted. I'm going to quote what I said there:

According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, are our fair use files not fair use because of this? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would see about others' opinions but I would agree that if the jpgs are in the CC, SVG recreations (as derivative works) would also be free. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus

Hi everybody. Hi Dr. Nick. Not sure exactly what the procedure is here, but Werith has been creating quite the furore at the Titus Andronicus article. He is insisting that the following four images be removed because they violate NFCC#1:

1. File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg‎

2. File:Lavinia - Ninagawa production.jpg‎‎

3. File:Titus (Final Image).jpg

4. File:Baby Coffin.jpg

So, the images aren't in the article at the moment as to include them would undoubtedly cause Werith to spontaneously implode. Which no one wants. So here’s a version of the article which includes the images so you can see captions and context and so forth:

Clicktus hereicus

Note, that I plan on making a couple of minor adjustments should the images go back to the article:

The caption for Titus will be changed slightly to read:

"Young Lucius leaves the coliseum with Aaron's child, with the sun rising in the background; the final, optimistic, image of Julie Taymor's Titus (1999)."

As regards textual accompaniment, I planned to rewrite the Ninagawa section to read:

"The production followed the 1955 Brook production in its depiction of violence; actress Hitomi Manaka appeared after the rape scene with stylised red ribbons coming from her mouth and arms, substituting for blood."

and the Titus section to read:

"At the end of the film, young Lucius takes the baby and walks out of Rome; an image of hope for the future, symbolised by the rising sun in the background."

I'd like to note that the Laura Rees image was already up for deletion and was kept. Two quotes from that discussion seem pertinent here. User:DionysosProteus wrote "The image does fulfil the significance criterion. The realism and blood-thirstiness of the stage appearance of Lavinia at this moment in the play is one of its most significant images--probably the image that most spectators/readers remember. That it has been represented in vivid realism, in contrast, say, to Peter Brook's symbolic treatment, is a significant element of the information to be conveyed by the article. Visual representation of this is a vital and useful dimension of conveying that information. The caption makes the significance clear. Both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 satisfied and relevant." In the same discussion, User:Wrad wrote "This image of Lavinia, in many ways, is the play. An image like this is vital to an understanding of how the work is seen today." Note that nobody actually voted to delete the image after it was nominated.

It's also worth mentioning that an admin took a look at the Titus Andronicus page, and found that all of the images were fine except the Ninagawa one, because the image of Lavinia wasn't specifically mentioned in the text.

Werith has repeatedly stated that all four images are replaceable with free alternatives. I don't understand how this is possible in regards the image from Titus and the BBC production, which are, by definition, non-free, non-replaceable images. As for the other two, he keeps on saying the play is 400 years old and in the public domain, and therefore free images are "readily available;" so far the only actual explanation for this he has come up with is that I stage a production of the play and take some photographs, which he seems to think would be a relatively easy task. Clearly Werith has never worked in the theatre! The other point worth making is that the play's production history only begins in 1955, so the fact that the play itself is 400 years old is irrelevant. It was off the stage for over 300 years. He would point out that Romeo and Juliet has no non-free images, so therefore Titus shouldn't have any. This makes little sense when one considers there literally isn't a scene in Romeo that hasn't been illustrated in some way shape or form, whereas, until the mid-1980s, Titus was considered one of Shakespeare's worst plays, and remains one the least staged (and least illustrated) in the canon. Comparing it to Romeo (either in terms of production history or illustration) is not very useful. I have taught Shakespeare for thirteen years now at university level. I do a course on Shakespeare in performance, and only in 2011 was I allowed to include Titus on the course. Every other year when I requested to include the play, the powers that be refused, saying it was too obscure. That's a good indication of just how little exposure this play has had in the grand scheme of things.

As regards the importance of the images to the article itself, well, when I was writing the Titus article many moons ago, I downloaded about eight or nine non-free images. I decided on these two Lavinia images because they serve a very very specific purpose - they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to the play in the modern theatre (in fact the productions took place without a couple of months of one another). Reviews of the play almost always centre on what approach the production takes to the aftermath of the rape. How Lavinia appears after her ordeal is the defining moment of every production, and these two images serve to show a reader, in a way much clearer than textual information ever could, the two extreme ends of the possible spectrum. I think User:DionysosProteus's comments above sum it up more eloquently than I can. The same argument can be made for the other two images – they specifically contrast one another: one shows a director using focus to give her production a pessimistic ending, the other shows a director using a visual metaphor to give her production an optimistic ending.

So I'm not sure if one is supposed to vote here but for the record, I vote to:

Keep all four images

And that's all I've got to say really. So there you have it. Bye everybody. Bye Dr. Nick. Bertaut (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The two stage productions that show the effects use for that scene seem okay to use because, as you say, they are diametrically opposite approaches and part of the critical reception for those plays. I also do agree that these are not freely replacable as we're talking specific makeup/prop work done for those productions, and not an average school play. That said, the other two images notes are excessive. The one of the figure walking into the sunset is very unremakable and this specific scene is not discussed critically in the text (it's mentioned as the final scene, but that's it). The one from the BBC production is not showing a scene that seems of critical discussion, only to demonstrate a change made for that play, which doesn't need an image for this. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair points. I can see where you're coming from all right. Bertaut (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep first two, delete the third, may be the fourth one as well. The first two are images from unique productions, especially the Ninagawa one which is highly stylized and may be a one-off, therefore I don't see how they can be replaceable. Art is by its nature special, you cannot adequately describe art with words alone, and you cannot do an amateur production trying to recreate something done in a renown production, take a photograph and claim that it is faithful representation of that particular production. Texts alone also cannot accurately reflect the effect created, especially when it is something so unusual as the Ninagawa one. Having an image that shows the theatrical effects would significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the alternate approaches and what's been done in those productions. These two images would definitely satisfy the WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 criteria in my opinion. I would agree with MASEM that the third image is unremarkable, it would not increase readers' understanding of the topic and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8. For the last one, I am concerned that it does not demonstrate what's written in the text - it merely shows someone looking at a box with a baby, it is unclear from the picture what his reaction is, and everything in that image can be described by words, so it is doubtful as to how useful that image is in illustrating the passage of text. I'm not saying that that passage doesn't need an image, but a better image needs to be found that can bring more to the understanding to the topic. Hzh (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough comments about the image from Titus. I think that one is destined for the land of deletion. I can accept that. To address your points Hzh, getting a shot of his reaction would make sense, but the main problem is that the only shot showing his reaction is a close up of his face, nothing else is in the shot. There's a shot of him approaching the closed coffin. He opens it offscreen, then we see the image I've used. Then another character comes along and closes it, and the film ends with the closeup of the kid's reaction. There's no shot in the film where you can see the body and his reaction in the same frame. There is a shot, however, using the same framing as in the image of the baby's father being dragged past the coffin. As he's dragged past, the boy looks up at him, but his back is stil entirely to camera. I also chose this particular image because of how Howell uses depth of focus. Usually, in all stage performances I've seen, the emphasis in the final moments is entirely on the inauguration. Here, however, Howell not only ends with the inauguration in the background, but literally shots it out of focus, instead forcing the audience to stare at the death of the innocent child. That's a very significant directorial choice, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the only production of the play that has ever done it. I could certainly rewrite the text in the article to make this point clearer if that were to make any difference, or perhaps replace the image with one showing the father, and see what people think. Finally, yeah, the Ninagawa production was unique in many ways - it was highly stylised throughout - the play began with the actors still in street clothes and reading their scripts, and the costuming and set-design throughout is bizarre to say the least. If you're really interested in seeing it, you can probably request a copy from the RSC if you work somewhere where you can order a copy under your company's name. I think they still send out copies to institutions, they certainly used to in the days of VHS. I've not seen the production myself, but it got extraordinary reviews. Bertaut (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you would need to ask yourself how does an image enhance a reader's understanding of what's written in the text. Here it looks like words alone say more than what that single image can do, so can a video help? For example there is a video clip here illustrating a special effect in a film. Again you would still need to ask how it would help enhance a reader's understanding. Unless you are certain that it does, then you should avoid going down this path or risk wasting a lot of time doing something that might get deleted. (I'm not recommending doing a video by the way, videos still seem problematic in wikipedia, some don't work, etc.) Hzh (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg is completely replaceable by its current description:"Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production; for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath". There's nothing important about Titus Andronicus that the picture adds to that text. No one needs to see Rees to understand.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense at all. It's a play, not a book. You have to see it to understand it. If you were teaching a history of theatre class (or a Titus Andronicus performances class, for that matter) and said something like that, you'd get laughed out of a job. You can't teach or communicate performance history with just text. Wrad (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • We're not here to teach, we are here to create a freely distributable encyclopedia, which is a very different purpose. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That is an extremely reductive reading of my comment and also makes no sense at all. Yes, you're so right. Sharing knowledge is "very different" from teaching. I was so blind to that before, but now I see :) What good is an article about Titus Andronicus if it sucks at communicating the performance history of the play? I thought we made the Internet not suck. An encyclopedia that can't communicate effectively is worthless. Wrad (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Wrad here. Titus Andronicus is a play, and illustrating the stagecraft involved in the production of the play is entirely valid for inclusion in the article. A play is by its nature artificial, no one had their hands actually amputated, therefore what could "realistic presentation" mean here? If this had been staged in the 19th century, they would have a very different idea of what is a "realistic presentation" (it would also be interesting to see how this is done in Shakespeare's day). A play is also a visual medium, not just words on a page, and there is inherently a problem with using words alone to describe something that is entirely artificial happening on stage, and that can't actually be happening for real. Hzh (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could replace about 90 percent of the images on Wikipedia using that rationale. Think of the number of servers we could save!

"There's nothing important about (fill in the blank) that the picture adds to that text." And your critical credentials are what, exactly, Kww? According to your user page, you ran a hotel and were in real estate development. How in god's name does that experience qualify you to determine whether an image is critical to understanding an interpretation of Shakespeare in a movie, a medium that visually adapts a literary stage play? Bertaut has taught Shakespeare for 15 years at the university level; I'm sure he'd appreciate a few pointers on what is and isn't necessary in order to understand a particular point.

Keep all four images. No copyrights are being violated; this is fair use. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are lucky Im in a good mood or I would be taking this to ANI requesting your block for blatant personal attacks, consider this a final warning. Wikipedia's policies are far more strict than that set forth by fair use law. If you want to illustrate the stagecraft you can do that using free images. Wikipedia's usage of images has two classes, free and non-free. Free files can and are used liberally, however the usage of non-free files is highly restricted. There are quite a few examples where "fair use" would allow something but wikipedia policies prohibit that use. Can anyone explain how a free replacement of File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg would be detrimental to the understanding of the play? To me it looks like a bloody woman on the ground with her hands cut off, something fairly easily replaced by text and or re-stageable and possible to re-create and get a free version of it. Werieth (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you've got an itchy ANI trigger finger. I can see how you might be able to squeeze in a case using #2, since I questioned Kww on what experience enabled him to overrule the judgment of an academic with 15 years in the field under discussion. How that can be construed as an ad hominem attack is, I suppose, yet another field of esoteric expertise we mere content editors are not privy to, since the question certainly is not irrelevant to the critical matter upon which he offered his comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this matter should be dropped. Kww's experience is on editing matter in Wikipedia, and what may or may not be reasonably included in Wikipedia. What he said is not relevant to his expertise on any specific subject, but is relevant to non-free file usage in Wikipedia, and that is what is we are discussing here. It would be wrong to question him on his knowledge on Shakespeare because that is not relevant here, and the discussion would get sidetracked. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't react well or wisely when threatened; comments struck out. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is fundamentally a difference between a visual presentation of an art form and mere description with word. You cannot adequately describe visual art with words, or rather, you cannot reasonably expect most people to (some of the best writers have highly descriptive prose, but you cannot reasonably expect a wikipedia editor to have such skill, and even the best writer can fail in their descriptive power). By your argument, you can delete the iconic album image of Beatles' Abbey Road (it's just 4 men crossing a road, isn't it?}, or their White Album (errr, it's mostly just a white page, surely you can do that with any painting software?), and extend that to TV, films, music, and great majority of media files. An image of a particular production cannot be reasonably replace with an image from another production or recreation, just as you can't replace an image from Star Wars with your and your friend playing with light sabers. Such recreation has no useful meaning. The production of a play is unique, and the images from that play would be unique to itself. Hzh (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, however this isnt a visual work, this is working from text. The article isnt about a particular performance, but rather the play as a whole. The way the file is used in the article, its used as an example of realism. Given that the article is about a 400 year old play re-creating a scene is possible. The argument here doesnt apply to Abby road, as that file has a different criteria for usage. It is the primary visual identification for a non-free work. (which in this case the work is outside copyright). Take The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as an example the work is outside of copyright and we dont use non-free files to illustrate it. PLEASE USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON Werieth (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your argument would apply to a book, but this is not a book. It is a play, it is meant to be a visually represented on the stage or screen, not something simply to be read. Therefore how the play is staged, the various productions, and illustration of such productions, is entirely relevant to the article. And as stated, each productions is unique to its own, you cannot simply replace one with another that's also unique. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact the images are being used to illustrate the unique visual differences in the staging of a 400-year-old work, i.e. particular performances, contrary to Werieth's assertion.

I have a suggestion that can put this entire issue at rest, how about you, Werieth, give us an example of "re-creating a scene" to illustrate just one of the points Bertaut makes in the article. (My immediate reaction to reading that was a mental image of how tabloids use archive images to illustrate their stories: "Lady Wilmington shot her husband using a pistol much like the one illustrated above". I suppose we could do the same for the article: "Realistic effects and blood much like the illustration were used for the character of Lavinia, played by Laura Rees, in Lucy Bailey's 2006 production at Shakespeare's Globe") Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am for keeping both play images, Werieth does have a point that as presented, the Rees image (and caption) alone is borderline. However, I point to an initial comment that I agreed on - that the Rees play image and the Ninagawa one, showing the same scene but diametrically opposite fashion in terms of using costume, makeup, and props, are counterpoints to each other. I ask if it is possible to somehow rewrite the article or the like such that these two images can be used in close proximity/side-by-side, along with text from critical sources that compare these specific productions? --MASEM (t) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• A similar image from a different performance is here there is nothing about what license the file is under, but if someone contacts the user they may be willing to re-license the image. As anyone attempted to contact the copyright holder of the Rees image and inquire about release? (I would bet not) However often groups are willing to do just that if we ask. Given that the article is just using that file as an example of the realism why cant a free substitute work? Is this a case that no one has bothered to try and acquire a free image? or that its not possible to create an image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Werieth (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to keep repeating that each performance is unique, and that recreating something yourself would not be true to that, however good you think it is. The article wrote about that particular production, so you illustrate it with images from that production, rather than some random recreation. If you think you can sound exactly like Mariah Carey there is still no way you would be allowed to illustrate one of her songs with one of your recordings. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah Ha, we have a break through here! Lets extrapolate the example you give with Carey. The this article isnt about Carey, but about a specific sub type of R&B which Carey is well known for. She may be the most widely known example of the style, but just about any musician can provide an example of the style. We should reference the fact that Carey is widely know for the style but the example doesnt need to be her, anyone can provide the clip. Getting back to Andronicus, the article is about the 400 year old play, not a articular production of it. Right now the Rees photo is being used to in reference to that production, but its primarily an example of the realism portrayal, and that exact image isnt critical to understanding the play as a whole, but only as an example of the style that some directors are using for the play. Which Rees may be the most notable example of that style, but any similar example can serve the same encyclopedic function. Just because we reference one example of the realism doesnt mean we have to display a non-free picture of it, when a freely licensed image of a similarly realistic image could serve the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that no, it isn't being used to illustrate "realistic stage techniques", or "various Titus Andronicus interpretations", it is being used to illustrate a particularly controversial staging. That's why we have sections in articles, so that we might go into detail on the various aspects of a 400-year-old (or brand new, as far as that goes)play. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• God Lord, I wasn't expecting to have to read this much material when I got home. Apologies that I can't be online more often, but I only really get the chance to participate when I get home from work in the evenings. So having read everything above, my original position remains unchanged, and I see little point in repeating what I've already said, but I would like to address a couple of issues which have been raised. I agree with what Wrad says about communicating. This also leads into a point Hzh makes. Werith is wrong when he says "this isn't a visual work." That's exactly what it is. Titus Andronicus is not a book - it's a play. It wasn't written to be read, it was written to be seen. That's one of the first things you teach students of drama. I remember the first plays I studied in college were Sophocles' Theban plays, and the lecturer used a performance video during her classes, especially when she was talking about how violent the blinding scene can be. Hzh's point about different opinions as to what constitutes a "realistic" production is also important. Different people can get different ideas in their head when you utilise terms such as "realistic approach" and (especially) "stylised approach," so using extreme examples of each is a good way of grounding the discussion. And I think Tom is also correct when he says you could apply Kww's reasoning to 90% of the images on Wikipedia. With the exception of perhaps illustrative diagrams and the like on scientific articles, pretty much every single image on the website (free or non-free) could theoretically be replaced with prose. As regards Hzh's question about placing the images side by side. I think that would be difficult as they are in different sections in the article, but text could certainly be added to directly contrast the productions, and with a bit of digging, I'm sure reviews could be found which do the same. That wouldn't be a problem. Bertaut (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you could apply my logic to a lot of images on Wikipedia. It's not applicable to free images, though, only copyrighted ones. That's why outside of the identification uses (logos, album covers, single covers, and book covers used in articles about the respective products or companies, albums, singles, and books), non-free images rarely survive deletion review. It's rarely necessary to use copyrighted images to illustrate concepts.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Those two images aren't specifically for illustrating concepts only, but they are used to illustrate particular pieces of work that are the subjects of critical commentary and discussion. That is generally permissable per WP:NFCI, no different from the screenshot as described in #5 and visual art in #7. Hzh (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I could possibly be persuaded with the Ninagawa image, but not the Rees. Nothing about the NFCI criteria overrides NFCC#8, and the Rees image doesn't pass NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I go back to my earlier point that if there was a way to use both the Rees and Ninagawa on the same line - supported by critical discussion - to compare and contrast modern stage productions's use of visuals, you'd have a stronger reason to keep Rees, but I would edge on it being very borderline (the Rees image) in standalone as it is, even with the text about that play itself. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So if we don't like the results of an NFCR FfD we just keep nominating an image until we get the result we want? Just like some editors, the side with the most persistence wins. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop mis-representing things. You are referencing Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg which is a poorly done FfD, not a Non-free content review. Also note the FfD is two years old. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, you're indeed correct. I'm no expert on deletion procedure. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So Masem, just so I'm clear, you're saying essentially the same thing as Hzh - move the images closer together and include some kind of critical commentary directly contrasting the productions? That can certainly be done. As regards academic work, one would, unfortunately, be quite limited in what one has to chose from. The only scholarly edition of Titus published post-2006 is the Cambridge Shakespeare edition by Alan Hughes, but that was only a 2nd edition and contains nothing on either production. The other main source would be the second edition of Manchester University Press' superb 1980s Shakespeare in Performance Series. The Titus book, by Michael D. Friedman, was only published in July of this year, and I haven't seen it yet, but it is interesting to note that one of the chapters is actually called "Yukio Ninagawa, Bill Alexander, Gale Edwards, Richard Rose, and Lucy Bailey". So there'd certainly be material there. The original In Performance series was excellent, and the Titus book by Alan C. Dessen is considered the definitive source for material up to that time period. However, what would be more readily available would be professional journalistic material of the time. The productons took place within a couple of months of one another on two of the most significant Shakespearian stages in the world, so reviews of the time would certainly compare them. And it wouldn't be hard to locate such reviews. The bottom line is what you're suggesting could certainly be done. Bertaut (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would help a lot; I obviously can't judge without seeing the results but my first take is that it is a much better situation than the present towards better justifying both images. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done a very very quick search on JSTOR and found reviews in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator, The Independent and The New York Times all contrasting the productions, as well as a 2013 essay in Early Modern Literary Studies focused entirely on the contrast between the depiction of the rape scene in the two plays; "Mythological reconfigurations on the contemporary stage: Giving a New Voice to Philomela in Titus Andronicus." Bertaut (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the type of sourcing that would drastically help with the non-free imagery. I would suggest we hold off on these two images until Bertaut + others have had a chance to work those in. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that the proposed text is sufficiently to understand what's going on, and that a non-free image won't significantly enhance that understanding of what "with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath", and how that is contrasted with red ribbons. The article sure looks better with the pictures in it, but looking better is not a good argument for using non-free content. 77.241.234.180 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right so, all done. Moved the Ninagawa paragraph from the "Adaptations" section into the "Performance" section, so the images are now right beside one another, and added a paragraph of journalistic and academic material discussing the two productions. Bertaut (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's still nothing about the topic that is difficult to understand with respect to the image of Rees. Ninagawa comes closer. I would still argue that it's not necessary to understand that particular depiction in order to understand Titus Andronicus, but I also recognize that that's not a clear-cut issue.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cardinal McCloskey.jpg

This is a painting of a man who died in 1885. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment directly below. The two paintings are suspiciously in the same style. In any case it should be a matter of asking whoever published them where they obtained the images. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

File:3rd Bishop of New york.jpg

This is a painting of a man who died in 1842. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing at the source to indicate when the painting was actually painted. That being said, I find the date "2013" listed at the file page to be highly improbably. Unfortuantely, in the absence of a source that conclusively dates the painting, we can't assume PD-old. That being said, I would remove the image as it is overwhelmingly likely that there is a PD-old painting of this person out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the faults in the uploading process is that it asks when "this file" was created. Obviously in a lot of cases that answer would be the time at which it is being uploaded or shortly before. I went looking and every PD-old image seems to have been based on that painting, including black-and-white representations from books published in the late-19th to early-20th centuries. However we all know of paitings that have been based on older drawings, and the style seems to be consistent with paintings of other bishops before and after him, so it cannot be said confidently that this painting is, in fact, old and out of copyright. The uploader needs to do some due diligence and contact the diocese or publisher and learn exactly when this portrait was painted. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I contacted the Archives of the Archdiocese of New York (the immediate source of the image) asking for any information for this and the above image to discover their copyright status. The responder to my request was less than helpful and they were not willing to give me any information about the paintings. It is also worth noting that the Archives is closed until December 2013 due to them moving. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

History of painting

I don't see the justification for 46 fair use images in 1 article. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current state of this article, I do know there have been issues with this article and image use before and there's general agreement that some non-free examples are appropriate but they have to be discussed as prime examples of contemporary art. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article has too many unfree images. However, I think that we need to split this up on multiple discussions as the discussion otherwise risks being too messy. It might work to have one discussion per section as all images are specifically related to one section.

I also think that the article contains too many free images. It is very painful to read the article on a small screen. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, outside the NFC issue, the huge number of images is a problem for viewers on the low bandwidth/small device side. Since each section is basically a summary of the article under the leading "main" link, there definitely could be a cut-back in the number of images overall, working that if more examples are wanted by the viewer, they can clickthrough to the article, or even a Commons image category. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Customizing a major survey article so that it will read well on a mobile phone screen seems a bit Procrustean to me, especially since tablets are becoming the most common device used to access the Internet. The most important priorities for an encyclopedia article is that it be accurate and comprehensive. I took several art history classes at university and we looked at literally hundreds of slides of paintings and sculptures. Is there some way to code images so that they wouldn't show up in the en.m.wikipedia.org mode? Or, since WP articles show up with section links on mobile phones, perhaps the great majority of the images could be placed in galleries so that the text and the images would be in separate sections. Either would be a better solution than denuding the article of most of its images, because any article on the history of painting with few images would be third-rate coming out of the chute. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Except we're not an education institution, we're a tertiary source; showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article. We still consider size limitations - not just reading area size but bandwidth (particularly as many mobile plans have capped data limits). Remember, we're not saying that to outright remove the images, just better use sub-articles on the individual eras where putting a single 30-some image gallery makes sense, than to have 5-8 30-image galleries on one page. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article." Huh? You might want to take down volume 25 of Encyclopædia Britanicca (another tertiary source) and thumb through the article "Painting, The History of Western" if you think it doesn't make sense that encyclopedia articles use lots of pictures.

And EB was never known for spending money when they could get something for free, a tradition they hold dear to this day, and all the copyrighted images (lots more than a paltry 46) include acknowledgements for permission to publish, a methodology WP editors could profitably imitate, thereby rendering most of these discussions moot.

Good luck on finding all those editors to rewrite the sub-articles so we can accommodate the literally dozens, I'm sure, of those people with low-data phone plans who now are unable to slake their curiosity while driving down the road. I did not know that our original vision had been revised; I must have missed Jimmy Wales' announcement:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the amount of human knowledge that can be reasonably accommodated on a cell phone with a low data plan. That’s what we're doing." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

All the sub articles are already there - all those "main article" and "see also" links. And using lots of pictures harms our chances to meet that quote, because that is overhead on data plans. This is why you have to understand, we are not paper - this means we can cover more, but our presentation is going to be far different from normal printed works too. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't click on the link, did you? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering that Wales has no say outside of being another voice in contributions on en.wiki, what he says has no weight irregardless. en.wiki has accessibility requirements for articles to meet the broadest range of devices, and what's being asked is onyl to trim the excessive image use from one article, given that the other sub-articles all can support the respective galleries. We're not losing anything at all. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read the entire page out and its links, and we have no policies, guidelines, or even suggestions restricting the number of images that can accompany an article.

I think there needs to be a serious rethinking of image use policy. Is there a formal discussion going on anywhere that you know?

And just FYI:

1.WP:JIMBO

2. irregardless Tom Reedy (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE (particularly the section about technical reasons), and MOS:IMAGES (under Consideration of dl size) then if ACCESS doesn't convince you. No, nothing there says you can't flood an article with images but common sense is clear. If we aim to limit text to about about 100k of prose, we also need to keep image amounts to a reasonable level. Are we asking all pictures to be stripped from History? Heck no, but really, you don't need those galleries - one or two images in each major section - with the associated links to the various periods and schools that already exist - would do the same job. Again, this is why we aren't paper - a paper encyclopedia could make one nice long article with all these images, no question, but we have to serve that content in chunks that are better suited for the digital world. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That is why I asked if there were any way to limit the number of images that would be downloaded by a mobile device while leaving them in for a full-scale computer (though my phone has a much larger capability than my first computer did). I don't know if there is a list of articles by size, but I daresay the 100KB limit is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Seriously, it's not 2001 any more, or even 2010, and I think a lot of WP policies need to be scrutinised in light of the major changes that have come about in the digital world since then. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Im using a new computer, and almost 400 images causes issues for me. Back in 2001 1-5 images was a lot, now 100 would be about the same. This article as almost 400. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Downloading problems are generally caused by bandwidth, not computers. I have an 11-year-old computer that downloads just as quickly as my brand new laptop. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Im on a 11 Mbps connection, which is fast so its not my connection. It takes a good 30-60 seconds to load the page, and causes the browser to temporarily hang. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI: I'm running the low-end Verizon FIOS (15/5 Mbps) and it took a total of 8 seconds to load the entire page from the click. I'm on a Dell Inspiron 17 with an i3 chip and using Windows 8 and Firefox browser. 30-60 seconds? Something's wrong somewhere in your setup. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

He said it was his computer, not bandwidth. I can attest that with even a fast gaming computer here running Windows 7, History of Painting takes a good half-minute to load all the images. And this is far higher than what we consider as the lowest common denominator for devices. Remember, we have to think about people in schools in Africa or the like, probably using donated or low cost computer that are 5+ years old. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking 100k of readable prose - this is after in-wiki markup like tables and citations - and then there is that conversion to HTML. I just checked History of Painting and the as-delivered HTML is 608k, from 118k of prose (see this tool). That dosn't include images; average thumbs are between 6 and 10kb, and take the 391 number below, and that's now 2.3M - a total of 3 M for an article. Consider that many people have data plans limited to 5 GB for mobile, you've just used 0.1% of their bandwidth for the month. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The points I'm bringing up are more general than this particular article, which is why I asked if any kind of discussion was going on about updating policies. I'm in the middle of a major project at the moment, but I'll keep a note on my back burner to pursue this once it's completed. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that es:Historia de la pintura is a much better article. There are much fewer images and usually not more than one per section. The article is more focused on the text, and it is easier to read through the article. Spanish Wikipedia doesn't host any local images, meaning that only free images from Commons can be shown, but this should only affect the "modern" sections; the sections about art from hundreds of years ago should be unaffected. For example, Spanish Wikipedia only shows one photo from the renaissance whereas English Wikipedia has 24 images in the section "Renaissance and Mannerism". --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the last section on modern schools and I disagree with you. Aesthetically the layout is more pleasing, but it's not a better article than the English language page. And with that, gentlemen, I'll leave it with you until my return. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And importantly, these galleries can be related to the individual articles (if not there already), so no effective content is lost. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are a total of 391 images on that page. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• It's an important article - and images need to be seen. There are important images from antiquity through the early 21st century and an article on the visual arts is visual. In my opinion the english wp article is far superior to the similar art historical articles in other languages; we should be proud of what we have...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • But the same picture galleries can be shown on the separate school/period articles without running against WP's accessibility size issues. Again, its not stripping all images or removing from WP, but realizing that you can't have 391 images in a single article (free or otherwise) without burdening the end user. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It has been suggested to me in the past - to break it down into periods; or to subdivide into separate articles/ the 20th century and the 21st century are clearly the most difficult to do for a number of reasons. Not only the imagery (many of which are unfree) but also because of historical significance which shifts as tastes change; and remains unclear and complex. In my opinion it's a great article that by necessity bends the rules but delivers the goods...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It is already broken down by periods/schools, that's the thing - all those "main article" and "seealso" links. All that needs to be done, effectively, is remove the galleries and relocate them to these articles as necessary, leaving maybe about 30-50 images inline (as several are now) as a top level demonstration. You already have it set up nicely for summary style approach, and we're not asking for a rewrite here. If one would consider an printed version, likely all those sub-articles would be part of the main article that would last for 30-40 printed pages, but a digital version of that is far too much bandwidth for something of that size. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Several years ago re these issues regarding the History of painting I created and/or expanded History of Eastern art, Western painting, and 20th-century Western painting. However the History of painting article explores in depth painting from all over the world including works from Antiquity, Caves, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the European middle ages, the European Renaissance, modern Europe, Islam, Pakistan, Iran, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, India, Africa, North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, the Philipines, China, Japan, Southeast Asia; et.al. both historical and contemporary works under one roof which is an enormously valuable asset to all and should be preserved...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • And we're not telling you to dismantle the prose at any of those articles that you've spent time to develop - just relocate the image galleries to the respective subarticles. History of Painting - given how broad and deep the concept of painting goes - has to serve as a good high-level outline article, which it does now without editing any prose; in a printed version, it might serve as an exec summary/quick overview before each school is explored in detail in a single large monolithic article. WP can't support articles of such length in considering our lowest common denominator of viewing devices, and you've already done all the hard work in creating the smaller articles. You just don't need image galleries in the top-level article when they serve a much better job in the side articles. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dropped in to see if a disposition had been reached and thought of a few more comments, and then I'll leave it with you:

1. The article is now ~200kb, 100 over the recommended page size. I know that Masem said above that the as-delivered HTML KB was in the 600s, but my page information says 122.03 KB. Why the difference in reading?

2. The article now is 200KB, and it has hovered between that and 195KB for 2 1/2 years now. In fact, in May 2010, 3 1/2 years ago (the bottom of the first page of edit history), it was 175KB, so why the urgency to cut down the images. Have any irate cell phone users or people with slow Internet connections been complaining? How about the technical people, are they complaining about the strain on the servers?

3. Last I checked, this is the non-free content forum, not the oversize article forum. The inciting post asked for justification for 46 fair use images in one article, such discussions being within the scope of this forum, but it has gotten sidetracked into areas outside the purview of this policy and become an exercise in administrative deletionism and rewriting the mission statement of Wikipedia (heavily ironic in my view given the editing histories I've been browsing lately). I see no discussion whatsoever about the rationale for the fair use images; presumably if they're all moved to another page they're fine. At least that's the message I'm getting from the discussion here, that the non-free is not the problem, the real problem is too much content in an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Spltting the galleries across the individual period/schools articles will include spreading the amount of non-free across those in the contemporary period, thus reducing the NFC issue too. Yes, the total image count (free + nonfree) is still a problem too, but the solution to fix both are integrated. We are definitely not talking about deletion as nearly all the non-frees being used have articles on the individual works, and moving the galleries to smaller articles can allow more room to discuss the importance of those works. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And as for page size, my 600k count was from copying the page source as a whole to a text editor to get the count there. I suspect the 200k you have is raw character count (ignoring HTML), as the raw prose count (that ignoring references, headers, and other non-prose sections) is just north of 100k. And the page size has always been a problem , but it is impossible to get the editors on that page to do anything about it since they think it is fine as is. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've put the larger question about SIZE and number of images to VPP [9]. As what might result will impact if we need to deal with the number of NFCC after that, I recommend closing this thread, opening it only if it is necessary pending that discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - about education and conveying information - not I-Phone candy; this feels like censorship under another name. The article is a good one...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. We are not trying to outright delete the images - we are trying to bring the article into conformity with the rest of WP policies on accessibility and non-free content. Every article has to meet that. What works great in textbooks and printed material simply can't work on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're plain wrong. Clearly this is a major attempt at censorship; with an incorrect interpretation of the guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea what censorship is, then. Are we trying to prevent these pictures from being show at all, anywhere, on WP? Heck no. I've said before, all of them are notable pieces of art, and so a non-free image of them is perfectly fine on the article pages, as well in limited cases of artist pages. Some selected examples are perfectly fine in talking about modern schools of art. We just don't need or can support a large gallery of non-free images (or images in general) on a high-level outline article. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what censorship means. The article is important, educational and encyclopedic and stays as is - to the contrary of what this projects incorrect interpretations of guidelines dictate...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you know what it is, then don't call something that's not censorship as "censorship", that's pretty much the equivalent of calling to Godwin's Law in terms of non-free policies. You cannot dictate how the article will appear, that is up to consensus (BTW: this is policy issues, not guidelines, so there's a stronger need to conform to the expected). And while I agree that it is pleasant to look at with the galleries, it will lose no education value or its importance (in considering there are dozens of side articles on specific periods and schools) if the galleries were simply removed, leaving everything else intact. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of writing about visual art, the suppression of visual content is censorship, because in the absence of the images, the text can convey little. Arguably, the images are more important than their accompanying text. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Censorship would be forbidding any text or images about visual art, period, from being on WP, anywhere. We are saying, on this one specific article, you can't have as many images as you currently you, but you can show them at several other locations on WP including on articles about the artist and the work itself. No information is being surpressed. The cries of censorship are bogus here. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

File:McCann right eye.jpg

File doesnt meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The section tells that she had a distinctive coloboma mark, and the image shows what that looks like. I think that the image is replaceable with Commons:Special:PrefixIndex/File:Coloboma. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

However, we have a free image of a similar (not example) mark on that page, and as we are not a missing-child-tracking-service, it is unnecessary for us to show exactly what her mark looks like, particularly given that this image File:Madeleine_McCann,_aged_three_and_(age-progressed)_nine.jpg also shows the same mark (albeit not at that resolution) as well as fully identifying her. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant: the image violates WP:NFCC#1 because similar images exist on Commons. Unrelated to this, I have nominated one of the Commons files for deletion, but this doesn't change anything with regard to File:McCann right eye.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Werieth doesn't say why the image doesn't meet the NFCC. It has been the subject of extensive commentary. It shows Madeleine's key distinguishing feature, and it isn't possible to describe this using words alone, so per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia, its readers, and perhaps the family and police are helped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It hurts WP's free content mission, and the current image used in the infobox clearly shows the eye deformity, so the image fails WP:NFCC#3a, minimal use as duplicative of the infobox image. (Again, we are not a missing child finding service; it's great they want to have the photos widely distributed to locate their daughter, but that's not our job here) --MASEM (t) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How does the image hurt Wikipedia's free-content mission? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The file is non-free. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Every piece of non-free harms the free mission, thus why minimization of non-free is first and foremost. And since we have an image already that shows the eye, we don't need a second one. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep If this image were in use on the coloboma article then the nomination would have some merit. However, the section is describing Madeleine and inparticular a distinctive feature of her face i.e. we are not interested in showing what a coloboma looks like, we are showing what her coloboma looks like. It meets the FU criteria: it is the subject of sourced commentary, not replaceable by a free image, and conveys visual information about Madeleine that cannot be described by text alone. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But again File:Madeleine McCann, aged three and (age-progressed) nine.jpg (which is of no question in its use in the article) also shows her coloboma feature, and thus this specific image is duplicative per WP:NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can barely make out the mark in the infobox image. The purpose of the infobox image is to show her face not an eye defect, so it has been sized to that effect. To serve both purposes the infobox image would need to be much bigger, but the only part of the image that really needs to be at a higher resolution is her eye, which takes us back to where we are now. If we cut to the chase we have free content guidelines so Wikipedia won't be legally compromised, and no-one is going to sue the foundation over this image. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can see it, and even then, this would be a case where I would consider the original resolution (or something in between) to be appropriate to use to show this off while providing the image of the child and minimizing non-free use by using one image instead of two. And no, the free content guideline is not to prevent WP from being sued, but to maintain the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And to check, I just compared what I would crop to in that original image to match the crop of this image in question, and basically have the same end resolution (about 120x90 px) -- as such this solution would not lose any "high resolution" details of this eye crop image. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not about coloboma. The images in the coloboma set are nothing like hers, and their use in the disappearance article would not inform -- they might even mislead. The reduced image used in the infobox does not adequately inform. The article needs a focussed depiction of this specific feature of this specific face. A crop of the full-size version would serve (isn't that what the picture in question is?), but that is also copyright (of the McCanns). So I don't believe NFCC#1 and/or NFCC#3a are violated. The McCanns' permission could be asked, but I think this is already a fair use. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it's a slightly different image (the hair is a bit darker). But note that I'm not talking about a crop of the face image - I'm saying that if you take the face (the photo + current day extrapolation), at the full size it was in the Telegraph article, then the resolution of the eye in that image is nearly-exactly the same as the resolution currently used for the current crop of the eye. So the only correct action is to reupload and adjust the justification of the comparison image, explaining that in addition to identification it is also highlighting her coloboma, and then delete this image. No crop of the eye would be appropriate since it is visible even at thumb size and then can be seen in detail if the reader clicks through. You cannot have both the identification picture and a crop of the eye as long as the infobox image clearly shows the coloboma (just not at high detail.) --MASEM (t) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The apparent difference in hair colour is probably an artefact of the creation process. The image file for the eye picture refers to the Belfast Telegraph, but with duff links. You may like to compare the picture used by the Belfast Telegraph here with the one used by the Daily Telegraph. They are the same picture. Now, NFCC#3a includes the phrase "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Certainly, the existing reduced image in the infobox fails to do that. I argue that the full image also fails to do that: an image that draws attention to the eye as its only significant feature and an image of the whole face plus a speculative image of how she may now appear convey very different kinds of information. Few readers will know how to click through to the full-size version. I'm arguing essentially that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (to use the terms of NFCC#8). --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
      • If it is a crop from the same image, that's an outright failure of NFC; we don't use crops, we use larger images, and if that means that not only we use the larger size Telegraph image, but also increase the size of the image as used at the article to reduce non-free, that's the solution we take. Mind you, I storngly argue against how important an image solely of her coloboma is - it is clearly present on the thumb size, enough to establish that this is an identifying mark. That's all it is, like a birthmark or something similar. It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia, and we cannot justify a non-free image of her specific coloboma in an article about her and her disappearance, when that feature is clearly present in a separate image. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Please could you show me where it says we are not to use crops? Because at WP:IUP#FORMAT, I find "A limited variety of edits (crops, rotation, flips) can be performed losslessly using jpegcrop (windows) or jpegtran (other); try to use this where possible." I suggest that the argument "It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia" is a strawman, because I have not argued (and nor has anyone else here) that we are here to help find missing children. But if you want to pronounce that "we cannot justify" something, let me ask you this: we are making an encyclopedia, which is a resource to educate people, right? Now why would anyone want to educate people about the disappearance of a 3-year-old-girl, or draw any attention to a 3-year-old girl? Morbid curiosity, or is there a better reason? If we can agree on that, then we might agree on what can be justified. And I'd also like to ask this: has anyone yet asked the McCanns, whose copyright the image on the left of the montage is, what they think of our use of it? --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • A crop of an image already on the page is repeating an image which is against WP:NFCC#3a. And with that current image used to identify the girl in the infobox, you've also identified her distinguishing mark so in terms of an encyclopedia article, one non-free image is all that is necessary and satisifies the minimization of non-free content. If the mark was something not obvious from her profile shot, like a unique birthmark under her hair or elsewhere on her body, and was the subject of discussion, that might be reason for using a close up of that mark, but we're talking about her eye which is clearly seen at thumbnail size in the profile image currently.
          • And again, the key here is that the image is non-free specifically because the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified, which fails the free media test for WP. This is an issue about meeting the Foundation's free content mission, not about any possible legal issues with the McCanns. If they did release the images for free completely, then there would be no argument about these. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
            • "the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified": I wish you had said that at the outset. Have you a citation, please? --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
              • That's what SlimVirgin said above: "The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse." I have not checked on that verification, but I do think that is a reasonable reason on their side to not make it free. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                • "need to be able to take action against misuse" is NOT the same as "but not modified". If you had provided evidence that they had said anything that would clearly forbid a crop, I'd have changed my !vote, but that is not a fair representation. I've had my say and have paid careful attention to what you've said, but if you're going to misrepresent things, I'm done debating with you and my !vote remains as strong keep. Of course I understand that the law and Wikipedia policy trump all our !votes, but you have failed to convince me. Closer: if I fail to make any further replies, please don't apply "silence implies consent". In my case, it doesn't. --Stfg (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, that's not what I trying to say (my bad on the confusion). There is nothing in their language that prevents us from making a crop, attributed to the original image, so no, that's not why I'm saying we can't use the crop; that is strictly coming from our NFCC language and specifically WP:NFCC#3a. (The reason I need to bring up what the McCann's said is that regardless of how widely distributed they want these images, they fail to be free images under Foundation's definition due to the inability for end-user modification - that is, this is not a legal issue with the McCann's copyright or potential for abuse, but trying to maintain our free content mission. We are able to use one non-free image instead of two simply by using the higher-res profile shot; since that minimizes non-free, that's the route we are required to take. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                    • Very well. I have never disputed the picture's non-free status. We disagree on the question of fair use and on your reading of what NFCC requires. My view hasn't changed, but I shall now stand aside for others to have their say, and defer to the closer. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I didn't say the McCanns want the image to be reproduced but not modified (clearly, by cropping it, it has been modified). I said that I assume they can't release it under a free licence in case it is ever misused. The family has been pestered by Internet trolls for five years, and they might want to retain legal control of images for that reason. Having said that, the image has been published widely by friend and foe, including on a book cover by someone who has accused them of involvement in her death. They are suing the author for defamation, but have made no attempt to have the cover changed that I know of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hrw froth.PNG

In a previous discussion Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Image discussion a question came up about interpretation of policy. Relevant policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use: 5. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. and Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. An editor was arguing that this article [10] includes the image with commentary. However, the article makes no mention of this image and has no commentary about it. There's nothing iconic about it because it's very similar to lots of other images. Free alternatives are available on Commons. [11] USchick (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

USchick could you clarify your position? You say "Free alternatives are available on Commons" but in other edits you're trying to delete the free alternatives on Commons. Did you change your mind about their deletion, or are you advocating we use the free alternatives until or unless you succeed in deleting them, at which time we should switch back to the current image? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I can only go with what we have right now, and right now there are free images available on Commons. USchick (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific image itself is not the subject of critical discussion (the articles say what's happening, but that's not the critical discussion we need), and currently doesn't help the image. If that image, for example, had specifically sparked attention that civilians including children were being hit by the chemical weapons and subsequently outrage at the world at large, that would be one thing. But the attacks have been widely reported and no imagery was needed to highlight these attacks, and thus the image is extraneous. The free images pointed out certainly would do just the same job showing that the attacks affected people from all walks of life that this non-free is doing as well. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: the image was cited by Human Rights Watch as indicative not just of a child victim, but a child victim showing symptoms of a chemical attack. This specific image was identified, by a third party, as evidence that the attack used sarin. I have not seen any image on Commons that shows a child experiencing symptoms specific to sarin like this, and in any case it would be original research to state that they were experiencing sarin symptoms unless a secondary source had also performed the analysis on that image. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That specific image is not called out as evidence. I do note from this section of their findings that they looked at "publicly posted YouTube videos from the attacked areas" (emphasis on the plural "videos"), and to me, sure, judging the type of chemical attack used would be a reasonable thing to interpret from that, but there's no evidence that that single image was used for this. As such, you can certainly cite the report and say that they say it was sarin, and you don't need an image to show that, because that's what HRW has done for us. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

From the image caption at [12]: "A still image from a youtube video uploaded by opposition activists following the August 21 alleged chemical attack shows a child victim of the attack frothing form the mouth, a medical condition associated with the exposure to nerve agents such as Sarin." This is a caption of the specific image in question. How do you conclude that there's no evidence that that single image was used for this? VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone's unable to find it, the caption and slideshow are in Flash; you'll need to enable Flash if you haven't already to see the captions (see the image's discussion page.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They're using that image - as well as several others (plus the videos themselves) - to demonstrate that Sarin was used. We don't have to repeat that image to accurately include their assessment of the attack. It's not being used in a critical manner but an analytical manner. It is not necessary to see that to understand the HRW's conclusion - that Sarin was the likely agent used in the attacks. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploader here. I saw four alternative files in commons, Ghouta_Massacre1 through Ghouta_Massacre4. I removed the Ghouta_Massacre1 from the article (see here [13]) because of WP:RS a while back. (Note that WP:RS is grounds for removing the link to the image in that context, not for deleting the image itself.) All four commons files seem to have the same problem of WP:RS. (As an aside, I can't verify that the other four files are actually Creative Commons as tagged: is there something on the Youtube pages that I'm missing, or were those four files mistagged as CC like many of Wikipedia's images?) FWIW I agree with VQuakr but am not an expert on image policy; my only request is that we have one or more editors who are "un-involved"; I know USchick, like myself and VQuakr, are deeply involved in the Syria pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The commons images do appear to be taken from youtube videos that were posted with Commons-compatible licenses. They do not show the effects of sarin like this one, though, so I do not consider them free equivalents. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, even if we don't have free images, do we need to see an image of one of the victims frothing at the mouth to understand the statement: "The HRW used civilian photos and videos to determine that Sarin gas was used in the attack" with a source to that report? Or even "Civilian photographs and videos that showed victims frothing at the mouth led the HRW to conclude that Sarin gas was used in the attack"? You don't need to show what the HRW used to make their conclusion to support their statement. That's the issue where we're lacking critical commentary on the image; it's a data point, not a photo of historical significance. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know what it means for someone to froth at the mouth from Sarin, so I found the picture educational; that's why I uploaded it. Is the mouth completely filled with saliva? How foamy is it? How easily could it be confused with normal drooling? A picture is worth a thousand words. That said, if we can get more non-involved editors (like you, presumably) to weigh in and provide consensus, then obviously we can delete it if that's the consensus. To get an idea of where you're coming from, can you give me an example, say from the Holocaust article, of something where you would agree a disturbing image is "necessary" to understand one of the article's statements? To go out on a limb here, is part of the concern the fact that documentary images here are necessarily going to be disturbing? If so, we should probably speak about and address that tradeoff directly, maybe we can find something less disturbing to replace it with. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, to be clear - the issue with this image has absolutely nothing with being "disturbing"; WP does not censor information like this, and while we have the principle of least surprise, a reader reading about these chemical weapon attacks should be well aware that it was a possibly gruesome event and there may be imagery in question.

Now, I was writing my response to all this, but I've come to realize that there's actually a fair use for this photo, and that is based on what you mentioned that you have no idea what a Sarin-affected victim looked like. Given that there is no way in any sense of the word that we could obtain a free equivalent (It would be one thing for me to subject myself to the common cold to get a picture of me affected by it, but in this case??) In light of what you pointed out about commons, then this image has a very appropriate use over at Sarin as an example of the effects on humans (despite the tragic circumstances it was obtained from), and by extension is likely okay on this Syria article (and that in part is what you mentioned about several of the images about the Holocaust which I know have been discussed and kept in the same "is this historically significant" argument. This is also in light of the fact that you had to remove many of the commons images as likely non-free, eliminating free media that would have otherwise shown the attack's affects. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if Masem's argument is to be considered, the place to talk about sarin exposure is in an article about sarin exposure, not a specific attack in one particular place. The photo would still have to meet the other criteria of having to be iconic and discussed in the media. One article with no discussion hardly qualifies. Also, frothing at the mouth has to do with asphyxiation, and not necessarily sarin, so that's not a very good reason. When people die, they lose muscle control so all kinds of fluids and bodily functions leak out, do we need to see that in this article as well? I would direct all discussions about post-mortem imagery to autopsy. Just saying. USchick (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem on this and USchick also. Blade-of-the-South talk 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Artist's impression, Madeleine McCann disappearance.jpg

Not sure why this image is in the article, it is extremely vague and not needed. Scotland Yard said this month that they now believe this man was not involved. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even in such a case that the man may have still been wanted, we are not a police blotter, and such perp sketches are not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. This image is an integral part of the story and has been the subject of extensive commentary. It's an artist's impression from 2008 based on a key witness statement, one that for five years was thought to be an image of the abductor, and which determined what time the police believed the abduction to have taken place. I've posted a description of the images on the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if anyone commenting would read it, particularly nos 3 and 4 to understand the relationship between this image (the Tanner report) and one of the e-fits (the Smith family report).

  Scotland Yard now believes this man was probably not involved (though they are not sure of this), but they are not the only people investigating; the Portuguese police have just reopened their investigation. But involvement is not the only issue; this image has been historically important to the investigation, and the article is trying to tell the story of that investigation.

  As with the other images Werieth wants to see removed/deleted, the copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia and its readers benefit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter one iota if they wanted the image to be distributed widely - it is not under a free license, and thus inclusion hurts our free content work. We don't need to see the indistinct artists' conception of the perp to understand the history of the case. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• How exactly does inclusion of this image hurt our free-content work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's non-free. It makes it difficult for those that want to redistribute the work to do so (one of the goals for being a free content work). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• How would it make things difficult for anyone wanting to redistribute the work? There are no legal or financial issues with it. What would the difficulty be exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Copyright ownership and reuse. The Foundation wants the content to be redistributed and reused without any limitations, and while the FMF has clearly sent the image out for people to redistribute, the limitation on reuse (including derivative works) can be a problem for some reusers. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any limitations on reuse. Can you explain, and also can you give an example of what kind of publisher might have a problem because of this image? I'd really appreciate a full explanation. I'm otherwise at a loss as to how anyone could see this image, and that of Madeleine's eye, as genuinely problematic (as opposed to problematic only if the policy is interpreted in an extreme way). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The issue is explained in detail at the Foundation's page about Free Content: "Because copyright law in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work." And as for the issue of including just these images and not hurting anything, I point to the essay WP:VEGAN. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clear NFCC violation. The image shows a person carrying a child, but you can barely see what the child and the person look like. As such, the image doesn't seem to serve any functional purposes, and you could easily imagine what it looks like when an adult carries a child without including this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of what you think about the content of the image, Stefan, the point is that the image itself has been extensively discussed: how it came to be produced, why it wasn't used earlier, why the McCanns had to arrange it themselves, etc. It has come to be an iconic image of an investigation gone wrong. That's why it's in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see nothing in the article about how this image came about. It's clearly based on the Tanner report, but the image itself is not mentioned at all (I recognize that the image description page says it was provided by the FMF), and the details in prose about the Tanner report are sufficient to understand what the witness believed she saw without seeing the artist's perception. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update. Just to update this issue, the Sunday Times insight team has today reported on a disagreement in 2008 between private detectives working for the McCanns (including M15 officers) and the McCanns, regarding whether to highlight the Tanner report (this is the image under discussion here), or the Smith report (the e-fit in the section after it). See "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years", The Sunday Times, Insight team, 27 October 2013. It's an interesting article, and is likely to generate more discussion. This underlines why both images are needed in the article. See this section for the information we have so far on these images, which is likely to get expanded as more sources discuss the new material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the Sunday Times has much of the article behind a paywall, but taking what you say, I see little how this shows any increase in the need to use the image. Clearly the article highlights the reports themselves, but the way that the content is given, you don't need the visual depiction to understand the timing and relationship of the Tanner and Smith reports; as you seem to suggest, the Tanner report is still being considered a red herring, but again, I'm not able to read the full Times articles to know if this was implied. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Masem, I know you mean well and that you're trying to uphold project principles. But with respect, the problem is that you're setting yourself up as, in effect, an editor-in-chief regarding a complex story that you're understandably unfamiliar with (if you search online you will find that story, by the way). And I'm expected to come here to explain myself, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) I'm currently taking time away from writing the article to do that, which is frustrating.

  It's a complex issue, but basically it is about the two images in the section I linked to above (one of which you want to delete). The question the sources ask is: why was the first image published in 2008 when it showed no face, while the second image, which did show a face and was also available in 2008, was not published until 2013? The man who helped to produce the second image, a former M15 agent, has expressed his concern to the Sunday Times. So this is about the content and handling of these two images. That is why we include them both.

  If you read our article and the Sunday Times story, you will see why the images matter, and I will be expanding those issues as more sources become available to explain what happened. I think this has to be my last response about this, because really it is obvious that these images both satisfy the policy, and that to include one but not the other would mean we'd be telling half the story, and in effect choosing to highlight one side. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

One final note: there are BLP issues here, which means the text explaining the images has to be written conservatively. It is touched upon in the section I linked to above, and expanded a little in the section about private detectives. I'll be expanding it some more too. But it has to be written carefully because of the BLP concerns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's really not the images at the central focus of the issue, but just the conflicting reports. The existence of these images are of course explained, but we don't need to show the images as evidence they existed. I can take the image out and the article loses no comprehension of the topic as a whole (or in particular that there were two reports, conflicting, one considered a red herring but somehow put forth as the leading suspect), failing the second half of NFCC#8 outright. Add that the picture , which isn't highly detailed or of particular artistic merit, is fully explained in the prose already, so it also fails NFCC#1. And arguably its not the image that is the subject of this newfound issue as reported by the Times, but the reports from the eyewitnesses themselves, of which the image forms a small part. So yes, there will be more on the reports and why one was favored over the other, but that gives no additional weight to the importance of the image itself. Could that change with additional reports? Possibly but I would consider that a far outside chance since the issue appears to be about why one report was put to the public's attention over the other. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but this type of image weakens NFC and our attempts to continue to minimize its use because it is far outside expected requirements for a non-free image; I will generally try to figure out if an image is really usable with tweaks (see, for example, the eye image on this article, I'm pointing out a solution that reduces non-free but doesn't change the ability to se the eye mark at the same current resolution), but I really can't see anything in this present case to keep it, and the point here is that while you are providing more evidence, it really isn't helping to support the image's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And to add, maybe there's more language that can be added to better justify it. As a case that is clearly allowed per consensus, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg - the picture of the two Boston Marathon bombers taken from a security cam prior to them planting the bombs, has clearly been shown to pass NFC as 1) it shows both brothers, one who died a few days later, and now known to be the likely culprits of the bombing and 2) the FBI identified that specific image as the one that lead them to the identification and manhunt that captured them. Now, in this case, I know that the article says the publication of the image caused the man who believed he was the one that was seen to go to the police and prove that he was innocent. That sorta meets the same reasoning as the FBI's claim, above, but the image clearly fails to identify any person with clarity. That's why if you can write more to specifically call out to the importance of the images (not the reports themselves, but specifically the images) there may be more reason to keep it. Did the public flood the police with false reports of people matching the image to affect the investigation? Did they accidently arrest anyone based on that image? --MASEM (t) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that you're missing the editorial point, and I don't know how to make it clearer without risking BLP violations (there is some more context in this section, in the current second paragraph, which might explain why the Tanner image was promoted over the Smith image). All I can do is repeat that these images have become iconic, and are likely to become even more in the coming months as the sources discuss the implications of the S/Times report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Understanding why there are likely BLP issues here that you're avoiding, the thing that I'm missing is a direct connection between that section and the Tanner report; I understand the Smith report's connection as it's explicitly stated. If I am understanding this correctly, the Tanner report and image were the public "image" that people were told to look for, but then only this last month, you had two events: the reveal of the Smith report, and that the person who believes he was tagged by the Tanner report coming forward to proof himself innocent. Is this correct? (This might be part of the problem is that where the relavence of the image to meet NFC might not be in the prose it is next to, but I'm also having some confusion in the article ordering, which might help improve that.) --MASEM (t) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep a devastatingly powerful image - says more in one glance than anything written. Crucial to understanding the article...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't use NFC just because an editor believes it is powerful. If sources say it was a powerful image, that's different, but what may be powerful to one editor may be unimpressive to another, and hence the need to have sourcing to back up the image's necessity. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That assertion is plainly wrong in the face of the obvious. When something is plainly obvious common sense prevails and your argument doesn't hold water, sorry...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong, your claim that a rough sketch of a possible suspect which has since been proven as a red herring as "powerful" is nowhere near common sense for this. We need evidence that such images are powerful, not the word of an editor. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary - the image of the little girl being carried as she is being carried in that image is a vivid and powerful picture; should anyone remember seeing that ultimately terrible visage; brings it home to the viewer and now to the reader; no words required...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

. It's an artist's reconstruction, there's no emotion in it but intended to help the public possibly find the person in those clothes. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for the following reasons- invalid rationale. "purpose" is not because it cannot be replaced with text alone (which it can) and the source is inaccurate, as the source being referred to only states a book but not the actual Internet location this file was copied from which the meta data clearly shows as Picasa. Also, the artist is not named and "commission" is not a demonstration of work for hire, which requires the artist be named. As for the need to have the image on the article, I will only say that this, it's not actually showing anything that cannot be described with text. The face of the suspect is purposely left out so all you really have is a description of clothing and hair, and the manner in which the suspect was carrying the child etc. I am not sure if all of the info were to be added correctly if this passes NFC criteria, but would support it being kept if all info was added to thr rational per NFC criteria: Identification 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.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As a note, I don't think the source concerns are as much of a problem to require deletion due to that factor alone. We want the source present to verify previous publication, even if it may not be the original source. We do want some demonstration of chain of authorship if possible; it is unlikely that the identity of the character sketcher employeed will be named, but we should know what agency they worked for. In other words, yes, these lines in the rationale could be better written, but it's far from the level where deletion is necessary since they could be fixed. Your other issue are completely valid though. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it matters, but the source is the Kate McCann book. It's also on the Find Madeleine website and has been reproduced by hundreds of newspapers. The image has no market value. The face isn't purposely left out; the witness didn't see the face. That, indeed, is one of the reasons the image is being discussed so much. People are commenting here without understanding the issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The issue at the core is that this image, without any other attributions to its importance, fails NFCC#1, since it a non-artistic representation of an eyewitness account that is exactly described by text; without any other means to show why this image is importance, it is considered replaceable non-free. Now, what you're trying to add to the article is to show that there is more than just this rendition, intangible aspects that cannot be replaced by text or other free imagery that would serve the same educational purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no aspect of this image which cannot be adequately conveyed by text alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep this is an image weighed by law enforcement and discussed in the article. Text can only partially replace the actual image. There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it. The reader benefits from seeing the actual artist's sketch. The argument is only partially true that the image can be replaced by text. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. What exactly does "weighed by law enforcement " even mean? Text, most certainly can replace an artist interpretation of this kind as there is absolutely nothing unique to the image that cannot be described with text. You state: "There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it". No, not when the image is the work of an imagination to begin with. As I said, there is absolutely nothing unique in the image that text alone cannot replace.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a poor choice of words for me to say that it was "weighed by law enforcement ". I mean that the image which resulted from one eyewitness account had significance for a time until a person came forward and said that he believed the person seen carrying a child was in fact himself carrying his own daughter. You are also correct that the image itself is the work of the artist's imagination to begin with. That is a valid point. But every effort is of course made in such endeavors to get an accurate representation. The powers of observation in accordance with verbal description are exploited to the extreme by police artists. We simply are not going to create in the reader's mind the image that you are arguing to have removed from the article. Removing such an image from the article would be to the reader's detriment. Yes, an approximation of the sketch can be conjured up. But the actual sketch is not 100% replaceable by a verbal description of it. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem rather reasonable so I will cut to the chase and say that since the artwork is the full result of a verbal description, yes...it can certainly be replaced by text. Now, having said that, I also see no criteria in NFC about being replaceable by text that requires us to delete it for that reason alone. But...NFC is clear, if the rationale is not valid, and all ten points of the criteria unfulfilled, we have an enforcement policy for that which states: "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". I already stated that I would support "keep" as long as the rationale was valid. At this time it is not. If it is fixed (a reasonable request) it need not be deleted and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The rationale has been adequately explained and is in keeping with policy and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• No offense, but the rationale and its accurate completion is not a matter of consensus of editors. Should it not be filled out correctly it may deleted regardless of !votes. If the legitimate advice from editors here is simply ignored, I believe we can conclude that the image violates NFC criteria enough for its deletion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've added more context about the importance of the images (the Tanner image under discussion and the Smith image, which have to be seen and discussed together) to this section. I'm now having to write things in a particular way to fulfill people's view of the non-free criteria. This is the tail wagging the dog, but please consider it so wagged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, not really - as others have pointed out, prior to these new additions, the image is replaceable with the already-given text description of what the man seen was wearing (to fulfill NFCC#1). Now, what you've added is getting closer, but I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that. Eg, that might explain why the person who was believed seen in the Tanner report came forward to clear himself. I realize that the text is already implicit that because this is the image released to the public on the case, that the public was aware this was the description of the perp, but can there before to talk about how this image affected the public's perception of the case? It also might be the case of article structure here that's making it difficult to see the need, even when I read it aware of the details. Just tossing this out, for example, but maybe the images (both this and the efits of Smith report) should be in the same section, and makes me wonder if the sightings are out of place and should be closer to the Oakley report. It might already say something like "This image (left) based on the Tanner eyewitness account, had be used to publicly identify the suspect in the abduction, but new evidence brought to light in October 2013 has led the police to release thie efits image (right) based on the Smith report as the current suspect", which would be reason to have both images if they were used side by side. I note that one section talks about how widespread Madeleine's pictures were across Britian, who that first image also have had the same? (These to me make your case more concrete for inclusion) --MASEM (t) 18:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#1 does not state that if the image can be replaced with text that it MUST be replaced. in this matter, I believe that text alone could satisfy the same thing, but many others do not. This is a matter of consensus, as has always been the case. It is not as cut and dry and there is no criteria that says we must delete the image if it can be replaced with text. Please read that again Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's based on if the text replacement serves the same educational value as the non-free was serving. My point for this is that without context of how significant the image was, the forensics image is sufficiently described visual in an equivalent manner as the text, which would be the same educational purpose. What has been done, though, is that SV's provided better justification that this is more than just a possible perp image, but an image of public significance to this case; while the image's details can still be distilled to the text description, the value of being a public image is not one that can be replaced with text, thus justifying that this likely now passes #1. That's the primary thing that has changed over the course of this discussion. --MASEM (t)

• You asked: "I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that." Yes, that's what the article says. Both images are in the same section, which is the section discussing the sightings. There is then a link to the section about the Oakley report. I am not going to rewrite the article to satisfy a non-editorial need (based on an extreme interpretation of the non-free-content criteria) to have the importance of the images explained entirely in one place. Editorial issues come first. Yes, to answer your final question, the Tanner image was widely published across the UK for many years. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article does not go into the statement that the image was in the public mind, it just says it was released to the public; there's a difference. (There's reasonable expectation that if an eyewitness gives an account of a suspect, that there will be a recreation put out for the public review; I'm trying to figure out how to assure this one is special). So, that said, I found these [14] [15] (and probably a few more) point to that Tanner felt guilt that she could provide enough detail on the face that would have helped identify the man (at which point we know this was a false report, but go with me on this). So I'm getting more positive that the image can be justified. But that led to me this story [16] which seems to be prior to the Tanner's image from an eyewitness; Tanner was later talked to about this image (before the one image in question) and said it was the man that looked like him. There's no mention of this and I'm going to assume that this was later affirmed a bad sighting but there may be more there? I do think there's enough forward momentum in resolvign around this that I no longer think the image should be deleted, but I hope you see what I'm trying to suggest to make this better. (And the rewrite is not just about the images - I find the flow somewhat disjointed, though the chronologically of the events in this case are not straight forward).
• And to note, the call of this image being replaceable by text is not an extreme position - the image is simple enough and lacks artistic merit, so it is up to you to show that the educational value of the image is lost if it is replaced by text; pointing out how it was a significant public image would do that. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I rarely disagree with Masem's judgement on these matters, in fact I think this is the first time. I find the image justified, though, per SlimVirgin's comments, and I do believe it adds what text cannot, and that similarly it's omission would be detrimental to understanding. No free alternative is likely to become available, and I think it would damage the article to omit this pictorial content. Free content is a glorious aim, but we have accepted fair use and non-free where necessary to also create the best encyclopedia we can, and I think this is certainly one of those cases. Begoon ^talk 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note on the general conversation here - I suspect part of the problem is the fact that there might a US vs UK issue here. I get the impression this case would be equivalent to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, which, as a USina, I know was splashed all over the news during the search for her (before the suspect was identified); I don't know how the Ramsey case was shown in the UK, but in considering the reverse I don't consider myself to be an aggressive follower of news but certainly not isolated from it, and yet I was unaware of the McCann case (this seems now more evident when I've gone to sources, seeing most are the big UK media ones).
• As sources state McCann's image was splashed everywhere, and by extension, these profile images; I'm sure those in the UK can attest to what degree that was the case -- but its definitely not clear from the article text as given and a factor lost to those outside the UK. It may be one of those those things that in writing that one may unintentionally forget the audience is not all from the same country and it is easy to overlook that not everyone experiences these things in the same way. Let's say it were issues with Ramsey's article (I'm not saying there are, this is just example), and one happens to be non-free of a suspected perp where the image could easily be replaced with text to describe what is shown. Knowing how much that case was broadcasted around here in the US, I probably wouldn't question the use of the image because I would have known it was used widely in the public news treatment of the Ramsey case, though I would hope and expect someone from the UK or elsewhere to point out the flaws towards WP:NFCC#1, if the photo's public perception wasn't covered in the article.
• The point is that when one is looking at non-free where the importance for inclusion is due to the public's perception or knowledge about the case, one needs to keep in mind that "the public" might be a limited set compared to the readership/editorship of WP, and thus it's likely best to make sure that public's perception is documented to some degree in the article to better justify it's use as an irreplaceable work. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - The issue isn't whether the image is vague or functional for the purpose of identifying the kidnapper. That is missing the point. What matters is that the image itself is now an iconic image for the case, and as such the image itself cannot be replaced by text alone. The image has been widely used by major news sources covering the case: The BBC, The Guardian, The Mirror for just a few examples. Consequently there is no free equivalent. Going through the rest of the NFCC criteria: As covered earlier there's no commercial opportunity for the image as it's already been made widely available without commercial interest. It's used a mimimum number of times. It's been published previously. It's encyclopedic--the image itself is of encyclopedic interest and there is article content directly supporting it. It meets the image use policy. It's used in at least one article. It's significant--I think those familiar with the case who came to read our article would be astonished if the article didn't include it. It's restricted to use in the article. The image description has been updated with the artist, publisher, copyright holder, copyright tag and article. As all the WP:NFCC boxes are checked, so keep. Zad68 04:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that the problem before this is that there wasn't anything that specifically noted the fact that the image was widely used across the UK for this case; this has now been shown so this reasoning to keep makes sense, but again, this point to my comment above - if you're very familiar with a news story with certain imagery that has national but not international coverage, you can't assume the rest of the world will recognize the images as important - they need to be described as having significant public awareness as is the case now here. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Masem, based on your response I can't exactly tell if you're convinced the NFCC criteria are met now. I want to point out the same image is used outside the UK. In this televised news programme from Australia, they run a series of "the standard McCann images" while a reporter talks; this image is seen at 1:15. Here it appears on a news website based in Spain, used to illustrate "24 hours in photos" covering the day's top news events. Here it appears on a Norwegian news site. Are we in agreement that the NFCC criteria are met? Zad68 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm convinced now; my point is before this discussion and chances in the article, the wide-spread-ness of this particular image and importance, which may have been plain-as-day to any UKian, wasn't apparent via the text given - at the start, to me a non UKian, it appeared to be the routine drawing of a suspect that is usually done with any such case, and one that would fail NFCC#1 normally. The discussion and changes made have convinced me that it was clearly a major image of this story and one of public perception, and thus should be kept, even just considering the sourcing from the UK that show how widespread within the country it was. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Teubneriana

Completely decorative, and replaceable. The files are used to illustrate font changes, which can be done using limited non-copyrighted samples. Note that none of the images are supported via sourced critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: we can use Lorem ipsum in the appropriate font to mimic the layouts. Now, that said, the text itself is suggested to be "ancient" writings - eg clearly in the PD, so the question is if the unique formatting / layout adds copyright to that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the assertion that the images are "completely decorative". In fact, the nominator contradicts this assertion by saying that the images illustrate font changes--the images therefore shed light upon a matter discussed in the article text. In fact, the typeface of the Teubner editions has been the subject of several discussions in secondary sources, at least one of which is quoted in the article. So it's not as if the fonts are irrelevant to the article's subject--they are an important part of the history of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, and images of the text are crucial to showing this history. Nor do the images simply show "font changes"--a sensitive viewing of the images on the page should make clear a basic principle of book design, namely, that the choice of typeface affects the relationship of every element of the page. This is especially the case with a critical edition of a classical text, whose layout is much more complex than a basic literary text, and which has a high density of information, especially in the apparatus criticus.

I also find the assertion that the images can be replaced by using lorem ipsum bizarre. First, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia editor unfamiliar with the specific design choices made by the Bibliotheca Teubneriana could replicate the kerning, wordspacing, linespacing, and relationship of the elements of the page, even assuming that s/he has access to the typefaces used over the years. I'm fairly adept at generating ancient Greek text on my computer, but replicating the Teubner editions' double line-numbering system seen in [17], not to mention the line in the margin between lines 8 and 9 of the Pindar passage, plus the mark under the ἀε in line 7 of the Pindar passage are beyond my ability (this is assuming I even had access to the typeface they use, which I don't). But replacing all of this with gibberish, which seems to be what the suggestion to use lorem ipsum means, would render the images useless. In particular, I'm thinking of the apparatus criticus at the bottom of the page, which has a very particular relationship to the text above--it lists, in very abbreviated form, variant readings of words or phrases in different manuscripts. To replace this with random text would destroy the connection between the apparatus and the main text. It would be like taking a mathematical proof and replacing all the symbols with Zapf Dingbats, and then claiming that it looks the same. (Never mind that lorem ipsum, as a mangled form of Latin that is total nonsense, is especially annoying to those of us who know Latin...)

As to the copyright issue, it's my understanding that the features of a classical text covered by copyright is the material uniquely contributed by the modern editor of the text. That would be things like punctuation, the apparatus criticus, and the choice of variant readings. So much of the text in these images is probably not under copyright, since there's little indication of variation in the manuscript tradition. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no critical commentary that what you suggest (all these tiny font differences) is that significant to require seeing every iteration. To an average reader (one not familiar with fonts or Greek), the changes are not very obvious and would simply seem like slight differences in printing. If the font and formatting changes are that significant to understand the work (which I would argue presently are not even at that level - it's like having a long discussion about a change in article layout for a modern-day magazine - trivial in the long run), then you need a lot more sourcing to show that to justify the image use. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of book covers from Bibliotheca Teubneriana at Wikimedia commons. Their image are in the public domain because its copyright has expired (under license PD-old, - life of the author plus 70 years). It seems to me that a similar license applies here in WP. --Odysses (○) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the book covers in question, it's the sample pages, like File:Teubner_Gk_type_Griechische_Antiqua.jpg. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the text itself is (since that was written ages ago), but it is given a specific layout that may qualify the specific format as copyrighted. That I'm not 100% clear on. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There are examples of old scanned pages with text, maps and diagrams at the Commons under PD-old, but one can never be sure, since they change the rules quite often. If not permited in WP, perhaps, images could be uploaded at the commons under PD-old. --Odysses (○) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, and at least on the images on this page is an PD-old version. The problem is that the page is set up to describe these "significant" changes to presentation that occurred since mid-last century (eg if they were copyrightable, they would still clearly be under copyright). If those explainations were not necessary/present, we easily could us PD imagery for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:ITunes_11_Logo.png

This appears to fit "PD-ineligible". It's simply an image of two beamed musical notes on a circular background. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The glass/jelly look likely pushes it over the edge, but I do note that the newer NBC logo which has a similar glass look in the peacock feathers is considered okay at commons. I personally would play it save as copyrightable until we get better clarification on that. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do shaded gradients add to originality? I've heard arguments saying it does and doesn't. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not. That's why I point to the NBC logo that uses them but considered free at commons. It's not straight-forward and might be a question better to ask experts at common at where the line should be drawn. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:ScoreBig 2013 logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Is the tear effect on the right side of the logo too much to push it over the Threshold of Originality? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would play it safe and say yes its original enough to keep this copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WKVT (AM) logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on saying it is uncopyrightable - the shadow effects are just simple enough to be uncreative. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Lindbergh (book).JPG

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#UUI§6 in A. Scott Berg and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:19, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6 in A. Scott Berg. Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup; image is fine on the article on the book, but we don't need the cover on the author's page. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Zahara (South African musician)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is article uses non-free images in an acceptable manner. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:58, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Inappropriate use of cover art in a BLP article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Here's a case where I think one can argue that the albums are notable enough to be separate but the editors have decided to keep the albums in discussion with the artist together for cohension (eg it is not just demonstrating this album, but doing the marking/branding that it would do if it were separate). In such cases, I would be inclined to allow at least one of the cover images. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create separate articles for the EP and DVD releases because I want to improve the overall rating of the "Zahara (South African musician)" article. I'll take improving the rating of the article all day over creating separate stub articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases. If my use of the images violates Wikipedia's non free policy, then I suppose I could merge the "EP" and "DVD" release into one article. If creating separate articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases would prohibit the images from being deleted, then I guess that's what I'll do. If you agree or disagree with my proposition, please add to this discussion. I would appreciate that. versace1608 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, you did the right thing in terms of making something cohesive and thus why I'm arguing that, of the images, I think the DVD cover should easily be kept since this is also an article about that album. I don't think you should have to split it, because its atypical of when people typically just drop album art on an artist article. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Does this mean the tag Stefan2 left at the top of the article deserve removal? versace1608 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is just my opinion, so others may chime in. An uninvolved admin will close this discussion (hopefully within a few days) and remove the tag, if nothing else comes of it. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-CAGov and has been updated accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Isn't this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it is, if being taken be the CA Dept of Corrections is true. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Basilisk snapshot9.png

Hi. I have been looking at this image and File:BasiliskII.jpg, which is uploaded on Commons and I have to ask: Is the license tag on this image correct? According to Basilisk II article, Basilisk II is a free and open-source product. So, is there something in this shot that makes it non-free? Codename Lisa (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Art assets do not necessarily have to carry the same copyright as the program's source, and can be copyrighted. That is, everything here is a default UI element from the Mac operating system, which are under copyright too. (Note the license tag say "Note: if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately.") So unless the Mac UI elements have been considered free (Which, spot checking Mac app screenshots) they are not. Thus this image should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson - Got to be there (single).jpeg

Current upload seems to violate WP:NFCC#1, see initial upload by User:Smooth O from 2006 which appears to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

By Discogs, there seems to be at least five possible covers based on country published; the orange text-only is the Netherlands, the current one used is from France. There is one for the US release (just the disc label), which would seem to be the one one would use, given that Jackson was an American artist and all that; the only issue with that is if the map part on the top is of sufficient copyright (as the rest is just text and would be PD-text). Given that there is otherwise no unique imagery with this (in terms of branding), otherwise, we should stick with the free orange label if the US version is not free. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your link goes to a page which shows the disc, but we should probably use a cover image instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's just the vinyl 45 record; that is done in some cases where the sleeve cover has been lost to time or blank. I do agree the sleeve cover art is better in general. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Vinyl 45s were typically sold with a plain white or unbleached sleeve with a cutout in the centre so the label on the disc could be viewed. Or information about the label would be printed on the sleeve. It was rare to see one with images, even for the Beatles. See Google images for examples. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Suicide Squad

I cannot see justification for 15 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, way too many covers used just for covers. I don't know which images to immediately say are excessive given that we're talking two iterations of the group, I would say one only needs two or three non-free images total. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and cut the non-free media usage back significantly. At minimum, I think it is important to illustrate all four volumes of the comic book. Please advise whether this review can be closed. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even then that's arguable. I recognize that each Volume is a "new" Squad (as I read it), but I don't think that justifies the extra covers. The individual volumes don't appear to be notable on their own (the group is, that's not a question), and so using covers here is really not appropriate. If anything, one of the covers could be a better one to use in the main infobox, but that's about it. If anything, and I have no idea if this is possible, a single group cast image from each Volume would be more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like there might be some misunderstanding of what the page is supposed to be covering, which is totally my fault, since I've been maintaining it. In any case, my intention with the Suicide Squad page is to cover the team, and the four volumes of comic books that they star in -- similar to how the Justice League page does it. In fact, I used that page as a template for how to present the four Suicide Squad volumes. Please advise on whether this is optimal or wanted; I still think it is important to clearly define and illustrate each volume of the comic book, especially as this team exists across three separate versions of DC Comics' continuity. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please advise on whether I may consider this resolved. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is enough. But let me ask: are the 4 volumes of Suicide Squad like four different runs of the concept at different times? In other words, from a pure comics POV, is it the same series or four different series, in like how the current Superman (as part of the New 52) is a different series from the original DC Superman? --MASEM (t) 12:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Your Superman comparison is accurate. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, two more questions then: 1) The current infobox image (The promo art) - how critical is that, in that if one of the current covers (like for Volume 1) replaced it, would it be a problem? I do understand that you're showcasing the team, and not the actual line of comics, which might affect this 2) Did each volume have some type of reception to it? I know you can probably check on Volume 4, which I see is part of the new 52 (so online sourcing should be easy to find), not sure how readily you can check the others. I feel that if you can show that these would have been separate articles but you're treating them as one comprehensive article, there might be allowance for it. I do note that one cover image will be appropriate for identification of the series/concept, but the difficulty is justifying the cover for each series; even Superman (comic book) doesn't include the cover of the first New 52 version of it, though I'm not sure if that has been something that has been vetted either way.

There is going to be a push by others to reduce the number of covers, and they are in the right that as the article stands, you still probably have too many, but I'm trying to find if there's any way you can improve the justification of the covers better. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions: 1) No problem, I've replaced the infobox image with one of the other covers displayed on the page. I've also added a sentence to the end of the top-page summary, to make it very clear what this entry covers -- which is, in fact, the team AND the four associated monthly series. 2) I am happy to create and source a "Reception" section for each volume. This should not be a problem. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do that - showing that you could have chosen to make each notable (where there would be zero question of using all four images on each page) but per WP:NOPAGE, you've decided that the article is better when one complete article, then I feel you're okay keeping the original cover, the four volume covers, and the cartoon shot. That's my opinion, but others may disagree. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico

I cant see justification for 8 non-free files for a single album Werieth (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some images, and three short sound clips. I'm not familiar with NFCC as it applies to audio files, but I think the number of cover art images could easily be reduced by half. There are three key ones for the vinyl release, all duly sourced and useful to reader understanding (or whatever NFCC8 says these days) — the iconic banana, an image with the banana sticker peeled off (the case is slightly weaker here), and the back cover. The article goes into some detail on lawsuits involving all of these. In my opinion, nearly identical images of the CD cover are superfluous and could safely be trimmed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The two covers in the infobox are fine. The original back cover is discussed in text, so that's fine. I do agree that 3 sound files aren't needed (since these songs have their own article), one or two samples are only needed for representation. The CD cover comparison is unneeded (its not even discussed in text). The acetate label may actually qualify as free - it's just text. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Velvet underground album cover 2.png is essentially a pealed version of File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg and therefore redundant. File:The Velvet Underground and Nico back cover.jpg is critically discussed and therefore fine. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG duplicates File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg with only very small differences and is therefore unneeded. Are the colour effects at File:VU 1 acetate label.jpg caused by damage to the disc, or are those effects printed there? In the first case, retag as {{PD-ineligible}}. There is significant discussion about the music, but the songs have their own articles, so this is essentially WP:NFC#UUI §6 with the caveat that it says "image" and not "sound". I would assume that the people who wrote WP:NFC#UUI typically meant to include non-image files even if it says "picture" or "image" but that this was overlooked as almost all files on Wikipedia are images. You can even refer to sound by using the "Image" namespace name: Image:TheVelvetUndergroundI'mWaitingForTheMan.ogg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The "peeled version of" comment, intentional or not, wins the Wikipedia free content wry humor of the day award, thanks :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would actually put forth that the "peeled" pun used for naming the alternate cover may be okay. May, being the key word, though I personally would have not included it and just mention the alt cover shows the peeled banana as part of the pun on the cover. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The peeled version is pretty important, given that it's the one version that's hard for a record buyer to see otherwise: it's not only "peeled" it's a 40+ year old cover. Few copies still exist, even fewer unpeeled ones are likely to have their owners allow a peeling. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tweenies

Do non-free fair-use character images belong on an article about a children's TV show based on such characters?

See also Talk:Tweenies#Images and User_talk:Andy_Dingley#October_2013_Tweenies

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Textbook violation of WP:NFLIST, and WP:NFCC#3a. If you actually bothered to read my post on the talk page you would know that we can get 1 group shot to replace the 4 individual images that I removed. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable show the main characters of a notable show, but as Werieth said and I just checked, you can use one image of all four to reduce the non-free use to 1 instead of 4. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So where is your "one image" and why have you (repeatedly, to the point of EW) already blanked all of the images from this article, specifically against the warnings about NFCR that you've already had in the last week? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The group shot I was referring to can be found here. Please stop lying about my actions. I did not removal all files. I removed the 4 individual files as clear violations of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. I repeatedly removed the files as I said, textbook violations of policy. We dont have an image on Matthew John Armstrong even though a quick google search provides plenty of non-free files available. Its because any non-free file used is a clear violation of policy. Our policy isnt to leave non-free files in place until a replacement is available, but to remove violations until an acceptable file is available and can be used. I have clearly established that the files do not meet inclusion criteria, as a single group shot is available and sufficient. The burden lies on those wanting to use the media to ensure that policy is met. I dont need to bend over backwards and upload files for you. Your whole refusal to follow NFCC is appalling. Werieth (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Appalling? But your edit-warring, for which you've already been warned on just the same issue is perfectly OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing text book violations is perfectly OK. What grounds do you have for repeatedly violating WP:NFCC? Oh wait NONE. You where told several times and explained to why the files failed but you either dont listen or are incapable of understanding what I was telling you. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In this case, Werieth is absolutely right - there is an unequivocal route to reduce non-free use per #3a and thus the four existing images can be removed. This is not comparable to his ANI case where there is some possible ambiguity in use. And he is right that it is your burden to do the replacement if you want to have the image of the 4 characters. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NFLISTS tells that you should use a single group picture instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfa P33 roadster GS.jpg

The uses in Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale#Italdesign and Alfa Romeo concept cars might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a difficult time believing that there aren't any of this model that have been kept in museums or car collections that a free image can't be made (I mean, we're talking an Alfa Romeo concept car, not a run-of-the-mill Buick or the like) And in consideration that it's not the main subject of the article, we don't need a non-free to display it. So it is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why it might violate? I dont see any problems using this image, if you cant read it says "30 year old concept car not exsiting anymore, so a free alternative would be almost impossible to obtain" , Its also important in this article which tells very rare car -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The car existed at one point, and while I understand it was a concept car with very limited production, I'd have difficulty believing that all known cars produced from this line are no longer in existence, given how auto fanatics treat such cars with great respect. Which means that unless one can readily demonstrate that there is no existing version of this model, anywhere, it should be possible to get a free image of the car. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Only one car has existed. Its not possible anymore to get new picture of it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:EntarteteKunst.jpg

Used in Degenerate art, Der Neue Mensch and Otto Freundlich. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all three articles. In addition, some of the uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I put out the option that the age of the work and that it was a program brouchure that its copyright might not have been renewed, making this possibly non-free. However, given that it is also a foreign work, that might affect that too. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, it is actually completely fine at Der Neue Mensch - the art pictured on the cover - which has been destroyed so there no chance of a free image, and given the period, unlikely there might be a version of the sculpture without the text of the program on top of it. For this same reason , it might be okay at the artist's page. And furthering this, the cover text is being used to show how such art was made into a scary form in Degenerate art, and thus may be approprite there. Yes, #10c is violated - we need separate rationales and in this case there are very different reasons on each of the three pages. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume that this was first published in 1937 (the year of the exhibition) or shortly prior to that. If that is the case, then it would have been subject to the Copyright Act of 1909. If the copyright was not renewed, then it entered the public domain in 1965 (28 years after publication). If the copyright was renewed, then it would be copyrighted for another 95 years, so assuming the copyright was renewed around 1937, it would still be copyrighted until 2032. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, actually if I am not misreading {{PD-US}} we would have to determine whether this was published in the United States at all and when. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean - I'm unsure, but the age of this suggests that if someone did the footwork to see if it is free, that would be great, removing any questions about the use. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the catalogue was published in the US, although we are actually only interested in the cover image. I see no easy way to determine whether some book published in the United States contained a depiction of this cover or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Per [18] prior to 1989 the work would have had to had an explicit copyright notice to fall into the Berne convention, so we would need to see the whole image here. For now, we should treat this as free, but really, this is one of those images that scream that it has a good chance of really being a free image, and while we're playing it safe by treating it as a non-free, we can fix that later. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As this was first published in Germany, no renewal or anything was needed – this is copyrighted for 95 years since publication per Commons:COM:URAA. There is a fair use rationale, but it lacks necessary components and doesn't refer to a unique article, so it is invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Czech Republic FA.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It says

  "Purpose of use: To appear only on the article Football Association of the Czech Republic and those of its representative teams below

• Czech Republic national football team
• Czech Republic national under-21 football team
• Czech Republic national under-17 football team
• Czech Republic women's national football team
• Czech Republic national futsal team"

The image cannot be replaced by a free logo, and as such, it doesn't violate the WP:NFCC policy. If it is needed to have a notice per article, it can be easily done. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what the issue is here. They are proper logos for each individual team (and appropriate said articles), but we'd prefer to have seperate rationals for each. Because they are logos, you may want to use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} which is allowable boilerplate rationale for logos. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Leiabikini.jpg

There is a recent resurrection of Princess Leia's metal bikini. This image is used in more than one article besides that page, so should the image be used in only one page? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems justified on Bikinis in popular culture, but I don't think it is on Princess Leia. There's a section at the bottom about the bikini which appears to be where the metal bikini article was pulled out from, and that's the only place where the image in the Leia article is discussed, so it is unnecessary on the character page. (I will argue that I don't know if the metal bikini article is really a good idea for a separate topic, and if it was merged back into Leia, then the image would be appropriate there). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Reese, Derek.jpg

What is the contextual significance of this image? I think its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate (nor, on the same page, the other character shot), in light that a primary group cast photo (non-free) is reasonable, and for this show, does exist such as here). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Chan

Too many unfree images. Unsure if the scenes are discussed in prose. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: all non-free images, excepting File:Jackie Chan Fist.JPG. This one is discussed in the article and is relevant to Chan's life. The other images appear to be decorative. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Images removed from this article. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ellison, James.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See above section for File:Reese, Derek.jpg - one non-free cast image would do the same job as two non-frees (as well as capture the other characters listed). --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Luis Buñuel

• Luis Buñuel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I notice you zapped images in the article on Luis Bunuel with the explanation that "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here. The Non-free content policy states: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." I'd like to make the following points:

1. Permission to use the file(s) in question was explicitly granted by the copyright holder, and this is explained in the summary for media data on the image file.
2. As to critical commentary -- this was provided in the caption to the image: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies." This included a reference to an RS. Isn't this "critical commentary" bearing directly on the use of the image?

Finally, wouldn't it have been better to discuss this on the talk page rather than taking unilateral action? Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Im about to go away from the keyboard for a while. If you are in contact with the copyright holder request that they email WP:OTRS and release the file under a free license. A caption or passing reference may be commentary on the image, but its no where near what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file. When I get back Ill do an image by image breakdown with details. But for now the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the copyright holder did email WP about these images over a year ago. Isn't there some record of that? As to critical commentary, I look forward to a better understanding of "what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file", along with a reference to MOS or other authoritative source that provides a clear definition of "critical commentary" that invalidates the example I provided above. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont see any records on the file pages about an OTRS ticket. I am not a member so I cannot look up the case. but lets break this down one at a time. We already have one image of Bunuel which is free so additional images need justified. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Other than the image caption there is no reference to the image in the associated text. It is easily described with plain text X character writing Respect the property of others on a chalk board. (This would mean it fails WP:NFCC#1, and the second clause of #8 because there is nothing visually unique or distinguishing about the image that requires it to be in the article.). Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the subject of this article is a filmmaker -- therefore, images from his films are of particular consequence to an understanding of the subject. Films are images. The image of a small child writing a sociopolitical message on a blackboard has meaning over and above any textual description of that image. Using screenshot images as part of an article about a filmmaker is just as meaningful, even essential, as using images of paintings is for an article about a painter. Also, again, the image was accompanied by a caption providing specific commentary from an RS. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments dont hold any water, taking a look at two of the biggest producers J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg there is a total of 1 non-free file between the two. Werieth (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Jburlinson (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed this image claims that "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, before it was deleted, this image included the caption: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies.[64]:p.59" (The reference is to an RS published by Univ. of Calif. Press.) It was placed in a section of the article covering Bunuel's years in Spain in the early 1930's, the first two paragraphs of which discussed Bunuel's joining the Communist Party. Thus, the image is a significant component of critical commentary relating to Bunuel's political interests and their impact on his art. Integrating the text of the caption into the article without the image will result in a loss of information and value to the reader, who will be deprived of a visual example of Bunuel's ironic style. Jburlinson (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a child writing on a blackboard; there's nothing unique about the visuals themselves, only the scene which you've just described in text. It is appropriate to state the importance of the influence, but you don't need the visual aid as given. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Same issues as the previous file. Looks like an upside down picture of a rooster, something fairly easily described in plain text. Not critical to understanding who Bunuel was as it lacks any significance to who he is. (yes its a shot from one of his major pictures, but not actually anything major). Fails, #1,8 again. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "but not actually anything major". That's one person's subjective opinion. As such, it should be the occasion for a discussion, not a peremptory deletion. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor deleted this file with the claim: "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, the image included this caption: "An early scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan depicts a local wedding custom where the bridegroom tears the head off a rooster suspended by its feet from a scaffold above the main street of town.[64]:p.57" The reference is from an unquestionably reliable source. The image appears in a part of the article that discusses the highly unusual status of the film as a "surrealist documentary", which also includes an extended quote from a well-known film director stating: "Though the material is organized with masterly skill, the very conception of 'art' here seems irrelevant. It is the most profoundly disturbing film I have ever seen." The startling nature of the combined image and its caption supplies meaningful and valuable information to the reader and constitutes "critical commentary". The image reflects Bunuel's unique brand of surrealism, which is discussed in this article and which has been described as: " "visually Spartan and yet spasming with bouts of the irrational." Jburlinson (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you possibly find a better image to help this (I recognize you might be dealing with the limited screenshots that are provided to be used on WP)? Right now, this image looks like an upside down chicken. It doesn't show the elements of the rope or scaffold as to show the shocking nature of this scene, and hence why its use is being questioned, as it doesn't line up well with the quote. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A close up of an upside-down rooster is surrealistic in almost any context. Jburlinson (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But easily described by text. On the other hand the key word "disturbing" is the one that the right imagery will make it more appropriate to include an image. What is "disturbing" about an upside down chicken (without knowing that it is tied up and about to be decapitated?) --MASEM (t) 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The caption explains that it is tied up and about to be decapitated. Disturbing, no? Putting the words together with the image makes it even more disturbing. Jburlinson (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, even with the text, it's hard to call that disturbing. All I'm asking is that if there's a frame in the movie a few seconds before or after that shows the chicken actually hung, or the axe about to come down, or something that is unmistakable the act of decapitating the chicken, then this image would make a lot of sense to include to talk about the disturbing imagery. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying that this particular image is not "critical commentary" but if I supplied one that you believed was more "disturbing", it would be "critical commentary"? That simply boils down to what one person believes is disturbing as opposed to what another believes is disturbing. How does it make one image more or less "critical commentary"? Your argument here contradicts your argument about the other image from Las Hurdes, the child writing a capitalistic slogan on a blackboard, which is explicitly relevant to Bunuel's Marxist philosophy. Jburlinson (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant doesnt make it critical commentary. The chalkboard image is easily described with text. The current image you are use (Just an upside down chicken) is easily described with text. If however there was something visually significant and unique about an image (being "disturbing" in this case, I can cite other examples if needed) that isnt easily described by text alone, there may be justification for the image. However in this case a picture of an upside down chicken is no where close to meeting those criteria. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Meeting what criteria? The criteria of "critical commentary"? You mean if the image were more "disturbing" (to you) it would meet the criteria? Is the only issue here that the image isn't "disturbing" enough? Jburlinson (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Critical commentary has several factors, It needs to be visually unique and significant (something an upside down chicken isnt), and those elements need to be discussed in more than a passing way by reliable third party sources. One example I can think of, (which is actually technically invalid, as the group still performs and thus would make the image replaceable) is the unique visual style of Kiss (band) and the facial paint that they use. Or a example of something that is valid would be Virgin Killer where the album cover is notable for the controversy that it caused. Werieth (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have described a scene about the beheading of a chicken as a disturbing scene in text. Okay, for all purposes, that would be sufficient to even run without an image, but I can completely see an allowance for an image here if and only if it showed exactly that, scenes that show something that, by common sense, is visually disturbing without even seeing the caption. A simple upside down chicken would not do it. However, the same chicken, shown hung upside down with an axe about to hit it, would be. It would also be more understandable what's going on without reading the text, while one would need to read the info around to wonder why we were just showing an upside down chicken. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.jpg

Similar to the previous two, we dont need to know the set of a film to understand the person. Fails NFCC#1,8 Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Viewing the image gives a sense as to the nature of the film productions being discussed at that point of the article. In addition, the image includes text describing the nature of the work done at Filmofono studios. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The caption that accompanies this image is: "Location filming at Filmófono". The image is placed in the section of the article which covers Bunuel's involvement with the Spanish film studio Filmofono. This is an aspect of Bunuel's career that is very little known, even by film enthusiasts who applaud his more famous productions from earlier and later in his creative life. The image, its caption and the text of the article combine to provide the "critical commentary" required by NFC. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Jburlinson (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.jpg

We dont require a picture of the staff to know that he worked with those people, fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The article discusses the "team" effort of the MOMA department -- a picture of the team is totally appropriate. Once again, this is a subjective situation that should be the occasion of a discussion, not unilateral action. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A photo of a group of people, where only a few are identified is not needed to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. (If the group were notable as a whole, that might be one things, but there's no indication of this here.) --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image was accompanied by the caption: "The staff of the MoMA film department, c. 1941; Buñuel, first row on left; Iris Barry, first row on right". The image appeared in that part of the article that covered Bunuel's career in the early 1940's, particularly his years working for the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). It includes a picture of Iris Barry, the head of the MOMA film unit and a significant figure in Bunuel's life at that time. She is also discussed in the article. The article makes the point that Bunuel was a member of a team that created anti-fascist propaganda during the war years. Including a picture of the team is relevant to the article, supplies information that cannot be provided by text alone, and is part of the critical commentary concerning Bunuel's war years. Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a non-free picture of Iris on her own page, and we don't need to illustrate the MOMA team to understand that Bunuel worked as part of the team with Barry to create propaganda, since you have that discussed by sources. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.jpg

Again almost identical issues was with the first three images. Zero ties to the article text, non-critical image, image is decorative. (Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8) Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The image expands upon points made in the article concerning the violent nature of the protagonists of the film and the caption contains a quote from a well-known film critic that bears directly on the image. It is far from decorative -- it is critical and it is commentary, making it definitely "critical commentary." Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The scene can be described in text - just as the critic's quote has done - and as it is not about the visual style, again, the image does not help here per WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image included the caption: ""A legless cripple who refuses the children cigarettes is robbed and left to lie on the pavement at some distance from his cart, and yet he is clearly no better than his tormentors." – Film critic André Bazin[130]" The image and the caption combined together have meaning and information content that is of value to the reader which cannot be conveyed as significantly by text alone. This is why people make movies -- the images have value and they have impact. Bunuel was a filmmaker, a maker of images. Therefore, images are of unique importance to an article about him. The image is a significant part of the critical commentary of the article. Jburlinson (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The critic's quote is commenting on characters and how the scene plays out, but not on the direction, where there would be better justification for using visual imagery. Again, reading through the article, this director is not so much praised for the visual aspects or direction of the film, but how he brings in critical commentary to the films, which is better discussed in text than with images. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Le Fantôme de la liberté.jpg

Again just decorative usage as the film has its own article The Phantom of Liberty we can provide a link to it so they can see the poster. Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and see also WP:NFC#UUI#6. @Jburlinson:Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

In general we dont need 6 non-free files in an article with 8 free files. See WP:NFCC#3. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC) above was copied from my talk page Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the above issue from my talk page because Jburlinson isnt seeming to understand WP:NFC. Can someone else help educate the user on why we dont need 6 non-free files for a director who isnt know for anything warranting non-free files? Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, most of this director's works were famous for political commentary and the like, and not so much for art direction. As such , we don't need visual media to understand the importance of his works; they would be nice to have if they are free (and that claim if there are ORTS tickets to allow this, should be checked out to verify that, as that would help). In contrast, Stanley Kubrick has several noted visual styles to his works that are critically commented on to show how they visually look (not the films, but his directing techniques). Basically, what Werieth's point is here is that you're simply using screencaps from the films to show what the films are while discussing the films, but there's no critical discussion of the visual elements being shown in the screencaps (such as a directing technique or some juxtaposition that reviewers found unique), and as such, they would fail NFCC#8. If you can get them free through ORTS, great, they can be used, but as we minimize non-free - and considering there are free examples already present - additional non-free is not helping here. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bunuel's films are works of art; works of art composed of images. That's what films are. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles written about Bunuel's artistry -- not his political views. Throughout his life, he was associated with surrealism -- an artistic movement. His films are studied not just for his political or social commentary, but for his artistry and the special nature of his image-making. Examples of his images are of critical importance to an understanding and appreciation of his achievement. Saying otherwise is like saying that Goya's paintings don't have much to do with what makes him famous or that Jane Austen's novels are famous for their social criticism and not for their artistry.

Above and beyond the appropriateness of any particular image is a larger issue -- which is the procedure that was used to delete multiple images with a single edit with only the barest edit summary which said "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC". The editor has done this over and over again to many articles, resulting in many disputes and edit wars. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Werieth reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: warned) for an example. There are more. I have asked this editor repeatedly for a clear and explicit instance in policy or guideline that defines the meaning of "critical commentary". In searching through WP "help", it's become clear to me that this term is a highly subjective one. Different people understand it in different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all definition. As a result, WP operates by consensus. Consensus does not mean that one person goes from article to article peremptorily zapping images that don't suit him and then telling every editor who protests that he or she simply "doesn't understand" policy. My guess is that people do understand the policy well enough, they just don't all agree with his interpretation of policy. To say that everyone else needs to be "educated" is insulting.

So, regardless of what happens concerning any particular image here, I hope we can arrive at an understanding of the appropriate procedure to use if someone questions the application of WP:NFC or any other policy. Simply summarily zapping the work of other editors and then wrapping people's knuckles when they protest is not a good way to run this particular railroad. Jburlinson (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has had problems with how he enforces, but not what he is enforcing. As I've pointed out in several cases above, you may have critical commentary about the scene, but it's not about the visual elements of the scene, and most of the scenes you are showing are not difficult to explain via text (eg the child writing on the blackboard), belying the claim that these are "surreal". If his work is surreal, show us scenes that are considered surreal - that's why, for example, the chicken beheading scene is moving in the right direction, but it would need an image that is clearly surreal (not just a picture of an upside-down chicken). And to stress again - if there was permission to use these images on Wikipedia, someone needs to track if that request was legit as that would remove the issue with those specific images. Unfortunately I don't have ORTS access to confirm that. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe your comment illustrates my point about how different people understand the term "critical commentary" differently. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless there's critical commentary about the "visual elements" of a particular image, then any other critical commentary is irrelevant or invalid? For example, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), that would be OK? Jburlinson (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why WP:NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that's why we're looking for critical commentary on the visuals themselves, especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image). You've described the scene in text in a manner that is not improved on by the image, and the commentary from the critic injects things about the overall work that one single frame is unable to show (how the cripple is himself considered an antagonist). Again, you've mentioned surreal, and that implies that there's a likelihood of some visual imagery being appropriate, but what you've chosen to show falls far outside of what one would consider surreal. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You say, "especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image).". Well, Werieth deleted the image from the article on the film, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Olvidados&diff=579548816&oldid=579539489

Can I at least restore the image to the article on the film? Jburlinson (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, are you just ignoring the other dozen issues he raised about its usage? Werieth (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a tag team? Let him answer for himself. He just got through saying that the image was more appropriate for an article on the film. And I haven't ignored any of the issues he's raised (which don't add up to a dozen, by the way). Jburlinson (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please dont put words in his mouth that he didnt say. He stated that it would be more likely to see the image in the article about the film, not that it was appropriate there. Werieth (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to please let him speak for himself. And again I ask, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), would that would be OK? If not, why not, since it would be directly addressing the visual elements of the image? Jburlinson (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Any image needs to be tied to the text, a caption isnt enough critical commentary to justify a non-free file. Werieth (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Who says? Please identify a clear statement in WP policy that says this. Where does it say that a caption isn't important or can't contribute meaning to an article?In this case, the caption is a direct quote from a famous film critic. That's as "critical commentary" as you can get. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the text does support the information content of the image. Jburlinson (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in other peoples mouths, I never stated that the caption wasnt important or couldnt contribute to the article. What I stated is that a caption does not justify the inclusion of non-free media. WP:NFCC#8 requires Contextual significance, meaning that any image must be tied to the text and that by removing the image its detrimental to the understanding as a whole. If an image is only tied to the article via a caption removal cannot cause a detrimental loss of understanding to the article as a whole. Werieth (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the images are tied to the article and the caption, as explained above. Jburlinson (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Cheers intro logo.jpg

I have recently uploaded print ads of TV shows and TV movies, especially those unavailable on DVD. Some title cards I replaced with print ads for substantiality. Even I added ads of Baby Bob and The Lyon's Den (in place of title card). In this case, if this title card is replaceable, then File:Cheers premiere ad tv guide 1982.jpg must be undeleted to replace the title card. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the opening credits of Cheers - being as memorable as they are with the use of old-time art behind the credits - would allow the justification of the actual screencap from the show for not only ID but discussion of the credits. I'd spot checking ghits and it's clearly had an influence (it was parodied on Simpsons and It's Always Sunny in Philly, for a start), so I would probably not replace that. To be clear, this is only becasue the actual title sequence can likely be discussed as memoriable; many shows don't have that. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Los Bravos - Black Is Black 86.jpg

Is this image too simple for copyright under German law? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html this would have to be accompanied by a copyright notice in order to enjoy copyright protection in the United States. So unless such a notice exists, I assume this can be uploaded as {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that, this probably doesn't meet the threshold for copyright protection in the United States anyway. Also, why is German copyright law relevant here? Was this cover first used in Germany? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what Discogs said. Well, I can't find any other edition of the remix vinyl. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that this does probably not meet the Schöpfungshöhe in Germany, though I am not sure. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Caverns of Mars

Someone tagged up NFCR in Caverns of Mars, but didn't start the discussion here, so I'll do it…

Caverns of Mars is one of the best selling software packages on the Atari platform, and was widely written on in magazines of the era - not just about the game itself, but as a rags-to-riches story for the author, a high school student.

The author followed the game up with a number of sequels, which is there the gallery comes in. It is worthwhile pointing out that each of these is an image from a different program. In this respect, one can trivially find thousands of articles on the wiki with NF screenshots from different programs in them - Spreadsheet for instance.

It appears that the "problem" in this case is the use of a gallery tag to collect them, setting off someone's alarms. I suspect that if the images had not been collected in a gallery, I wouldn't be here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion but it was quickly closed (As yes non-free galleries aren't allowed), and has been archived.

That said, I saw the images, and really, due to the low-quality graphics at the time, you didn't need all four. Of course, you should have one for the general gameplay and describe what is happening (to justify a sourced gameplay section), but after that, you need better justification than "this is a an important game series". There has to be sourced commentary on the graphics (their changes or the like) for each subsequent image. You may have a case where the graphics approached that of Scramble in Mars Mission II, but you need a source that makes that acknowledgement to show the need for the image. General graphical improvements of the same game on different platforms is generally not sufficient to justify an image. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where was the discussion in question? And why weren't any of the main participants in the article invited to take part? And why doesn't that discussion appear here, the place the tag specifically refers to?

Non-free galleries are allowed, as the NFC page clearly states: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Well, this is the consideration on a case by case basis. The images in question were used to compare the various releases of the program. I have also provided examples of mainstream articles that also show multiple NFC images in exactly the same fashion, illustrating the mainline concept and then showing notable variations.

So I'm afraid I'll need a little more justification. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The user who closed the discussion (Werieth, I believe) should have removed the tag from the page on closure, as once closed, the archive bots move it to the archive pages, nullifying the link on the page.

And while NFG does allow exceptional cases for non-free in galleries, the handful of allowed exemptions is typically when one or two non-free images are mixed with free for the purposes of comparison and contrast. I'm aware of no gallery with a majority of non-free images which has been accepted readily by the community. This is why, in this case, the closure was correct - this is not one of those exceptional cases where the community would allow it.

This doesn't mean your images are necessarily unusable, but you need to find a way to put them inline and with proper justification for each image, and that's the points I raised above - I don't think you can justify 4 images for this page. Two, perhaps, but nowhere near all 4. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, then, it appears that my initial statement about gallery tags is correct, right? Consider it fixed. And none of this explains the lazy efforts on the part of everyone involved. Was it really to much to ask Stepha2 to post information tags on the pages of the people involved? And was it really too much to ask Werieth to wait more than one hour in the middle of a work day before closing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Its more than just the gallery tags, its the way the files are being used. Its a fairly clear violation of WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, again, the use of the gallery here pretty much has no consensus, even considering the exemption of NFG, so rapid removal made sense. The question of "everyone involved" on a article problem is solved by tagging the article, otherwise, you're asking editors to tag every editor that may have contributed to an article, and that's not a reasonable expectation.

Now you still have a problem, in that the three additional images beyond the one that is normally allowed for video games, and so these are still a problem, even outside the gallery. It doesn't matter if you consider this game very important, it is what the sources say about the game that would justify the use of additional screenshots, and that's simply not shown with the sources you presently have. None of the graphics are discussed in a critical way; even the one for Mars Mission II, where you state they are comparable to Scramble, is not repeated in the source listed, though I would think that you should be able to find more sources for this. But the images of Phobos and the official 2600 game? Those absolutely are not needed as you have no sourced discussion about their graphics that would be necessary to include those images. NFC is about minimizing non-free, and that's why we have NFG, and why we don't just use screenshots to justify that a certain version exists. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Press Your Luck.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Obvious PD-textlogo and has already been updated to reflect. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Possibly a PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly in the US, but where there's a lower threshold like the UK, probably not (the curvature of the letters would contribute there). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What? Press Your Luck was an American show, not UK. It should be uploaded to Commons. Now I've tagged it as PD-textlogo. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:10 things -logo.PNG

I found the promo ad of 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series). Shall I replace the stand-alone logo for the promo ad? George Ho (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the promo ad is going to be copyrighted (2009, means it automatically has copyright), there's no reason to do this, and you should leave the title card. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the logo copyrighted also? Anyway, the promo ad has cast in it. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The logo, with that paint-like effect, is copyrightable, so yeah, I see where you're going with the cast too. The only thing to consider is that, particularly with sit-coms in which the actors appear as themselves, that one can also likely construct the case like from free images. This might be a larger question to ask at the TV project, but non-free, either works. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:CallahanvsVamp.jpg

Rationale indicates that this is a book cover, but it's actually an interior illustration. Kelly ^hi! 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As the article that the rataionle claims it is for already has a cover image, this is only being used as an illustration of the plot, without critical commentary, and thus inappropriate per NFCC#8 and should be deleted. (If it was being used as the ID image, the rationale could have been fixed, but that's not the case) --MASEM (t) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg

Closing this as it's listed for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

To save this image from deletion, I must put this image under review. Somehow, I'm not sure why it is replaceable, but Image:BRafamily.PNG is a banner (or some sort), not part of the opening title. Also, under WP:IUP rules, a JPEG should be used for photos. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of JPEGs is a "rule of thumb", not a hard and fast rule. We've never quibbled over the formats used in TV infoboxes. File:BRafamily.PNG has been used in Brandy & Ray J: A Family Business since 2010 and was sourced from the the VH1 website. File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg is a print ad sourced from somewhere else. It was uploaded today and used to replace File:BRafamily.PNG. It is currently orphaned because its addition to the article was reverted. We simply don't need it. The image that we've been using in the article since 2010 is more than adequate for the tas and more in line with the convention we use for TV series infobox images. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would a banner from website be more substantial than a promo ad? Since we couldn't obtain the title card when the series originally aired, how do we obtain one, now that it's unavailable on DVD? The banner itself shows a happy, smiley family. The promo ad doesn't do that. What's wrong with the promo ad besides being just a "promo ad"? George Ho (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "more substantial", I said the existing file was "more than adequate". There was simply no need to upload another item of non-free content to replace an existing item of non-free content. All we try to do with these images is to identify the program. The existing file does that. The poster provides nothing that the existing file doesn't already provide. In fact it provides less. The existing file gives us a reasonably good view of the four cast members, while the new file has two of them in the background, making them much harder to identify. The existing file uses only 30.8% of the screen real estate that the new file does. It's less overwhelming than the new file. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:French Printer and Engraver.jpg

Clearly PD-Old, tagged as such. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

A 1521 work is Public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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)

Moving forward – non-free content rules are not determined by number of arguments although they are concerned with consensus; they are not community standards in the same way as other parts of the encyclopedia because reasoning has to fit within the criteria. Secondly, I think accusing editors of lining up as if they were themselves incapable of independent thought is a personal attack which should be avoided. Thirdly, I would like to reiterate that in order to justify inclusion the contribution of each image to the reader's understanding must be must be clear. Some points from my own perspective:

• The double usage of File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg is inappropriate; one use should be removed. The current rationale refers to the one at the top.
• The commentary on File:Sarajevo Scout group.png should be improved to include dates of use, or some other way of placing it in context.
• The provenance of File:Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske.png is too unclear to be included. It is not included or referenced on the blogspot link given in ref #4, where examples of similar but actually different designs occur (with a little eagle in the center). If it cannot be satisfactorily referenced, it should be deleted. If it doesn't appear elsewhere in books, online, or so forth, then it is unlikely to warrant inclusion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg should be removed from Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine#Emblems, as the dual use in the infobox and the gallery violates WP:NFCC#3a. The information in the image caption of the image in the gallery can be turned into a footnote to the image caption of the infobox image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:36, 2 October 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)

UUI #6 is designed for paintings and similar images where the other article is about the image, not the subject of the image. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 23 August 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)

I've replaced the trophy with the logo and moved it to the results section, since that seemed more appropriate. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how that use is appropriate under WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this file be replaced by a cropped version of File:2009t20.jpg? It seems that would be freer than File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg and thus preferrable per WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: File:2009t20.jpg has not existed on Commons since June 2013. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009t20.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the common procedure is for transferring a file that was deleted at Commons to EN Wikipedia as non-free content, but that is what should be done here (after the unnecessary parts have been cropped from the image). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:02, 15 October 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 [19], [20] 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)

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 [21]. 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)

A problem with non-free images identifying an organization is that their purpose is just that: identification. Non-free images used for identification tend to violate WP:NFCC#8, because the omission of such an image doesn't make an article incomprehensible. As such, a non-free logo should not be used in a Wikipedia article at all, except if it is used in the context of critical commentary, which would be incomprehensible if the logo were omitted. The current consensus that it is acceptable to use non-free logos without critical commentary for identification of the entity the logo represents at the top of that entities article. There is no consensus AFAIK that it is acceptable to use non-free logos for identification of each single entity an article discusses and as such non-free logos cannot be used for identification purposes in sections. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg to hopefully get an experienced closer on board for this discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 16 October 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)

Actually, the screenshot shows a different version of one of the Camera Obscura's gameplay mechanics. Instead of the proximity-based charging system from the original Fatal Frame II, the Wii remake returns to the series' standard method of charging attack power by keeping the target ghost in the Camera Obscura's capture circle. —017Bluefield (talk) 20:08, 12 October 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 ([22], 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)
            • And they will be speedily deleted as copyvio. NFCC#1 is about whether a free image is actually available, not whether one could theoretically be created. All copyrighted images will fall into the public domain in 110 years or more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 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)
                      • The bit about it being black tie. How did you know that? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
                        • Because's its the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? And even if that isn't obvious enough, stating in text it was a "black tie event" is more than sufficient to avoid direct illustration. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kate Bush

Are 6 sound clips really needed? Werieth (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The artist has a very unique and distinctive style, but one sample would seem to cover that. Perhaps what editors need to do is discuss which sample best illustrates her unique vocal and rhythmic style.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also note that a lot of those are also included in the song page as well. Werieth (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to see a live clip added to most artists, but Kate Bush is not known for ever really touring and had only one tour very early in her career so I would not support such a clip as being relevant (even if one could be found) I actually think the tour section is undue weight for one single tour in 1979.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should lose everything but "Wuthering Heights" (1978) and "Running Up that Hill" (1985). I think these two selections best demonstrate the artists range and I believe her biggest hits.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the clips are all relevant. Kate as an artist has been known to have many distinct styles and, considering how those styles have influences artists of all different genres, I feel as though it's important to display the different styles through samples. Kate was a pioneer of rock, pop, jazz and electronic music and to limit the scope of the samples to only her more homogenized hits would deprive the article of displaying the other innovations of her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.141.32 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't use sound clip samples just to show the variation in music styles an artist might have. We need sourced discussion about each clip and more specifically towards the musician, otherwise it does not belong on the page. I think there's reasonably room for one or two samples, but certainly not 5 or 6. (And as a note, while Featured, it was pre-2008, when we had less strict NFCC enforcement at FAC) --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pre- 2008 less strict enforcement is a strange thing to say. Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict. Wikipedia is always evolving sometimes for the worse sometimes the better. The exclusionists seem to have the upper hand at the moment even when copyright holders express no interest as to if their images are used or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My pre-2008 comment is that prior to 2008, image/media use at FAC was reviewed but not with the scrutiny that has now come on line due to the Foundation's resolution on non-free media and subsequently at FAC due to more stringent review of the media. In other words, if the FAC of this article was post-2008, it likely would not have passed with all those media files. And our removal of non-free content is to support the Foundation's goal of making a free content work, using non-free only when necessarily to help understanding of an article. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • • "Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict." No one is appointed. We all volunteer. Less strict? I doubt it. Probably even more strict as the use of other people's intellectual property is not a right or a given. Editors here do not always agree...that's why its a review discussion and not just a unilateral decision.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Although the fact the rules do tend to change have made many people leave the project (including me; I used to be an admin but got so frustrated at seeing Featured and Good articles devalued after all the hard work and hoop-jumping people did to qualify them, and also the changing rules re: images that at one point was changing almost by the day, I now only casually edit as an IP and stopped contributing visual material about 4 years ago (in my former Wiki-life I began to advocate for a zero-image policy on Wikipedia, which in retrospect is actually not a bad idea as some pages are very hard to read properly on hand-held and pad devices because of heavy use of media). Anyway, to avoid being accused of tangenting, I have to agree that there's no need to have more than two representative sound clips. The huge article on The Beatles only has two. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• This featured article Ōkami has a number, five or six, of non free images with minimal rationales. Is this a candidate for review or a good example of how to do it and get past the enforcers and their friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It was a 2007 nomination, and I just removed 3 files for failing WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Given that that is my article (in the sense I brought it to FAC and the primary editor) I'm pretty confident that the NFC use on that article is acceptable. For example you remove the screenshot of the core mechanic of the game that is discussed in text and backed by sources. That's not an NFC failure.
    • As to this article, there is no maximimum number of allowed NFC - it is whatever the article sourcing supports and required for reader understanding. Hence arguments of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is useless. Photos of victims mentioned in passingSound samples that are just there but not discussed in the text in a manner to explain how they relate to the artist are not cases we generally allow for NFC, and thus those images are all failures. I'm sure there's a few samples that can be expanded up in text so they may remain, but we can't just pull a number of samples from songs across the musican's career if there's no text to explained how her style changed over time. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • (Fixing my statement there, as I forgot which sction this was) --MASEM (t) 00:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Are we still talking about the Kate Bush article?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 00:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, my fault as I was confusing this section with the one two above about victim photos (though the same issues of NFC overuse exist in both). --MASEM (t) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • No problem. Thank you for your reply.--Mark _{Just ask!} 06:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that two samples ("Wuthering Heights" and "Running Up that Hill", which can be considered as her career zeniths) would be enough to demonstrate her musical eclecticism and style. Other samples are just redundant. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Brahmanaidu Statue destruction 2011 Million March Telangana.jpg

IMO, it violates "Contextual significance". Just shows a statue being destroyed. Even text can convey the idea. It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The image is significant in many ways: a) Images of 12th century leaders were destroyed who weren't connected with the current movement. Later government & political sources felt that it could be due to militant (naxal) infiltration into the movement. b) The destruction of these statues also created fear & insecurity in the minds of people of other regions who are against the seperation as to what will happen to their properties & interests in Hyderabad after seperation. c) the event itself is a very siginificant milestone in the movement which showed the color of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the photo's okay, as 1) it doesn't appear to be a press photo based on the original source, and 2) it is showing an event from the past (though there's a moderate chance there may be others that photographed it and we could get a free image, but that's not an assurance). That said, it's being used on two articles but really only should be used on one, Early 2011 Telangana protests where the destruction of the statues is of specific discussion. The rationales currently there only list it for the Telangana Movement, so we do have a rationale problem (#10c), but again, I think the article the image can be used on needs to be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Early 2011.. article is a daughter article of Telangana movement article. Hence being used in both. Vamsisv (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(re Masem): No, clear NFCC#8 violation. "Showing an event from the past" is obviously not enough to justify an image. It would have to be showing something about that event that's significant for understanding the article and couldn't adequately be conveyed in other ways. What is that "something"? The specific way that guy has climbed the statue? The way the other guy is waving his little pink flag? There's nothing in the visual detail of the image that is pivotal to understanding the scene, beyond the generic information that "furious demonstrators climbed on statues and vandalized them", which can easily be conveyed in words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The pink flags belong to certain political party. Though the party denied having been directly involved but the picture proves their activists in the act. Thus the picture is significant because it proves the party's involvement in the violent acts of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We never use non-free images to "prove facts". For that purpose, we only use reliable second-party published sources. Everything else would be WP:OR. If you think it's important that that party was involved in the activities, find a reliable source that says so, and cite it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before the purpose is to show the landmark event of the movement. Many things changed in the course of the movement after this act. I'm not boxing it by saying it just proves the involvement of a party. Also there is no free image available - Very few images are available since media was also attacked during that event. Vamsisv (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Catwoman

This article has 12 images. The only free one is File:Julie Newmar Catwoman Batman 1966.JPG. I don't know if we should list them all in this section or just the questionable ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is excessive in my view. The same is true with the article Wonder Woman. If Cat Woman has a free image of a live performer, then one or two...maybe three (because the character is older and has a longer history of changes that would be encyclopedic to depict with discussion of costume and character development) of the comic book depictions is fine. But 12 is way too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg

Invalid rationale. Replaceable on this article with free alternative of live performance actress with free file.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Batmanreturnspostercatwoman.png

Invalid rationale. Purpose is purely decorative and does not represent the actual cover art for the motion picture. This is pre-promotional material to generate interest and attention. Caption is incorrect.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwoman&Catgirl.jpg

I actually agree with this one use. Seems to have a full rationale and has contextual significance. I have no idea how notable the character of Catgirl is, but it seems reasonable that such a development is notable enough for an image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman-batman01.jpg

I agree with the use of this one as well. it is highly encyclopedic to depict the original first use of the character. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman-ninelives-tpb.jpg

This one as well I agree with its use. This more contemporary work depicts the many versions of the character in one image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Catwoman.jpg

Lee Meriwether is notable as the first actor to portray the character I believe. There is an earlier serial from the late 40's or early 50s but I don't think there was a catwoman. Does anyone know? At any rate there is no valid rationale for this article and the existing rationale may be invalid as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:CatwomanB&B.jpg

This probably fails a number of criteria but I don't think we need to illustrate each contemporary depiction of cartoon series incarnations. I think one is fine and the another artistic rendering may be more encyclopedic.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwomanbaby.PNG

Invalid rationale. Little encyclopedic value in the image. Depiction is too generic in my view. Could be any mother and child.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• File:Catwoman BTAS.jpg
• File:PfeifferCatwoman.jpg
• File:TBCatwoman.png

Are the files in question. Werieth (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I do suspect - but without doing a source check - either one (but not both) of the recent live action movie shots could be used since I recall that the outfit was critically discussed. But nearly any other appear is going to require sourcing that discusses the look of the character (we have the identifying one at the top that works in general), which I doubt will be readily available. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that we actually have such strength for use Masem, if you read the actual text: "In the 1960s, Catwoman's catsuit was green in color, which was typical of villains of that era. In the 1990s, she usually wore a skintight purple catsuit, before switching to a black PVC catsuit that recalls Michelle Pfeiffer's costume in Batman Returns (except not stitched together).". it seems this could easily be illustrated with the original Julie Newmar image that is free. Would that not mean that the Phieffer image doesn't pass criteria NFC#1 replaceable with a free alternative?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I found a few at commons and uploaded a few more from Flickr to show the costumes. I need to check the copyright commons guidelines on the mannequin and the wax figure with File:Old timey selina kyle (3262626624).jpg and File:Michelle Pfeiffer wax model.jpg. We also have the Lee Meriwether version with File:Catwoman original Chicago C2E2 2013.jpg and the purple version with File:Catwoman and Penguin 2007.jpg. I created Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles as a proposal to see if we can get consensus to replace many of these non-free images that just show versions of a character or costume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That said, if we go back to the discussion about the Jedi image above, it would likely be considered improper to use cosplay images as replacement for any of the "representation of the character" images (an image to show a person in cosplay as showing the popularity of the character as a cosplay target - that's okay). Photos of the actual costumes on wax dummies may seem reasonable but now we get back into copyright territory where the costume could be copyrighted (I am not 100% sure of this, however). --MASEM (t) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Costume to cover the costume copyright issues at commons. The wax museum image doesn't seem to have a decision at commons. If wax museum images are considered utilitarian as historically educational then they can stay. If not then we have a huge problem with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wax_museums at commons. If the Pfeiffer non-free movie image is just to show the costume change then we do have File:Catwoman San Fransico WonderCon 2009 .jpg which shows the same costume. Our third pillar does state that we should strive to use free images where we can.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967, the template from commons means nothing. It is simply a disclaimer, not a license. Costumes do have a copyright however, like many images between certain dates, the copyright had to be mentioned when published. Such copyright is attached to the film credits and counts as published copyright disclaimer. This gives the production company copyright of costumes, but the designer may retain partial copyright or none at all (see Star War helmets for example). Wax figures are not historic representations, they are entertainment and would be the same as showing another theatrical representation of the subject. If it has relevance in discussion it could be used...if the costume copyright is not still in force. In this case Warner Brothers still owns the rights to all Batman Costuming. With Cosplay, you must have a specific reason to show it and, again if it is the copyright of the studio it won't work of Wikipedia. Just because Commons hots it, doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the servers are both owned by WMF then if it is acceptable on commons it should be acceptable on en:wp as to copyright. See the final statement of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay where the community decided to host images of costumes. If there is case law in the future or the WMF changes their minds then we may have do delete all the images. Until then the warning template is there for commercial re-users. This is the same as the warning template we have for images of people. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights The images should be fine in articles until one of the above changes their status.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons do NOT have the same policies or the same goals, although they are similar. Your logic is simply incorrect. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. As for that discussion, it isn't even an argument here. Read it. Cosplay of copyrighted costumes are not even acceptable unless they are secondary in nature and only in limited circumstances. You use the discussion here as license to something ti does not even allow.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have clarified. If any image is accepted at commons then there should be no legal reasons not to include it in an en:wp article since the servers are governed by the same laws. I had this issue with File:ACMI 14.jpg where some users don't think we can legally use it in Academy Award. Since we have a free image we can't use a fair use one. This discussion just ended up with no image in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg - if the article discussed physical appearance of the character, would it be allowed? What I mean by that is, an image of the Halle Berry version of Catwoman could illustrate the many liberties taken with the character if in conjunction with text describing this. A description of Hathaway playing a version of the character more in physical line with the comics than, say, Michelle Pfeiffer or Berry's versions - would that work rather than a paparazzi photo of Hathaway taken at some random public event? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Images at Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

I closed a previous discussion about the use of non-free language in this article, which I reproduce below. My language in the close wasn't great, but I stand by the outcome, which was consensus to remove the care bears image and no consensus on the game cover (the third, a film image, not being in the article at the time of closing, and this prevented consensus engagement on the game cover). I removed the care bears image, which has subsequently been objected to. Given the imperfect close, and the fact that the film image has been readded, I think it best to revisit this issue. I'll notify the interest party. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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 [23] and [24] 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)

---

---

(Starting fresh discussion here) As with the Catwoman thing here, I would argue that unless there is critical discussion that either focuses on the other versions of the character (or aspects thereof) , or that compares/contrasts with the earlier one, it is not our place to document via non-free illustrations of the other versions of a character. Eg, just because there is another version of a character out there, we don't need to illustrate it unless there is appropriate contextual significant for that specific iteration of the character. These character articles can use a non-free for the default infobox image if that is how they are first presented as an image for identification, but that's it without additional discussion. In this case for Alice, the Disney version is reasonable to keep but the others are not. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43021516@N06/4382428505/ published in 1916. We have many PD similar of the same character so there is no need to use modern non-free.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg (the 1951 Disney image) is currently being used as free. The three non-free files are carebears, the Burton film, and the American McGee's Alice box cover. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah , I didn't see that was free as well, so yes, reasonable to keep. Of the other three, there may perhaps be reason to use a non-free of the video game version of Alice given that there was discussion at the time of the game's release of the gritty version of the character, but I would replace the box art with a character image if possible. The live-action film was a flop and thus I doubt there is significant discussion about that character relative to the established Alice character, and there's zero need for the Care Bears one. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in that this still does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and it's omission would not be "detrimental to that understanding". It is not possible to use this (or probably any still) to show what is a moving dance. LGA _talk^edits 04:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, it, in fact increases the understanding why Cyrus was not only criticized, but panned by music critics, television critics, pro-family associations, youth parents Thicke's mother, and basically anyone who watched the show. Also, Cyrus performance went viral and it is subject of several internet memes. You can't say that fails #8 without giving a valid reason to fail #8, because I have had contact with people who didn't watch the MTV's and they were like "Really, what she did". So, yes, this increases the understanding of the topic: the MTV performance added to relevant sections. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, thanks for notifying me about this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• But you can only tell what she is doing with a description so the image adds nothing. As for the lack of notification but apparently it is not deemed relevant to notify uploader. WT:Twinkle is the place to talk about that. LGA _talk^edits 08:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete in both uses. We don't need to see a photo of known people with the description "twerking" to understand that the dance move was criticized (I am surprised we don't have a picture of twerking on the article about it, but that can be done with a free image). This is far different than something like Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy where the action performed was not a common action that could be simplified. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete in both uses per MASEM.--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Adds significantly to our understanding, and omission would be detrimental. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please explain how not seeing the image would be detremential. It's explained Miley twerked against Thicke, do you need to see that to understand that? --MASEM (t) 19:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I would argue that the removal of the image would prove an issue, as it is rather difficult to explain what "twerking" is in words only. The image succinctly illustrates this, and why it was controversial.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We have an article on what twerking is, including a free image of what it is (and more can be made freely). The non-free fails NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: neither use in Blurred Lines or We Can't Stop adds anything significant that can justify the inclusion of a non-free image and the facts are already expressed in prose with only states that the twerking took place at that event involving Cyrus and Thicke. There is no reliably source critical commentary about the image in either article. Readers who don't know what twerking is can easily refer to the linked article on the topic where a free image, actually a video, which is even more informative, is available. ww2censor (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Brian Wilson

Obvious violation of minimal usage, 5 sound files are excessive, 2-3 are normal. Also File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png isnt needed. Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All sound clips convey every musical cornerstone of Brian Wilson's recording career from his beginnings as a freelance record producer in the early 1960s to a self-performing artist in present day. From his high-budgeted various artists Wall of Sound teen group period (surf rock); his minimal, reclusive, drug-addled, auto-biographical period which heavily reflects his well-publicized mental instabilities referred to multiple times throughout the article (psychedelic); his brief but notable foray into quirky synthesizer experimentation (art rock); and finally an example of his music as a credited solo artist (baroque pop). Although Wilson used The Beach Boys as a proxy for his released work between 1961–1988 (and for that reason, it may appear as though they place higher priority for inclusion in The Beach Boys article), a high emphasis is placed on the samples The Beach Boys - 'Til I Die and The Beach Boys - I'll Bet He's Nice because:

• "'Til I Die" has been cited as the most "personal" song Wilson had ever written. It is auto-biographical by nature, and provides a glimpse to the viewer of a period in Wilson's life often discrepant in journalism. Wilson is largely believed to have been in a state of complete inactivity between the times of the albums Pet Sounds (1966) and Love You (1977). This is blatantly untrue, and the sample does well to help disprove the myth and ultimately enhance the article by providing an audible summary of Wilson's work with The Beach Boys AND a summary of Wilson's output during the 1970s, which dramatically differed from other eras.
• "I'll Bet He's Nice" stems from recording sessions intended for a Brian Wilson solo album. The song's credit to "The Beach Boys" is arguably nominal; Wilson himself plays every instrument in the sample, and also offers lead vocals. Additionally, the same extra justifications above can be duplicated for this particular sample as it can serve to convey Wilson's work with The Beach Boys during the 1970s. Not only that, but it also provides an example of Wilson's voice shortly after it very noticeably deteriorated from excessive drug use.

As for File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png not being "needed," that reasoning is awfully vague. It is a photo of Wilson during sessions for the album Pet Sounds, a work for which he is most known for. Within the article, the only other picture of Wilson from around its recording sessions is removed by two years, was photographed from a far distance with many other people in view, and by itself poorly exemplifies his person and demeanor in the 1960s. Wilson was primarily known as a studio musician and record producer, and so a photo of him in that context highly enhances the article space it accompanies. Another function the photo serves is to provide a space in which to comment on the thick-rimmed glasses he was often photographed wearing for a short time in the 1960s. Some of the most iconic photos of Wilson show him with these glasses. I'm not sure how it is supposed to be obvious that this photo must be removed. Looking at other articles for guidance, John Lennon is also portrayed two times in the article for the 1960s spaces: once during his early "mop top" period and another during his later "psychedelic" period. The principles are nearly identical for Wilson.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Werieth here at least on sound samples. Yes, for an average band or musician, 2-3 is probably the norm. However, this is someone that has been a significant influence on music, and given that he both sang and arranged songs, examples of both are not unreasonable. Arguably since all of these songs appear to be notable on their own (where the song sample could be include if not already), we could relocate one or two there, but I don't see 5 being excessive for someone like this (though I would encourage trimming if possible). As for the photo, I think it's rather reason to include - he wrote glasses despite not having vision problems. If his glasses-wearing was a noted iconic image of him during that time, that would be one thing, but I think we're talking about during a closed session, and that can be described in text. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets break this down:

• File:Brian Wilson I Just Wasn't Made For These Times.png

Also used in The Beach Boys, Nothing is iconic about this look, and can be described in text.

• File:I'llBetHe'sNice.ogg

Also used on Love You (album), doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

• File:Melt Away Brian Wilson.ogg

Also used on Brian Wilson (album) doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

• File:Sping with Brian Wilson.jpg

Used correctly on American Spring and not critical to this article.

• File:The Honeys - He's A Doll.ogg

Not used on other articles may be appropriate here

• File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Also used on 'Til I Die doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

Werieth (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that there are times we allow duplication of sound samples between the artist and the song/album where there is reasonable discussion for both; the question is here if Wilson's personal efforts are called out for the song, or if its just dropped as a representative work. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Even then we can reference the other article where the file is being used. 2-3 should be kept the rest should be left on the other respective articles. Most are not detrimental if removed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically you're right, the article doesn't "need" anything. What about the things it "could" or "should" have? The usages of those files are relatively minimal, being present on only two articles at the most. I still say the photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds is definitely iconic. You will undoubtedly see a photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds sessions in every documentary or related piece about him, and he's sporting those glasses in almost every photo.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not a documentary, we are writing a free encyclopedia. We already have a free image of the person, including a non-free image of him in glasses where he is known for what he produces and not his personal visual appearance is not needed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's established that absolutely no media is really needed in the article. That goes for the image used in the article's infobox. "The reader already knows from prose that Wilson is a 71-year-old man, so what's the purpose of an image that serves nothing except to convey unneeded information like hair color or wrinkles?" The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves. Of course the infobox photo doesn't impose itself. Neither does the photo of Wilson circa 1966 where it is accompanied by text describing his life at that point. Nobody should feel as though it is odd to find several photographs of Brian Wilson in different stages of his life on the article for Brian Wilson. They likewise should not be shocked that an article for a popular composer marked by several different musical approaches throughout their career contains at most one sound clip for every decade they've been musically active. The four sound clips are irreducible because they perfectly display everything he's prospered to and is identified with, which is basically happy pop, sad rock, synthesized lunacy, and his present day activities. I've already explained why the article's quality benefits greatly with the addition of a relatively iconic photograph of Wilson taken during the most profiled event of his career. There's no reason to have walls of text lacking a suitable visual accompaniment when one with an apt rationale is readily available.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the statement it's whether they make the article look neater means that your whole approach to non-free media is flawed. That approach is fine for free media. However the standards and bar for inclusion for non-free media is significantly higher than just being eye candy. Given that such a large number of these non-free files are accessible on other articles, and we have a free image for his primary visual identification we could easily trim down the non-free files to 2-3 and not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely, but they're only used on one other article. I would agree if the same photo was used in several other articles wherein the subject is only tangentially related. Then it would be overuse. But it's a photo that focuses on the article's subject and nothing else. For that reason, it actually has an even more logical placement in Brian Wilson than it does on The Beach Boys. I'm not sure where you're basing the claimed "2-3" benchmark from.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." is absolutely wrong. We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance for the image to be used while minimizing the number used. We have a picture of Wilson, and the only thing is that he wore these glasses during a specific recording session. Did it impact the music? Did it impact his association with the rest of the band? Did it inspire a song? I'm not reading this, just that he happened to look like that that day. As such, the image is not needed, as currently described. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance" No duh. And I've already established numerous explanations of contextual significance. Nothing more need be said by me about the purpose of those images and clips. I'll still reiterate for you why his appearance at the time is notable for inclusion in order to appease you:

• He is not wearing garb associated with his extroverted live performance era. He is wearing distinguished garb associated with his intimate studio producer era, and the psychedelic era for which he was part of to a great extent. This same layout and reasoning is also applied in the John Lennon article to no complaints.
• He is wearing formal attire to a pop music recording session which (as I recall hearing somewhere) was unusual for younger producers at the time according to The Wrecking Crew musicians.
• It is a photo of him with nobody else in frame.
• The photo was taken at the most crucial period in his life.
• It accompanies the Pet Sounds section well for being a photo taken during Pet Sounds.
• The Pet Sounds recording sessions are directly related to the music; it is a photo of him as he was creating the very thing for which he is (arguably) most notable for.
• Wilson is very-much-so known for his idiosyncratic personality, and so yes, doing something weird like pretending to be nearsighted is not a closed case of strangeness. This trait of his was exerted in full force around his "bed" period during which he became a subject of lore and mystique a la Syd Barrett.

Because numerous rationales have been established, I reiterate, "the question is whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." Do they? I say no. Let them stay; they're not hurting anybody.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"they're not hurting anybody" - wrong. Every piece of non-free in WP harms the free content mission set by the Foundation which is why the goal is to minimize the amount of non-free used and avoid uses that are otherwise replaceable. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NFL on Fox

This concerns the use of what is currently nine separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:

• WP:NFCC#3a: having nine separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
• WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
• WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, yeah, there is absolutely no need to iterate the small changes in the onscreen scoring banner with non-free media. Most of these sections are unsourced, meaning that we're looking at original research at how important these changes are. It's a fricken' scoring banner! --MASEM (t) 22:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The small changes can be a big thing in some certain situation. For FOX, after introducing this Digital On-Screen Graphics during NFL on FOX, they ended up applying to ALL of their sport broadcast. It's not a fricken scoring banner, it's also a branding as well as whole. Unsourced or not, this is pretty important. Although the images should be cropped to just show the scoring banner, as I feel the picture of the whole game is somewhat distracting. Bentoman (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

NFL on CBS

(Much of the argument is the same as for the NFL on Fox discussion above, but for convenience I shall reproduce it here, adapted.)

This concerns the use of what is currently six separate non-free images in the Digital on-screen graphics section. The issues with the usage are the following:

• WP:NFCC#3a: having six separate non-free images seems to be excessive.
• WP:NFCC#3b: the picture of the football game is not necessary to understanding the scorebox, so it could be replaced by a picture of just the scorebox. To the extent the positioning of the scorebox on the screen is relevant, a replacement could be made that blanks out everything but the scorebox, or a diagram could be made to demonstrate where on the screen the scorebox would be.
• WP:NFCC#1: Many of the scoreboxes themselves (with no logos or other creative elements) may be PD-ineligible replacements for the screenshots.

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Same as above. There's no need at all to use non-free here. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Same as the one for my argument about FOX Sports graphics, it's all about the branding issue, and it is very important regardless. Bentoman (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:ThisTV WBNX-TV Akron-Cleveland.png

Text logo. Solid background version possibly available. Levdr1lp / talk 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably okay without removing the gradient/shadow, but it would be more assured if we could use a version free of the shadow. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I tried to remove the blueish shadow, but due to the color of the text (white to light grey) it does not show well with clear or white background. If there were a solid colored logo (maybe a screenshot one from their website) it would definitely be PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Added version w/ blue background. I used the source file for the foreground, and sampled the blue background on the website for the background layer in the file. Technically, the blue shadow is still visible if you look very, very closely, but it's barely detectable. Levdr1lp / talk 00:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely PD-textlogo :) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Carlos-Smith.jpg

We seem to have a dispute between two editors, User:Werieth and myself as to the appropriate usage of this iconic photo. I call it an iconic photo, User:‎BD2412 just today assigned the Category:Subjects of iconic photographs to the central figures in the photo. I hope, if you are unfamiliar, you can see the attached articles, particularly 1968 Olympics Black Power salute to see the significance of the event. Within 5 hours of the importance of this photo being so assigned, Werieth removed the photo of it from Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres, the event where this photo took place. When I reverted it, rather than stopping to address the dispute, the user continued to remove it from Doug Roby, the then USOC Chairman who issued the punishment for the protest--probably the most significant thing this man did in his life and removed the claim of fair use from the photo itself.

As best I can determine, this photo was taken in 1968. Copyright is negotiated by the Associated Press. Our low resolution copy of the photo, acquired from another online encyclopedia, is the first thing to show up in google. To my knowledge, AP has never protested. Its been on Wikipedia for almost exactly 9 years, I would think the absence of a claim against due diligence would not hold water. If ever we have a case for fair use, for the place and individuals involved with this photo could be made, this would be it. I think a reasonable argument could be made to add it to Harry Edwards (sociologist), which links to the article Werieth removed the photo, as well. And this goes on to the overall look of Wikipedia. For us NOT to properly cover such material would be censorship and is borderline racist. Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I am an intellectual property attorney. There is no reasonable objection to this photo being fair use for 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, as it is the photo depicting this notable event. Frankly, there is no court that would find this to be anything but a fair use for a fairly broad range of related articles, given the age and historically wide redistribution of this image, and Wikipedia's non-profit educational mission. bd2412 T 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes fair use law would allow us to use it, however Wikipedia's policy on non-free media is far far more strict. Acceptable usage needs to be viewed in that perspective. I am not disputing the usage on 4 primary articles (Tommie Smith, John Carlos, Peter Norman, 1968 Olympics Black Power salute) However because we have an existing article on the image usage outside of them cannot be justified by wikipedia policy. Werieth (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The photo is absolutely appropriate at 1968 Olympics Black Power salute but utterly not appropriate at Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres; that latter article is just about the summary of the event, and the photo does not aid the reader's understanding there. (You do link to the Black Power salute in the lead, so the importance of that event - and the picture - are accessible there). We use a stronger requirement than fair use, which the photo would likely fall under on the Men's 200 Meter event page, but fails the minimum use of non-free of our NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Trackinfo Please remove your comment calling me a racist. That is a personal attack. I am not censoring anything. Feel free to add notes and a link to 1968 Olympics Black Power salute wherever relevant. The usage of the file however must be restricted. Werieth (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not call you a racist. It would be racist on the part of Wikipedia to censor remove this important part of history of the struggle. It would be equivalent with Wikipedia ignoring the Greensboro sit-ins, Selma to Montgomery marches or not showing File:Wallace at University of Alabama edit2.jpg. You may not be part of it, but there are factions out there who wish to rewrite this part of history with racist malice a forethought. Each little chip at removing an element of the truth helps their goals, whether you do it deliberately or not. Trackinfo (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You called me a borderline racist. I am not attempting to hide or suppress any facts. I am just trying to ensure our media usage is in compliance with policy. Keep in mind each one of the topics you referenced has its own article, guess what so does 1968 Olympics Black Power salute. I am not removing anything from that article, I am just attempting to follow our m:Mission to keep usage of non-free media to a minimum. Please note I am not referring to the file as fair use for a good reason, wikipedia policy in regards to copyrighted material (Non-free media) which includes fair use material, among others, is about 100 times more strict than that. Werieth (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You do know what censoring is, yes? Removing one use of a picture is nowhere close to censoring. We'd have to remove every mention of that topic, including the article itself, to get to that. Werieth's removal is simply to reduce non-free where it is not needed given that it is used much more appropriately elsewhere, and you are running the lines of no personal attacks by grossly mistating the situation. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not make any accusation of any individual editor being racist. I did not issue any sort of personal attack. To quote myself "For us NOT to properly cover such material" is in reference to Wikipedia in general. I clarified, our failure to properly cover the facts of the struggle plays into the agenda of racists who wish to rewrite that story. If there is any misinterpretation that this is directed at any individual, I apologize. Trackinfo (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Removed from all but the main 1968 Olympics Black Power salute article. This was additionally being used in as many as three biography articles, where it was used in lieu of a portrait in the infobox. In that function it was obviously replaceable with other images, and the point about the salute doesn't need to be visually repeated beyond its main statement in the dedicated article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to disagree. The image represents the single most noted moment in the lives of its subjects, and this event is discussed in each article. Is there another image capable of conveying this moment? As for the image being replaceable, the question then arises, what free images of these subjects are available? I realize this is not a point that we usually dwell on, but we face fewer potential entanglements in reusing the same image for related purposes than in making fair use claims to multiple images. Perhaps these three articles could each instead use a version of this image cropped to the particular athlete. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • As long as the three athletes are still alive, a free image could be taken, and thus a non-free is not allowed to be used. (We don't require that a free image currently be available, just that one can be made). --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I also disagree. The issue is not filling the void of an image of the athletes. THE SALUTE, the act that is still the most notable event in their lives (over and above winning Olympic medals, setting world records, NFL careers etc) is irreplaceable. I can probably come up with my own pictures I can clear of the individuals, I certainly have pictures of the statue created from the iconic photo at San Jose State University. Those are a grossly poor substitute for the actuality. This issue is under discussion, with only a handful of participants so far (likely ever). I think Future Perfect jumped the gun on taking action before a consensus is reached. Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
        • We have an article on that salute that is linked from all involve athletes, which the user can link to to learn more. Also, no you can't make a free image from that statue - artwork in a fixed medium in the US does not have freedom of panorama, meaning that photographs of such art are derivative works and retain the copyright of the artist. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Above, someone wrote that the photo was taken by the Associated Press. Per WP:NFC#UUI §7, we need significant discussion about the photo in order to keep it, which normally means that the photo only can be used in an article about the photo itself. The article 1968 Olympics Black Power salute only discusses the subject of the photo, not the photo itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Trackinfo (talk · contribs) has engaged in canvassing user talk pages. Werieth (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I notified other editors who have been specifically involved with the file in question. Proper notification. Exactly what Werieth failed to do when initiating this attack on the image. My contributions are publicly visible. Look at the text of what I wrote to those involved: "A file you have been previously involved with is under discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg" Furthermore, there should be a notice on each page the image has been removed. If nobody else posts such a notice, next time I have time to edit, I'll search for the appropriate template. What I told Werieth to do back on October 11. It is not in broader interests of wikipedia as a worldwide information source to keep these backroom discussions limited to the very few who know they exist. Trackinfo (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal from the bios. It is the thing those athletes are most known for and is an irreplaceable iconic moment in history. This passes NFCC 8 by a Kentucky mile and makes the rest of the NFCC its whimpering little bitch. Keeping it out of the currently undeveloped article on the competition itself I get, but not these bios.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • First and foremost, we don't allow non-free images of living persons. The page about the salute is linked to the athletes involved, the reader can click through to learn more. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no prohibition on using non-free images of living persons, we just don't use them when the image itself lacks significance. All non-free images are subject to the same criteria for inclusion in an article and can be used in more than one article even if both articles are linked. Such use of non-free images happens all the time. The moment captured in that photo is discussed in-depth in all of their bios and it is clearly not an image you can simply replace with some recent image of them as old people speaking at some conference.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You especially can't recreate this image or suspect a fresh might be taken as Norman has been dead since 2006.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then that's a reasonable use, but not for the others that are alive. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things: first, it is an obvious consequence of WP:NFCC#3 (minimal use) that a single image should not be used in more articles than necessary. Where we have a central article dealing specifically with this particular aspect of their bios, we don't normally also include the same image in the more general parent articles without good cause. Second, there is one aspect that has not yet been sufficiently discussed here: what exactly is "iconic" here, the historical moment or this particular photograph of it? That's not the same thing. Of course the historical moment is important, but there are multiple different photographs of it, obviously similar but taken by different people from different angles, and I don't see that this particular photograph has any privileged role in being significantly "more iconic" in memorizing the event than the others. In this respect it's not like "Tank Man" or "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" or the like, which are truly unique photographic representations. It's also not being used as to support commentary on the photographer's creative work as such, which is normally the standard exception for commercial agency photos. Given the fact that it's a commercial AP photo, the bar for using it must be particularly high, so we'd need to have a particularly good argument why we need to use this particular photo and not any of the others that exist, some of which might have less commercial interest attached to them. What about screenshots from television coverage of the event, for instance? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting hairs, if there is a decent free image depicting the iconic event as it happened then provide it by all means and we can settle this, but if all you have are other non-free images then it is a moot point. The photo captures a moment and that moment has been discussed in some detail by reliable sources and is discussed to significant extent in the bios of all of these individuals. You cannot recreate that moment and without a free replacement for the image no argument against using a non-free image will actually touch NFCC. Minimal use does not in any way require limiting how many articles an image is used in as each article should have a case-specific rationale for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing up WP:NFCC#2 with WP:NFCC#1. WP:NFCC#2 has nothing to do with whether something is replaceable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#2 does not effect usage of this image, even if there is one that is even more compliant with that specific criteria. Any non-free usage meeting NFCC#2 would be fine if it meets all the other criteria. He is not presenting an argument that it does not meet NFCC#2, only that other images might be even more suitable under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#2 is not satisfied because the image violates WP:NFC#UUI §7, as mentioned above. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC

That is only if they are used outside the noted exceptions and NFCI#8 easily covers this image.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI §7 is only satisfied in the article Associated Press photo of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, and that article doesn't exist yet. The other articles contain zero critical discussion about the photo, and the photo therefore violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 and WP:NFCC#2 in those articles. See also {{db-f7}} (which the photo currently satisfies). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeating yourself and ignoring what I said is not a way to discuss things. That argument only applies outside the noted exceptions. Said exceptions include one saying "historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance" and this image would be covered under that criteria.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If WP:NFC#UUI §7 isn't satisfied, then WP:NFCC isn't satisfied, even if one or more point under WP:NFCI might be satisfied, as the use isn't valid fair use under US law. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, failing that criteria does not mean it would be invalid fair use nor does any image failing the NFCC inherently mean it is invalid fair use. Meeting the NFCI means it is acceptable under the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, that is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NFCC. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFCI, then it is usually acceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under WP:NFC#UUI, then it is usually unacceptable. If a file meets one or more criteria under both sections, then it depends on which is the strongest criterion. WP:NFC#UUI §7 is one of the strongest criteria as it is based on the limits for fair use under United States law. WP:NFC#UUI §1 is almost as strong, although exceptions tend to be made if a person is in prison for the rest of his life. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCI#8 would trump it any time, because educating about important moments in history is more important than some technical quibbling.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC (all 10 points) trump WP:NFCI. NFCI lists cases that generally pass if and only if they also pass NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation requires use to not use non-free images of living persons save in rare cases, generally when the person's appearance is the subject of critical discussion. This is not such a case. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? We are talking about a very blatant case of the person's appearance being the subject of critical discussion. Non-free images of living people are not acceptable merely for visual identification of the individuals, but that is not what we are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not talking about how he looks, which is where visual aid would be helpful. We're talking a documented event that they happened to participate in, and that doesn't need the visual aid on the bio page to understand per NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What they participated in was a visual statement, so, yes we are talking about how he looks. It may not have discussed their fashion sense or whether they dolled up their hair all nice and snazzy, but their appearance of protest is very much the subject of critical discussion and you can not do it justice by merely putting it into words.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That fails NFCC#8. A statement like "He is noted for his participation in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics", with link, with respect of a bio, is clearly understandable without the use of visual aid - the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed by its removal and thus NFCC#8 is failed. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If an album cover is discussed in an article about an artist do we remove the image of it from the article since there will be a link to an article on the album? We do not, so your argument is the only thing failing here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, yes we do. Album covers are only allowed in articles about that album (NFCI#1), or unless the album art is described in a critical manner about the subject. Artist articles are not allowed to use album art without significant commentary. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Read my comment again, please.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I did and its still the case that that we would almost never put an album cover (a work typically done by someone else other than the musical artist) on an article about the musical artist to represent the musical artist's work just because it happens to be the musical artist's most notable/recognized work, though of course we would certainly link to that. But I also believe we're talking apples and oranges. Album covers are typical abstract art and difficult to explain in text. Here is a photo that is fully describable in text (at least, on Carlos' page) and only represents one aspect of the whole 1968 Olympics statement. This might be their claim to fame, the event being important, but there's nothing suggesting the image itself is so iconic and not replaceable by text on the bio page to be needed. (This is similarly why we don't regularly use album art on musical artist pages). --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly did not read my comment very hard, so I am not even gonna bother talking to you anymore. Good day to you sir.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

delete or delete policy UUI #7; burden is upon the uploader 5 years ago to anticipate the raising the bar to include kissing the AP's ass. we have higher standards here than any university on the planet. or burden is upon the policy proposer to change the policy to meet the consensus here.

Trackinfo is correct, there is a systemic bias here: this is a community of privilege. we prefer ideological purity over history or fairness. who cares what the outcome means to information bias about minority communities? we prefer text over image. we prefer blindness over viewing the truth. Duckduckgo (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a higher bar, to create a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can use and redistribute, as opposed to academic standards that merely look to keep things within fair use. You're free to start a new online encyclopedia that doesn't have this restriction, but we're bound by the Foundation to minimize the amount of non-free we use. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

fair use is allowed; this is not a "free-content encyclopedia"; don't blame the foundation, they have nothing to do with your dilemma: either delete this image, or delete UUI#7. the forks have already begun, there's nothing ordained that this encyclopedia should retain it pre-eminence; it could very easliy become myspace, as all the reasonable editors go elsewhere. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, you see that icon on the top left of the page, the one that says "Wikipeida: The Free Encyclopedia"? The Foundation's mission is free content (free as in absence of copyright limitations, not cost). Yes, there are forks being created, that's one of the things we actually allow for, but WP itself will remain a work aimed at free content. (And remember, the UUI criteria are not irrefutable allowances, they are just generally acceptable cases, as long as all other NFCC are met) --MASEM (t) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL - policy by icon: if it's so free, how come the foundation is in a trademark flamewar? face facts, you keep pulling back the football, and redefining the "free" mission, depending on whose content you want to delete. you still have a policy, that you choose not to enforce in this case; therefore, it does not exist. let the uploads of "fair use" AP material continue. stop the hypocricy - do not import policy from commons, that does not have a consensus here. Duckduckgo (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Foundation has set a free content goal across all projects, including en.wiki, which allows for limited use of non-free media. Note that no one has said this image can't be used at all; we are only saying that the only reasonable place (and specifically, perfectly in line with policy) for the use of this image is on the event that it depicts, the demonstration at the Olympics. It is not appropriate nor necessary on the biographies. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Rationales given on image page seem reasonable and so far I have seen no reason for concern. If AP wants to sue Wikipedia let them have a go so it can set a more clear precedent. Ellomate (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. This is an iconic image that clearly qualifies for fair use on articles related to the 1968 Olympics. As for the bios, I don't see anyone actually linking to a living persons issue in the fair use guidelines. The relevant text seems to be Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2. Clearly this image has encyclopedic value beyond what one would get recreating this image. Interpreting this as a "no fair use images in BLPs" policy is a simplistic misunderstanding of the guideline.--Bkwillwm (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No one questions the use at the 1968 Olympic page, it will stay there. As for the issue of living persons , the Foundation themselves set this, per m:Resolution:Licensing policy. ("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.") --MASEM (t) 14:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • someone questions its use at the 1968 Olympic page: "The image should not be used." [25]. one questions why you would link to a meta table article which merely lists what each language is doing; perhaps you meant the foundation page [26]. one questions whether you agree that minimize fair use means zero. if not, then prove it by enforcing the policy with those who espouse this. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see anyone in this discussion saying the image can't be used at the page about the demonstration at the Olympics; that's clearly the appropriate page for its use. Yes, I mislinked to the resolution, but you found the right page, but that doesn't matter. For purposes of non-free, "minimal use" can include zero. An article that can be understood with only text and free images doesn't need a non-free image, hence minimizing non-free use. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

There's currently two images of Trayvon Martin in the articles Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Trayvon Martin, and there should probably only be one, per our rules on minimal use. One of the images was recently nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 19#File:Trayvon Martin on the backseat of a car.png but since discussion was minimal I am bringing the matter here. Are two images warranted in the articles, or should there be only one, and if so, which one? -- Diannaa (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree there should only be one and it should be the one of him wearing a hoodie as that photo is iconic. In the Shooting of article, it is discussed about his wearing of the hoodie at the time of his shooting and how many people across the US rallied while wearing hoodies in support. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 10:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Currently, as far as I know, there are only two images we have of Martin. I think there is contextual significance to both of these images to justify them both being used. The rationale for using the photo under review here is that it is presently being used for a visual depiction of the subject to illustrate for the reader an approximate age at the time he was shot and killed. And the hoodie photo is being used in context in relation to the protests, rallies and marches. They will only be used for the two articles, thereby minimizing their use. I see no reason to delete either one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the one with him in the car. It fails WP:NFCC#8. It's a picture of Martin and it is not substantially different from the hoodie image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC

Keep. I'm not really seeing the logic here. The picture of Trayvon in a hoodie was used in the protest nationwide as a result of the accusation that the hoodie played a significant role in Zimmerman's decision to label him as suspicious. The car photo simply shows what he looked like before his death.

• Delete the car photo, no reason at all for two non-free images per our policy. One works well enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Wide World Of Sport Logo Small.PNG

Image is not discussed in a critical manner at Nine's Wide World of Sports. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 22:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Vanessa logo.svg

Excessively large non-free file. Several details in it are only shown if you render it at a very high resolution, e.g. [[File:Vanessa logo.svg|3000px]]. Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unilever brands

I took this to WP:OTRSN, but the section was ignored, so I'm taking it here before a potential copyvio is noted. I'm going to quote what I said there:

According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, are our fair use files not fair use because of this? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would see about others' opinions but I would agree that if the jpgs are in the CC, SVG recreations (as derivative works) would also be free. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus

Hi everybody. Hi Dr. Nick. Not sure exactly what the procedure is here, but Werith has been creating quite the furore at the Titus Andronicus article. He is insisting that the following four images be removed because they violate NFCC#1:

1. File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg‎

2. File:Lavinia - Ninagawa production.jpg‎‎

3. File:Titus (Final Image).jpg

4. File:Baby Coffin.jpg

So, the images aren't in the article at the moment as to include them would undoubtedly cause Werith to spontaneously implode. Which no one wants. So here’s a version of the article which includes the images so you can see captions and context and so forth:

Clicktus hereicus

Note, that I plan on making a couple of minor adjustments should the images go back to the article:

The caption for Titus will be changed slightly to read:

"Young Lucius leaves the coliseum with Aaron's child, with the sun rising in the background; the final, optimistic, image of Julie Taymor's Titus (1999)."

As regards textual accompaniment, I planned to rewrite the Ninagawa section to read:

"The production followed the 1955 Brook production in its depiction of violence; actress Hitomi Manaka appeared after the rape scene with stylised red ribbons coming from her mouth and arms, substituting for blood."

and the Titus section to read:

"At the end of the film, young Lucius takes the baby and walks out of Rome; an image of hope for the future, symbolised by the rising sun in the background."

I'd like to note that the Laura Rees image was already up for deletion and was kept. Two quotes from that discussion seem pertinent here. User:DionysosProteus wrote "The image does fulfil the significance criterion. The realism and blood-thirstiness of the stage appearance of Lavinia at this moment in the play is one of its most significant images--probably the image that most spectators/readers remember. That it has been represented in vivid realism, in contrast, say, to Peter Brook's symbolic treatment, is a significant element of the information to be conveyed by the article. Visual representation of this is a vital and useful dimension of conveying that information. The caption makes the significance clear. Both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 satisfied and relevant." In the same discussion, User:Wrad wrote "This image of Lavinia, in many ways, is the play. An image like this is vital to an understanding of how the work is seen today." Note that nobody actually voted to delete the image after it was nominated.

It's also worth mentioning that an admin took a look at the Titus Andronicus page, and found that all of the images were fine except the Ninagawa one, because the image of Lavinia wasn't specifically mentioned in the text.

Werith has repeatedly stated that all four images are replaceable with free alternatives. I don't understand how this is possible in regards the image from Titus and the BBC production, which are, by definition, non-free, non-replaceable images. As for the other two, he keeps on saying the play is 400 years old and in the public domain, and therefore free images are "readily available;" so far the only actual explanation for this he has come up with is that I stage a production of the play and take some photographs, which he seems to think would be a relatively easy task. Clearly Werith has never worked in the theatre! The other point worth making is that the play's production history only begins in 1955, so the fact that the play itself is 400 years old is irrelevant. It was off the stage for over 300 years. He would point out that Romeo and Juliet has no non-free images, so therefore Titus shouldn't have any. This makes little sense when one considers there literally isn't a scene in Romeo that hasn't been illustrated in some way shape or form, whereas, until the mid-1980s, Titus was considered one of Shakespeare's worst plays, and remains one the least staged (and least illustrated) in the canon. Comparing it to Romeo (either in terms of production history or illustration) is not very useful. I have taught Shakespeare for thirteen years now at university level. I do a course on Shakespeare in performance, and only in 2011 was I allowed to include Titus on the course. Every other year when I requested to include the play, the powers that be refused, saying it was too obscure. That's a good indication of just how little exposure this play has had in the grand scheme of things.

As regards the importance of the images to the article itself, well, when I was writing the Titus article many moons ago, I downloaded about eight or nine non-free images. I decided on these two Lavinia images because they serve a very very specific purpose - they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to the play in the modern theatre (in fact the productions took place without a couple of months of one another). Reviews of the play almost always centre on what approach the production takes to the aftermath of the rape. How Lavinia appears after her ordeal is the defining moment of every production, and these two images serve to show a reader, in a way much clearer than textual information ever could, the two extreme ends of the possible spectrum. I think User:DionysosProteus's comments above sum it up more eloquently than I can. The same argument can be made for the other two images – they specifically contrast one another: one shows a director using focus to give her production a pessimistic ending, the other shows a director using a visual metaphor to give her production an optimistic ending.

So I'm not sure if one is supposed to vote here but for the record, I vote to:

Keep all four images

And that's all I've got to say really. So there you have it. Bye everybody. Bye Dr. Nick. Bertaut (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The two stage productions that show the effects use for that scene seem okay to use because, as you say, they are diametrically opposite approaches and part of the critical reception for those plays. I also do agree that these are not freely replacable as we're talking specific makeup/prop work done for those productions, and not an average school play. That said, the other two images notes are excessive. The one of the figure walking into the sunset is very unremakable and this specific scene is not discussed critically in the text (it's mentioned as the final scene, but that's it). The one from the BBC production is not showing a scene that seems of critical discussion, only to demonstrate a change made for that play, which doesn't need an image for this. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair points. I can see where you're coming from all right. Bertaut (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep first two, delete the third, may be the fourth one as well. The first two are images from unique productions, especially the Ninagawa one which is highly stylized and may be a one-off, therefore I don't see how they can be replaceable. Art is by its nature special, you cannot adequately describe art with words alone, and you cannot do an amateur production trying to recreate something done in a renown production, take a photograph and claim that it is faithful representation of that particular production. Texts alone also cannot accurately reflect the effect created, especially when it is something so unusual as the Ninagawa one. Having an image that shows the theatrical effects would significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the alternate approaches and what's been done in those productions. These two images would definitely satisfy the WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 criteria in my opinion. I would agree with MASEM that the third image is unremarkable, it would not increase readers' understanding of the topic and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8. For the last one, I am concerned that it does not demonstrate what's written in the text - it merely shows someone looking at a box with a baby, it is unclear from the picture what his reaction is, and everything in that image can be described by words, so it is doubtful as to how useful that image is in illustrating the passage of text. I'm not saying that that passage doesn't need an image, but a better image needs to be found that can bring more to the understanding to the topic. Hzh (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough comments about the image from Titus. I think that one is destined for the land of deletion. I can accept that. To address your points Hzh, getting a shot of his reaction would make sense, but the main problem is that the only shot showing his reaction is a close up of his face, nothing else is in the shot. There's a shot of him approaching the closed coffin. He opens it offscreen, then we see the image I've used. Then another character comes along and closes it, and the film ends with the closeup of the kid's reaction. There's no shot in the film where you can see the body and his reaction in the same frame. There is a shot, however, using the same framing as in the image of the baby's father being dragged past the coffin. As he's dragged past, the boy looks up at him, but his back is stil entirely to camera. I also chose this particular image because of how Howell uses depth of focus. Usually, in all stage performances I've seen, the emphasis in the final moments is entirely on the inauguration. Here, however, Howell not only ends with the inauguration in the background, but literally shots it out of focus, instead forcing the audience to stare at the death of the innocent child. That's a very significant directorial choice, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the only production of the play that has ever done it. I could certainly rewrite the text in the article to make this point clearer if that were to make any difference, or perhaps replace the image with one showing the father, and see what people think. Finally, yeah, the Ninagawa production was unique in many ways - it was highly stylised throughout - the play began with the actors still in street clothes and reading their scripts, and the costuming and set-design throughout is bizarre to say the least. If you're really interested in seeing it, you can probably request a copy from the RSC if you work somewhere where you can order a copy under your company's name. I think they still send out copies to institutions, they certainly used to in the days of VHS. I've not seen the production myself, but it got extraordinary reviews. Bertaut (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you would need to ask yourself how does an image enhance a reader's understanding of what's written in the text. Here it looks like words alone say more than what that single image can do, so can a video help? For example there is a video clip here illustrating a special effect in a film. Again you would still need to ask how it would help enhance a reader's understanding. Unless you are certain that it does, then you should avoid going down this path or risk wasting a lot of time doing something that might get deleted. (I'm not recommending doing a video by the way, videos still seem problematic in wikipedia, some don't work, etc.) Hzh (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg is completely replaceable by its current description:"Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production; for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath". There's nothing important about Titus Andronicus that the picture adds to that text. No one needs to see Rees to understand.—Kww(talk) 02:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense at all. It's a play, not a book. You have to see it to understand it. If you were teaching a history of theatre class (or a Titus Andronicus performances class, for that matter) and said something like that, you'd get laughed out of a job. You can't teach or communicate performance history with just text. Wrad (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • We're not here to teach, we are here to create a freely distributable encyclopedia, which is a very different purpose. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • That is an extremely reductive reading of my comment and also makes no sense at all. Yes, you're so right. Sharing knowledge is "very different" from teaching. I was so blind to that before, but now I see :) What good is an article about Titus Andronicus if it sucks at communicating the performance history of the play? I thought we made the Internet not suck. An encyclopedia that can't communicate effectively is worthless. Wrad (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Wrad here. Titus Andronicus is a play, and illustrating the stagecraft involved in the production of the play is entirely valid for inclusion in the article. A play is by its nature artificial, no one had their hands actually amputated, therefore what could "realistic presentation" mean here? If this had been staged in the 19th century, they would have a very different idea of what is a "realistic presentation" (it would also be interesting to see how this is done in Shakespeare's day). A play is also a visual medium, not just words on a page, and there is inherently a problem with using words alone to describe something that is entirely artificial happening on stage, and that can't actually be happening for real. Hzh (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could replace about 90 percent of the images on Wikipedia using that rationale. Think of the number of servers we could save!

"There's nothing important about (fill in the blank) that the picture adds to that text." And your critical credentials are what, exactly, Kww? According to your user page, you ran a hotel and were in real estate development. How in god's name does that experience qualify you to determine whether an image is critical to understanding an interpretation of Shakespeare in a movie, a medium that visually adapts a literary stage play? Bertaut has taught Shakespeare for 15 years at the university level; I'm sure he'd appreciate a few pointers on what is and isn't necessary in order to understand a particular point.

Keep all four images. No copyrights are being violated; this is fair use. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You are lucky Im in a good mood or I would be taking this to ANI requesting your block for blatant personal attacks, consider this a final warning. Wikipedia's policies are far more strict than that set forth by fair use law. If you want to illustrate the stagecraft you can do that using free images. Wikipedia's usage of images has two classes, free and non-free. Free files can and are used liberally, however the usage of non-free files is highly restricted. There are quite a few examples where "fair use" would allow something but wikipedia policies prohibit that use. Can anyone explain how a free replacement of File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg would be detrimental to the understanding of the play? To me it looks like a bloody woman on the ground with her hands cut off, something fairly easily replaced by text and or re-stageable and possible to re-create and get a free version of it. Werieth (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you've got an itchy ANI trigger finger. I can see how you might be able to squeeze in a case using #2, since I questioned Kww on what experience enabled him to overrule the judgment of an academic with 15 years in the field under discussion. How that can be construed as an ad hominem attack is, I suppose, yet another field of esoteric expertise we mere content editors are not privy to, since the question certainly is not irrelevant to the critical matter upon which he offered his comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this matter should be dropped. Kww's experience is on editing matter in Wikipedia, and what may or may not be reasonably included in Wikipedia. What he said is not relevant to his expertise on any specific subject, but is relevant to non-free file usage in Wikipedia, and that is what is we are discussing here. It would be wrong to question him on his knowledge on Shakespeare because that is not relevant here, and the discussion would get sidetracked. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't react well or wisely when threatened; comments struck out. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is fundamentally a difference between a visual presentation of an art form and mere description with word. You cannot adequately describe visual art with words, or rather, you cannot reasonably expect most people to (some of the best writers have highly descriptive prose, but you cannot reasonably expect a wikipedia editor to have such skill, and even the best writer can fail in their descriptive power). By your argument, you can delete the iconic album image of Beatles' Abbey Road (it's just 4 men crossing a road, isn't it?}, or their White Album (errr, it's mostly just a white page, surely you can do that with any painting software?), and extend that to TV, films, music, and great majority of media files. An image of a particular production cannot be reasonably replace with an image from another production or recreation, just as you can't replace an image from Star Wars with your and your friend playing with light sabers. Such recreation has no useful meaning. The production of a play is unique, and the images from that play would be unique to itself. Hzh (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, however this isnt a visual work, this is working from text. The article isnt about a particular performance, but rather the play as a whole. The way the file is used in the article, its used as an example of realism. Given that the article is about a 400 year old play re-creating a scene is possible. The argument here doesnt apply to Abby road, as that file has a different criteria for usage. It is the primary visual identification for a non-free work. (which in this case the work is outside copyright). Take The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as an example the work is outside of copyright and we dont use non-free files to illustrate it. PLEASE USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON Werieth (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your argument would apply to a book, but this is not a book. It is a play, it is meant to be a visually represented on the stage or screen, not something simply to be read. Therefore how the play is staged, the various productions, and illustration of such productions, is entirely relevant to the article. And as stated, each productions is unique to its own, you cannot simply replace one with another that's also unique. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact the images are being used to illustrate the unique visual differences in the staging of a 400-year-old work, i.e. particular performances, contrary to Werieth's assertion.

I have a suggestion that can put this entire issue at rest, how about you, Werieth, give us an example of "re-creating a scene" to illustrate just one of the points Bertaut makes in the article. (My immediate reaction to reading that was a mental image of how tabloids use archive images to illustrate their stories: "Lady Wilmington shot her husband using a pistol much like the one illustrated above". I suppose we could do the same for the article: "Realistic effects and blood much like the illustration were used for the character of Lavinia, played by Laura Rees, in Lucy Bailey's 2006 production at Shakespeare's Globe") Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am for keeping both play images, Werieth does have a point that as presented, the Rees image (and caption) alone is borderline. However, I point to an initial comment that I agreed on - that the Rees play image and the Ninagawa one, showing the same scene but diametrically opposite fashion in terms of using costume, makeup, and props, are counterpoints to each other. I ask if it is possible to somehow rewrite the article or the like such that these two images can be used in close proximity/side-by-side, along with text from critical sources that compare these specific productions? --MASEM (t) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• A similar image from a different performance is here there is nothing about what license the file is under, but if someone contacts the user they may be willing to re-license the image. As anyone attempted to contact the copyright holder of the Rees image and inquire about release? (I would bet not) However often groups are willing to do just that if we ask. Given that the article is just using that file as an example of the realism why cant a free substitute work? Is this a case that no one has bothered to try and acquire a free image? or that its not possible to create an image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Werieth (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to keep repeating that each performance is unique, and that recreating something yourself would not be true to that, however good you think it is. The article wrote about that particular production, so you illustrate it with images from that production, rather than some random recreation. If you think you can sound exactly like Mariah Carey there is still no way you would be allowed to illustrate one of her songs with one of your recordings. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah Ha, we have a break through here! Lets extrapolate the example you give with Carey. The this article isnt about Carey, but about a specific sub type of R&B which Carey is well known for. She may be the most widely known example of the style, but just about any musician can provide an example of the style. We should reference the fact that Carey is widely know for the style but the example doesnt need to be her, anyone can provide the clip. Getting back to Andronicus, the article is about the 400 year old play, not a articular production of it. Right now the Rees photo is being used to in reference to that production, but its primarily an example of the realism portrayal, and that exact image isnt critical to understanding the play as a whole, but only as an example of the style that some directors are using for the play. Which Rees may be the most notable example of that style, but any similar example can serve the same encyclopedic function. Just because we reference one example of the realism doesnt mean we have to display a non-free picture of it, when a freely licensed image of a similarly realistic image could serve the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that no, it isn't being used to illustrate "realistic stage techniques", or "various Titus Andronicus interpretations", it is being used to illustrate a particularly controversial staging. That's why we have sections in articles, so that we might go into detail on the various aspects of a 400-year-old (or brand new, as far as that goes)play. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• God Lord, I wasn't expecting to have to read this much material when I got home. Apologies that I can't be online more often, but I only really get the chance to participate when I get home from work in the evenings. So having read everything above, my original position remains unchanged, and I see little point in repeating what I've already said, but I would like to address a couple of issues which have been raised. I agree with what Wrad says about communicating. This also leads into a point Hzh makes. Werith is wrong when he says "this isn't a visual work." That's exactly what it is. Titus Andronicus is not a book - it's a play. It wasn't written to be read, it was written to be seen. That's one of the first things you teach students of drama. I remember the first plays I studied in college were Sophocles' Theban plays, and the lecturer used a performance video during her classes, especially when she was talking about how violent the blinding scene can be. Hzh's point about different opinions as to what constitutes a "realistic" production is also important. Different people can get different ideas in their head when you utilise terms such as "realistic approach" and (especially) "stylised approach," so using extreme examples of each is a good way of grounding the discussion. And I think Tom is also correct when he says you could apply Kww's reasoning to 90% of the images on Wikipedia. With the exception of perhaps illustrative diagrams and the like on scientific articles, pretty much every single image on the website (free or non-free) could theoretically be replaced with prose. As regards Hzh's question about placing the images side by side. I think that would be difficult as they are in different sections in the article, but text could certainly be added to directly contrast the productions, and with a bit of digging, I'm sure reviews could be found which do the same. That wouldn't be a problem. Bertaut (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you could apply my logic to a lot of images on Wikipedia. It's not applicable to free images, though, only copyrighted ones. That's why outside of the identification uses (logos, album covers, single covers, and book covers used in articles about the respective products or companies, albums, singles, and books), non-free images rarely survive deletion review. It's rarely necessary to use copyrighted images to illustrate concepts.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Those two images aren't specifically for illustrating concepts only, but they are used to illustrate particular pieces of work that are the subjects of critical commentary and discussion. That is generally permissable per WP:NFCI, no different from the screenshot as described in #5 and visual art in #7. Hzh (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I could possibly be persuaded with the Ninagawa image, but not the Rees. Nothing about the NFCI criteria overrides NFCC#8, and the Rees image doesn't pass NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I go back to my earlier point that if there was a way to use both the Rees and Ninagawa on the same line - supported by critical discussion - to compare and contrast modern stage productions's use of visuals, you'd have a stronger reason to keep Rees, but I would edge on it being very borderline (the Rees image) in standalone as it is, even with the text about that play itself. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So if we don't like the results of an NFCR FfD we just keep nominating an image until we get the result we want? Just like some editors, the side with the most persistence wins. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop mis-representing things. You are referencing Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9#File:Laura_Rees_as_Lavinia.jpg which is a poorly done FfD, not a Non-free content review. Also note the FfD is two years old. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, you're indeed correct. I'm no expert on deletion procedure. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So Masem, just so I'm clear, you're saying essentially the same thing as Hzh - move the images closer together and include some kind of critical commentary directly contrasting the productions? That can certainly be done. As regards academic work, one would, unfortunately, be quite limited in what one has to chose from. The only scholarly edition of Titus published post-2006 is the Cambridge Shakespeare edition by Alan Hughes, but that was only a 2nd edition and contains nothing on either production. The other main source would be the second edition of Manchester University Press' superb 1980s Shakespeare in Performance Series. The Titus book, by Michael D. Friedman, was only published in July of this year, and I haven't seen it yet, but it is interesting to note that one of the chapters is actually called "Yukio Ninagawa, Bill Alexander, Gale Edwards, Richard Rose, and Lucy Bailey". So there'd certainly be material there. The original In Performance series was excellent, and the Titus book by Alan C. Dessen is considered the definitive source for material up to that time period. However, what would be more readily available would be professional journalistic material of the time. The productons took place within a couple of months of one another on two of the most significant Shakespearian stages in the world, so reviews of the time would certainly compare them. And it wouldn't be hard to locate such reviews. The bottom line is what you're suggesting could certainly be done. Bertaut (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would help a lot; I obviously can't judge without seeing the results but my first take is that it is a much better situation than the present towards better justifying both images. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done a very very quick search on JSTOR and found reviews in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator, The Independent and The New York Times all contrasting the productions, as well as a 2013 essay in Early Modern Literary Studies focused entirely on the contrast between the depiction of the rape scene in the two plays; "Mythological reconfigurations on the contemporary stage: Giving a New Voice to Philomela in Titus Andronicus." Bertaut (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the type of sourcing that would drastically help with the non-free imagery. I would suggest we hold off on these two images until Bertaut + others have had a chance to work those in. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that the proposed text is sufficiently to understand what's going on, and that a non-free image won't significantly enhance that understanding of what "with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath", and how that is contrasted with red ribbons. The article sure looks better with the pictures in it, but looking better is not a good argument for using non-free content. 77.241.234.180 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Right so, all done. Moved the Ninagawa paragraph from the "Adaptations" section into the "Performance" section, so the images are now right beside one another, and added a paragraph of journalistic and academic material discussing the two productions. Bertaut (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's still nothing about the topic that is difficult to understand with respect to the image of Rees. Ninagawa comes closer. I would still argue that it's not necessary to understand that particular depiction in order to understand Titus Andronicus, but I also recognize that that's not a clear-cut issue.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cardinal McCloskey.jpg

This is a painting of a man who died in 1885. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment directly below. The two paintings are suspiciously in the same style. In any case it should be a matter of asking whoever published them where they obtained the images. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

File:3rd Bishop of New york.jpg

This is a painting of a man who died in 1842. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing at the source to indicate when the painting was actually painted. That being said, I find the date "2013" listed at the file page to be highly improbably. Unfortuantely, in the absence of a source that conclusively dates the painting, we can't assume PD-old. That being said, I would remove the image as it is overwhelmingly likely that there is a PD-old painting of this person out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the faults in the uploading process is that it asks when "this file" was created. Obviously in a lot of cases that answer would be the time at which it is being uploaded or shortly before. I went looking and every PD-old image seems to have been based on that painting, including black-and-white representations from books published in the late-19th to early-20th centuries. However we all know of paitings that have been based on older drawings, and the style seems to be consistent with paintings of other bishops before and after him, so it cannot be said confidently that this painting is, in fact, old and out of copyright. The uploader needs to do some due diligence and contact the diocese or publisher and learn exactly when this portrait was painted. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I contacted the Archives of the Archdiocese of New York (the immediate source of the image) asking for any information for this and the above image to discover their copyright status. The responder to my request was less than helpful and they were not willing to give me any information about the paintings. It is also worth noting that the Archives is closed until December 2013 due to them moving. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

History of painting

I don't see the justification for 46 fair use images in 1 article. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current state of this article, I do know there have been issues with this article and image use before and there's general agreement that some non-free examples are appropriate but they have to be discussed as prime examples of contemporary art. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article has too many unfree images. However, I think that we need to split this up on multiple discussions as the discussion otherwise risks being too messy. It might work to have one discussion per section as all images are specifically related to one section.

I also think that the article contains too many free images. It is very painful to read the article on a small screen. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, outside the NFC issue, the huge number of images is a problem for viewers on the low bandwidth/small device side. Since each section is basically a summary of the article under the leading "main" link, there definitely could be a cut-back in the number of images overall, working that if more examples are wanted by the viewer, they can clickthrough to the article, or even a Commons image category. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Customizing a major survey article so that it will read well on a mobile phone screen seems a bit Procrustean to me, especially since tablets are becoming the most common device used to access the Internet. The most important priorities for an encyclopedia article is that it be accurate and comprehensive. I took several art history classes at university and we looked at literally hundreds of slides of paintings and sculptures. Is there some way to code images so that they wouldn't show up in the en.m.wikipedia.org mode? Or, since WP articles show up with section links on mobile phones, perhaps the great majority of the images could be placed in galleries so that the text and the images would be in separate sections. Either would be a better solution than denuding the article of most of its images, because any article on the history of painting with few images would be third-rate coming out of the chute. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Except we're not an education institution, we're a tertiary source; showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article. We still consider size limitations - not just reading area size but bandwidth (particularly as many mobile plans have capped data limits). Remember, we're not saying that to outright remove the images, just better use sub-articles on the individual eras where putting a single 30-some image gallery makes sense, than to have 5-8 30-image galleries on one page. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article." Huh? You might want to take down volume 25 of Encyclopædia Britanicca (another tertiary source) and thumb through the article "Painting, The History of Western" if you think it doesn't make sense that encyclopedia articles use lots of pictures.

And EB was never known for spending money when they could get something for free, a tradition they hold dear to this day, and all the copyrighted images (lots more than a paltry 46) include acknowledgements for permission to publish, a methodology WP editors could profitably imitate, thereby rendering most of these discussions moot.

Good luck on finding all those editors to rewrite the sub-articles so we can accommodate the literally dozens, I'm sure, of those people with low-data phone plans who now are unable to slake their curiosity while driving down the road. I did not know that our original vision had been revised; I must have missed Jimmy Wales' announcement:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the amount of human knowledge that can be reasonably accommodated on a cell phone with a low data plan. That’s what we're doing." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

All the sub articles are already there - all those "main article" and "see also" links. And using lots of pictures harms our chances to meet that quote, because that is overhead on data plans. This is why you have to understand, we are not paper - this means we can cover more, but our presentation is going to be far different from normal printed works too. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't click on the link, did you? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering that Wales has no say outside of being another voice in contributions on en.wiki, what he says has no weight irregardless. en.wiki has accessibility requirements for articles to meet the broadest range of devices, and what's being asked is onyl to trim the excessive image use from one article, given that the other sub-articles all can support the respective galleries. We're not losing anything at all. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read the entire page out and its links, and we have no policies, guidelines, or even suggestions restricting the number of images that can accompany an article.

I think there needs to be a serious rethinking of image use policy. Is there a formal discussion going on anywhere that you know?

And just FYI:

1.WP:JIMBO

2. irregardless Tom Reedy (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE (particularly the section about technical reasons), and MOS:IMAGES (under Consideration of dl size) then if ACCESS doesn't convince you. No, nothing there says you can't flood an article with images but common sense is clear. If we aim to limit text to about about 100k of prose, we also need to keep image amounts to a reasonable level. Are we asking all pictures to be stripped from History? Heck no, but really, you don't need those galleries - one or two images in each major section - with the associated links to the various periods and schools that already exist - would do the same job. Again, this is why we aren't paper - a paper encyclopedia could make one nice long article with all these images, no question, but we have to serve that content in chunks that are better suited for the digital world. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That is why I asked if there were any way to limit the number of images that would be downloaded by a mobile device while leaving them in for a full-scale computer (though my phone has a much larger capability than my first computer did). I don't know if there is a list of articles by size, but I daresay the 100KB limit is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Seriously, it's not 2001 any more, or even 2010, and I think a lot of WP policies need to be scrutinised in light of the major changes that have come about in the digital world since then. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Im using a new computer, and almost 400 images causes issues for me. Back in 2001 1-5 images was a lot, now 100 would be about the same. This article as almost 400. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Downloading problems are generally caused by bandwidth, not computers. I have an 11-year-old computer that downloads just as quickly as my brand new laptop. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Im on a 11 Mbps connection, which is fast so its not my connection. It takes a good 30-60 seconds to load the page, and causes the browser to temporarily hang. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI: I'm running the low-end Verizon FIOS (15/5 Mbps) and it took a total of 8 seconds to load the entire page from the click. I'm on a Dell Inspiron 17 with an i3 chip and using Windows 8 and Firefox browser. 30-60 seconds? Something's wrong somewhere in your setup. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

He said it was his computer, not bandwidth. I can attest that with even a fast gaming computer here running Windows 7, History of Painting takes a good half-minute to load all the images. And this is far higher than what we consider as the lowest common denominator for devices. Remember, we have to think about people in schools in Africa or the like, probably using donated or low cost computer that are 5+ years old. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking 100k of readable prose - this is after in-wiki markup like tables and citations - and then there is that conversion to HTML. I just checked History of Painting and the as-delivered HTML is 608k, from 118k of prose (see this tool). That dosn't include images; average thumbs are between 6 and 10kb, and take the 391 number below, and that's now 2.3M - a total of 3 M for an article. Consider that many people have data plans limited to 5 GB for mobile, you've just used 0.1% of their bandwidth for the month. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The points I'm bringing up are more general than this particular article, which is why I asked if any kind of discussion was going on about updating policies. I'm in the middle of a major project at the moment, but I'll keep a note on my back burner to pursue this once it's completed. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that es:Historia de la pintura is a much better article. There are much fewer images and usually not more than one per section. The article is more focused on the text, and it is easier to read through the article. Spanish Wikipedia doesn't host any local images, meaning that only free images from Commons can be shown, but this should only affect the "modern" sections; the sections about art from hundreds of years ago should be unaffected. For example, Spanish Wikipedia only shows one photo from the renaissance whereas English Wikipedia has 24 images in the section "Renaissance and Mannerism". --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the last section on modern schools and I disagree with you. Aesthetically the layout is more pleasing, but it's not a better article than the English language page. And with that, gentlemen, I'll leave it with you until my return. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And importantly, these galleries can be related to the individual articles (if not there already), so no effective content is lost. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• There are a total of 391 images on that page. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• It's an important article - and images need to be seen. There are important images from antiquity through the early 21st century and an article on the visual arts is visual. In my opinion the english wp article is far superior to the similar art historical articles in other languages; we should be proud of what we have...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • But the same picture galleries can be shown on the separate school/period articles without running against WP's accessibility size issues. Again, its not stripping all images or removing from WP, but realizing that you can't have 391 images in a single article (free or otherwise) without burdening the end user. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It has been suggested to me in the past - to break it down into periods; or to subdivide into separate articles/ the 20th century and the 21st century are clearly the most difficult to do for a number of reasons. Not only the imagery (many of which are unfree) but also because of historical significance which shifts as tastes change; and remains unclear and complex. In my opinion it's a great article that by necessity bends the rules but delivers the goods...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It is already broken down by periods/schools, that's the thing - all those "main article" and "seealso" links. All that needs to be done, effectively, is remove the galleries and relocate them to these articles as necessary, leaving maybe about 30-50 images inline (as several are now) as a top level demonstration. You already have it set up nicely for summary style approach, and we're not asking for a rewrite here. If one would consider an printed version, likely all those sub-articles would be part of the main article that would last for 30-40 printed pages, but a digital version of that is far too much bandwidth for something of that size. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Several years ago re these issues regarding the History of painting I created and/or expanded History of Eastern art, Western painting, and 20th-century Western painting. However the History of painting article explores in depth painting from all over the world including works from Antiquity, Caves, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the European middle ages, the European Renaissance, modern Europe, Islam, Pakistan, Iran, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, India, Africa, North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, the Philipines, China, Japan, Southeast Asia; et.al. both historical and contemporary works under one roof which is an enormously valuable asset to all and should be preserved...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • And we're not telling you to dismantle the prose at any of those articles that you've spent time to develop - just relocate the image galleries to the respective subarticles. History of Painting - given how broad and deep the concept of painting goes - has to serve as a good high-level outline article, which it does now without editing any prose; in a printed version, it might serve as an exec summary/quick overview before each school is explored in detail in a single large monolithic article. WP can't support articles of such length in considering our lowest common denominator of viewing devices, and you've already done all the hard work in creating the smaller articles. You just don't need image galleries in the top-level article when they serve a much better job in the side articles. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dropped in to see if a disposition had been reached and thought of a few more comments, and then I'll leave it with you:

1. The article is now ~200kb, 100 over the recommended page size. I know that Masem said above that the as-delivered HTML KB was in the 600s, but my page information says 122.03 KB. Why the difference in reading?

2. The article now is 200KB, and it has hovered between that and 195KB for 2 1/2 years now. In fact, in May 2010, 3 1/2 years ago (the bottom of the first page of edit history), it was 175KB, so why the urgency to cut down the images. Have any irate cell phone users or people with slow Internet connections been complaining? How about the technical people, are they complaining about the strain on the servers?

3. Last I checked, this is the non-free content forum, not the oversize article forum. The inciting post asked for justification for 46 fair use images in one article, such discussions being within the scope of this forum, but it has gotten sidetracked into areas outside the purview of this policy and become an exercise in administrative deletionism and rewriting the mission statement of Wikipedia (heavily ironic in my view given the editing histories I've been browsing lately). I see no discussion whatsoever about the rationale for the fair use images; presumably if they're all moved to another page they're fine. At least that's the message I'm getting from the discussion here, that the non-free is not the problem, the real problem is too much content in an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Spltting the galleries across the individual period/schools articles will include spreading the amount of non-free across those in the contemporary period, thus reducing the NFC issue too. Yes, the total image count (free + nonfree) is still a problem too, but the solution to fix both are integrated. We are definitely not talking about deletion as nearly all the non-frees being used have articles on the individual works, and moving the galleries to smaller articles can allow more room to discuss the importance of those works. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And as for page size, my 600k count was from copying the page source as a whole to a text editor to get the count there. I suspect the 200k you have is raw character count (ignoring HTML), as the raw prose count (that ignoring references, headers, and other non-prose sections) is just north of 100k. And the page size has always been a problem , but it is impossible to get the editors on that page to do anything about it since they think it is fine as is. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've put the larger question about SIZE and number of images to VPP [27]. As what might result will impact if we need to deal with the number of NFCC after that, I recommend closing this thread, opening it only if it is necessary pending that discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - about education and conveying information - not I-Phone candy; this feels like censorship under another name. The article is a good one...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

BULLSHIT. We are not trying to outright delete the images - we are trying to bring the article into conformity with the rest of WP policies on accessibility and non-free content. Every article has to meet that. What works great in textbooks and printed material simply can't work on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're plain wrong. Clearly this is a major attempt at censorship; with an incorrect interpretation of the guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea what censorship is, then. Are we trying to prevent these pictures from being show at all, anywhere, on WP? Heck no. I've said before, all of them are notable pieces of art, and so a non-free image of them is perfectly fine on the article pages, as well in limited cases of artist pages. Some selected examples are perfectly fine in talking about modern schools of art. We just don't need or can support a large gallery of non-free images (or images in general) on a high-level outline article. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what censorship means. The article is important, educational and encyclopedic and stays as is - to the contrary of what this projects incorrect interpretations of guidelines dictate...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you know what it is, then don't call something that's not censorship as "censorship", that's pretty much the equivalent of calling to Godwin's Law in terms of non-free policies. You cannot dictate how the article will appear, that is up to consensus (BTW: this is policy issues, not guidelines, so there's a stronger need to conform to the expected). And while I agree that it is pleasant to look at with the galleries, it will lose no education value or its importance (in considering there are dozens of side articles on specific periods and schools) if the galleries were simply removed, leaving everything else intact. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the context of writing about visual art, the suppression of visual content is censorship, because in the absence of the images, the text can convey little. Arguably, the images are more important than their accompanying text. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Censorship would be forbidding any text or images about visual art, period, from being on WP, anywhere. We are saying, on this one specific article, you can't have as many images as you currently you, but you can show them at several other locations on WP including on articles about the artist and the work itself. No information is being surpressed. The cries of censorship are bogus here. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

File:McCann right eye.jpg

File doesnt meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The section tells that she had a distinctive coloboma mark, and the image shows what that looks like. I think that the image is replaceable with Commons:Special:PrefixIndex/File:Coloboma. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

However, we have a free image of a similar (not example) mark on that page, and as we are not a missing-child-tracking-service, it is unnecessary for us to show exactly what her mark looks like, particularly given that this image File:Madeleine_McCann,_aged_three_and_(age-progressed)_nine.jpg also shows the same mark (albeit not at that resolution) as well as fully identifying her. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant: the image violates WP:NFCC#1 because similar images exist on Commons. Unrelated to this, I have nominated one of the Commons files for deletion, but this doesn't change anything with regard to File:McCann right eye.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Werieth doesn't say why the image doesn't meet the NFCC. It has been the subject of extensive commentary. It shows Madeleine's key distinguishing feature, and it isn't possible to describe this using words alone, so per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia, its readers, and perhaps the family and police are helped. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It hurts WP's free content mission, and the current image used in the infobox clearly shows the eye deformity, so the image fails WP:NFCC#3a, minimal use as duplicative of the infobox image. (Again, we are not a missing child finding service; it's great they want to have the photos widely distributed to locate their daughter, but that's not our job here) --MASEM (t) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

How does the image hurt Wikipedia's free-content mission? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The file is non-free. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Every piece of non-free harms the free mission, thus why minimization of non-free is first and foremost. And since we have an image already that shows the eye, we don't need a second one. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep If this image were in use on the coloboma article then the nomination would have some merit. However, the section is describing Madeleine and inparticular a distinctive feature of her face i.e. we are not interested in showing what a coloboma looks like, we are showing what her coloboma looks like. It meets the FU criteria: it is the subject of sourced commentary, not replaceable by a free image, and conveys visual information about Madeleine that cannot be described by text alone. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But again File:Madeleine McCann, aged three and (age-progressed) nine.jpg (which is of no question in its use in the article) also shows her coloboma feature, and thus this specific image is duplicative per WP:NFCC#3a. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You can barely make out the mark in the infobox image. The purpose of the infobox image is to show her face not an eye defect, so it has been sized to that effect. To serve both purposes the infobox image would need to be much bigger, but the only part of the image that really needs to be at a higher resolution is her eye, which takes us back to where we are now. If we cut to the chase we have free content guidelines so Wikipedia won't be legally compromised, and no-one is going to sue the foundation over this image. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure you can see it, and even then, this would be a case where I would consider the original resolution (or something in between) to be appropriate to use to show this off while providing the image of the child and minimizing non-free use by using one image instead of two. And no, the free content guideline is not to prevent WP from being sued, but to maintain the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And to check, I just compared what I would crop to in that original image to match the crop of this image in question, and basically have the same end resolution (about 120x90 px) -- as such this solution would not lose any "high resolution" details of this eye crop image. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not about coloboma. The images in the coloboma set are nothing like hers, and their use in the disappearance article would not inform -- they might even mislead. The reduced image used in the infobox does not adequately inform. The article needs a focussed depiction of this specific feature of this specific face. A crop of the full-size version would serve (isn't that what the picture in question is?), but that is also copyright (of the McCanns). So I don't believe NFCC#1 and/or NFCC#3a are violated. The McCanns' permission could be asked, but I think this is already a fair use. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it's a slightly different image (the hair is a bit darker). But note that I'm not talking about a crop of the face image - I'm saying that if you take the face (the photo + current day extrapolation), at the full size it was in the Telegraph article, then the resolution of the eye in that image is nearly-exactly the same as the resolution currently used for the current crop of the eye. So the only correct action is to reupload and adjust the justification of the comparison image, explaining that in addition to identification it is also highlighting her coloboma, and then delete this image. No crop of the eye would be appropriate since it is visible even at thumb size and then can be seen in detail if the reader clicks through. You cannot have both the identification picture and a crop of the eye as long as the infobox image clearly shows the coloboma (just not at high detail.) --MASEM (t) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The apparent difference in hair colour is probably an artefact of the creation process. The image file for the eye picture refers to the Belfast Telegraph, but with duff links. You may like to compare the picture used by the Belfast Telegraph here with the one used by the Daily Telegraph. They are the same picture. Now, NFCC#3a includes the phrase "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Certainly, the existing reduced image in the infobox fails to do that. I argue that the full image also fails to do that: an image that draws attention to the eye as its only significant feature and an image of the whole face plus a speculative image of how she may now appear convey very different kinds of information. Few readers will know how to click through to the full-size version. I'm arguing essentially that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (to use the terms of NFCC#8). --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
      • If it is a crop from the same image, that's an outright failure of NFC; we don't use crops, we use larger images, and if that means that not only we use the larger size Telegraph image, but also increase the size of the image as used at the article to reduce non-free, that's the solution we take. Mind you, I storngly argue against how important an image solely of her coloboma is - it is clearly present on the thumb size, enough to establish that this is an identifying mark. That's all it is, like a birthmark or something similar. It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia, and we cannot justify a non-free image of her specific coloboma in an article about her and her disappearance, when that feature is clearly present in a separate image. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Please could you show me where it says we are not to use crops? Because at WP:IUP#FORMAT, I find "A limited variety of edits (crops, rotation, flips) can be performed losslessly using jpegcrop (windows) or jpegtran (other); try to use this where possible." I suggest that the argument "It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia" is a strawman, because I have not argued (and nor has anyone else here) that we are here to help find missing children. But if you want to pronounce that "we cannot justify" something, let me ask you this: we are making an encyclopedia, which is a resource to educate people, right? Now why would anyone want to educate people about the disappearance of a 3-year-old-girl, or draw any attention to a 3-year-old girl? Morbid curiosity, or is there a better reason? If we can agree on that, then we might agree on what can be justified. And I'd also like to ask this: has anyone yet asked the McCanns, whose copyright the image on the left of the montage is, what they think of our use of it? --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
          • A crop of an image already on the page is repeating an image which is against WP:NFCC#3a. And with that current image used to identify the girl in the infobox, you've also identified her distinguishing mark so in terms of an encyclopedia article, one non-free image is all that is necessary and satisifies the minimization of non-free content. If the mark was something not obvious from her profile shot, like a unique birthmark under her hair or elsewhere on her body, and was the subject of discussion, that might be reason for using a close up of that mark, but we're talking about her eye which is clearly seen at thumbnail size in the profile image currently.
          • And again, the key here is that the image is non-free specifically because the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified, which fails the free media test for WP. This is an issue about meeting the Foundation's free content mission, not about any possible legal issues with the McCanns. If they did release the images for free completely, then there would be no argument about these. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
            • "the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified": I wish you had said that at the outset. Have you a citation, please? --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
              • That's what SlimVirgin said above: "The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse." I have not checked on that verification, but I do think that is a reasonable reason on their side to not make it free. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                • "need to be able to take action against misuse" is NOT the same as "but not modified". If you had provided evidence that they had said anything that would clearly forbid a crop, I'd have changed my !vote, but that is not a fair representation. I've had my say and have paid careful attention to what you've said, but if you're going to misrepresent things, I'm done debating with you and my !vote remains as strong keep. Of course I understand that the law and Wikipedia policy trump all our !votes, but you have failed to convince me. Closer: if I fail to make any further replies, please don't apply "silence implies consent". In my case, it doesn't. --Stfg (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, that's not what I trying to say (my bad on the confusion). There is nothing in their language that prevents us from making a crop, attributed to the original image, so no, that's not why I'm saying we can't use the crop; that is strictly coming from our NFCC language and specifically WP:NFCC#3a. (The reason I need to bring up what the McCann's said is that regardless of how widely distributed they want these images, they fail to be free images under Foundation's definition due to the inability for end-user modification - that is, this is not a legal issue with the McCann's copyright or potential for abuse, but trying to maintain our free content mission. We are able to use one non-free image instead of two simply by using the higher-res profile shot; since that minimizes non-free, that's the route we are required to take. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
                    • Very well. I have never disputed the picture's non-free status. We disagree on the question of fair use and on your reading of what NFCC requires. My view hasn't changed, but I shall now stand aside for others to have their say, and defer to the closer. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I didn't say the McCanns want the image to be reproduced but not modified (clearly, by cropping it, it has been modified). I said that I assume they can't release it under a free licence in case it is ever misused. The family has been pestered by Internet trolls for five years, and they might want to retain legal control of images for that reason. Having said that, the image has been published widely by friend and foe, including on a book cover by someone who has accused them of involvement in her death. They are suing the author for defamation, but have made no attempt to have the cover changed that I know of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hrw froth.PNG

In a previous discussion Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Image discussion a question came up about interpretation of policy. Relevant policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use: 5. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. and Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. An editor was arguing that this article [28] includes the image with commentary. However, the article makes no mention of this image and has no commentary about it. There's nothing iconic about it because it's very similar to lots of other images. Free alternatives are available on Commons. [29] USchick (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

USchick could you clarify your position? You say "Free alternatives are available on Commons" but in other edits you're trying to delete the free alternatives on Commons. Did you change your mind about their deletion, or are you advocating we use the free alternatives until or unless you succeed in deleting them, at which time we should switch back to the current image? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I can only go with what we have right now, and right now there are free images available on Commons. USchick (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific image itself is not the subject of critical discussion (the articles say what's happening, but that's not the critical discussion we need), and currently doesn't help the image. If that image, for example, had specifically sparked attention that civilians including children were being hit by the chemical weapons and subsequently outrage at the world at large, that would be one thing. But the attacks have been widely reported and no imagery was needed to highlight these attacks, and thus the image is extraneous. The free images pointed out certainly would do just the same job showing that the attacks affected people from all walks of life that this non-free is doing as well. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem: the image was cited by Human Rights Watch as indicative not just of a child victim, but a child victim showing symptoms of a chemical attack. This specific image was identified, by a third party, as evidence that the attack used sarin. I have not seen any image on Commons that shows a child experiencing symptoms specific to sarin like this, and in any case it would be original research to state that they were experiencing sarin symptoms unless a secondary source had also performed the analysis on that image. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That specific image is not called out as evidence. I do note from this section of their findings that they looked at "publicly posted YouTube videos from the attacked areas" (emphasis on the plural "videos"), and to me, sure, judging the type of chemical attack used would be a reasonable thing to interpret from that, but there's no evidence that that single image was used for this. As such, you can certainly cite the report and say that they say it was sarin, and you don't need an image to show that, because that's what HRW has done for us. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

From the image caption at [30]: "A still image from a youtube video uploaded by opposition activists following the August 21 alleged chemical attack shows a child victim of the attack frothing form the mouth, a medical condition associated with the exposure to nerve agents such as Sarin." This is a caption of the specific image in question. How do you conclude that there's no evidence that that single image was used for this? VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone's unable to find it, the caption and slideshow are in Flash; you'll need to enable Flash if you haven't already to see the captions (see the image's discussion page.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They're using that image - as well as several others (plus the videos themselves) - to demonstrate that Sarin was used. We don't have to repeat that image to accurately include their assessment of the attack. It's not being used in a critical manner but an analytical manner. It is not necessary to see that to understand the HRW's conclusion - that Sarin was the likely agent used in the attacks. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Uploader here. I saw four alternative files in commons, Ghouta_Massacre1 through Ghouta_Massacre4. I removed the Ghouta_Massacre1 from the article (see here [31]) because of WP:RS a while back. (Note that WP:RS is grounds for removing the link to the image in that context, not for deleting the image itself.) All four commons files seem to have the same problem of WP:RS. (As an aside, I can't verify that the other four files are actually Creative Commons as tagged: is there something on the Youtube pages that I'm missing, or were those four files mistagged as CC like many of Wikipedia's images?) FWIW I agree with VQuakr but am not an expert on image policy; my only request is that we have one or more editors who are "un-involved"; I know USchick, like myself and VQuakr, are deeply involved in the Syria pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The commons images do appear to be taken from youtube videos that were posted with Commons-compatible licenses. They do not show the effects of sarin like this one, though, so I do not consider them free equivalents. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, even if we don't have free images, do we need to see an image of one of the victims frothing at the mouth to understand the statement: "The HRW used civilian photos and videos to determine that Sarin gas was used in the attack" with a source to that report? Or even "Civilian photographs and videos that showed victims frothing at the mouth led the HRW to conclude that Sarin gas was used in the attack"? You don't need to show what the HRW used to make their conclusion to support their statement. That's the issue where we're lacking critical commentary on the image; it's a data point, not a photo of historical significance. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know what it means for someone to froth at the mouth from Sarin, so I found the picture educational; that's why I uploaded it. Is the mouth completely filled with saliva? How foamy is it? How easily could it be confused with normal drooling? A picture is worth a thousand words. That said, if we can get more non-involved editors (like you, presumably) to weigh in and provide consensus, then obviously we can delete it if that's the consensus. To get an idea of where you're coming from, can you give me an example, say from the Holocaust article, of something where you would agree a disturbing image is "necessary" to understand one of the article's statements? To go out on a limb here, is part of the concern the fact that documentary images here are necessarily going to be disturbing? If so, we should probably speak about and address that tradeoff directly, maybe we can find something less disturbing to replace it with. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

First, to be clear - the issue with this image has absolutely nothing with being "disturbing"; WP does not censor information like this, and while we have the principle of least surprise, a reader reading about these chemical weapon attacks should be well aware that it was a possibly gruesome event and there may be imagery in question.

Now, I was writing my response to all this, but I've come to realize that there's actually a fair use for this photo, and that is based on what you mentioned that you have no idea what a Sarin-affected victim looked like. Given that there is no way in any sense of the word that we could obtain a free equivalent (It would be one thing for me to subject myself to the common cold to get a picture of me affected by it, but in this case??) In light of what you pointed out about commons, then this image has a very appropriate use over at Sarin as an example of the effects on humans (despite the tragic circumstances it was obtained from), and by extension is likely okay on this Syria article (and that in part is what you mentioned about several of the images about the Holocaust which I know have been discussed and kept in the same "is this historically significant" argument. This is also in light of the fact that you had to remove many of the commons images as likely non-free, eliminating free media that would have otherwise shown the attack's affects. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if Masem's argument is to be considered, the place to talk about sarin exposure is in an article about sarin exposure, not a specific attack in one particular place. The photo would still have to meet the other criteria of having to be iconic and discussed in the media. One article with no discussion hardly qualifies. Also, frothing at the mouth has to do with asphyxiation, and not necessarily sarin, so that's not a very good reason. When people die, they lose muscle control so all kinds of fluids and bodily functions leak out, do we need to see that in this article as well? I would direct all discussions about post-mortem imagery to autopsy. Just saying. USchick (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem on this and USchick also. Blade-of-the-South talk 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Artist's impression, Madeleine McCann disappearance.jpg

Not sure why this image is in the article, it is extremely vague and not needed. Scotland Yard said this month that they now believe this man was not involved. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even in such a case that the man may have still been wanted, we are not a police blotter, and such perp sketches are not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. This image is an integral part of the story and has been the subject of extensive commentary. It's an artist's impression from 2008 based on a key witness statement, one that for five years was thought to be an image of the abductor, and which determined what time the police believed the abduction to have taken place. I've posted a description of the images on the talk page, and I'd appreciate it if anyone commenting would read it, particularly nos 3 and 4 to understand the relationship between this image (the Tanner report) and one of the e-fits (the Smith family report).

  Scotland Yard now believes this man was probably not involved (though they are not sure of this), but they are not the only people investigating; the Portuguese police have just reopened their investigation. But involvement is not the only issue; this image has been historically important to the investigation, and the article is trying to tell the story of that investigation.

  As with the other images Werieth wants to see removed/deleted, the copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia and its readers benefit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Doesn't matter one iota if they wanted the image to be distributed widely - it is not under a free license, and thus inclusion hurts our free content work. We don't need to see the indistinct artists' conception of the perp to understand the history of the case. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• How exactly does inclusion of this image hurt our free-content work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's non-free. It makes it difficult for those that want to redistribute the work to do so (one of the goals for being a free content work). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• How would it make things difficult for anyone wanting to redistribute the work? There are no legal or financial issues with it. What would the difficulty be exactly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Copyright ownership and reuse. The Foundation wants the content to be redistributed and reused without any limitations, and while the FMF has clearly sent the image out for people to redistribute, the limitation on reuse (including derivative works) can be a problem for some reusers. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any limitations on reuse. Can you explain, and also can you give an example of what kind of publisher might have a problem because of this image? I'd really appreciate a full explanation. I'm otherwise at a loss as to how anyone could see this image, and that of Madeleine's eye, as genuinely problematic (as opposed to problematic only if the policy is interpreted in an extreme way). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• The issue is explained in detail at the Foundation's page about Free Content: "Because copyright law in most countries by default grants copyright holders monopolistic control over their creations, copyright content must be explicitly declared free, usually by the referencing or inclusion of licensing statements from within the work." And as for the issue of including just these images and not hurting anything, I point to the essay WP:VEGAN. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clear NFCC violation. The image shows a person carrying a child, but you can barely see what the child and the person look like. As such, the image doesn't seem to serve any functional purposes, and you could easily imagine what it looks like when an adult carries a child without including this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of what you think about the content of the image, Stefan, the point is that the image itself has been extensively discussed: how it came to be produced, why it wasn't used earlier, why the McCanns had to arrange it themselves, etc. It has come to be an iconic image of an investigation gone wrong. That's why it's in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see nothing in the article about how this image came about. It's clearly based on the Tanner report, but the image itself is not mentioned at all (I recognize that the image description page says it was provided by the FMF), and the details in prose about the Tanner report are sufficient to understand what the witness believed she saw without seeing the artist's perception. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update. Just to update this issue, the Sunday Times insight team has today reported on a disagreement in 2008 between private detectives working for the McCanns (including M15 officers) and the McCanns, regarding whether to highlight the Tanner report (this is the image under discussion here), or the Smith report (the e-fit in the section after it). See "Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years", The Sunday Times, Insight team, 27 October 2013. It's an interesting article, and is likely to generate more discussion. This underlines why both images are needed in the article. See this section for the information we have so far on these images, which is likely to get expanded as more sources discuss the new material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the Sunday Times has much of the article behind a paywall, but taking what you say, I see little how this shows any increase in the need to use the image. Clearly the article highlights the reports themselves, but the way that the content is given, you don't need the visual depiction to understand the timing and relationship of the Tanner and Smith reports; as you seem to suggest, the Tanner report is still being considered a red herring, but again, I'm not able to read the full Times articles to know if this was implied. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Masem, I know you mean well and that you're trying to uphold project principles. But with respect, the problem is that you're setting yourself up as, in effect, an editor-in-chief regarding a complex story that you're understandably unfamiliar with (if you search online you will find that story, by the way). And I'm expected to come here to explain myself, hopefully to your satisfaction. :) I'm currently taking time away from writing the article to do that, which is frustrating.

  It's a complex issue, but basically it is about the two images in the section I linked to above (one of which you want to delete). The question the sources ask is: why was the first image published in 2008 when it showed no face, while the second image, which did show a face and was also available in 2008, was not published until 2013? The man who helped to produce the second image, a former M15 agent, has expressed his concern to the Sunday Times. So this is about the content and handling of these two images. That is why we include them both.

  If you read our article and the Sunday Times story, you will see why the images matter, and I will be expanding those issues as more sources become available to explain what happened. I think this has to be my last response about this, because really it is obvious that these images both satisfy the policy, and that to include one but not the other would mean we'd be telling half the story, and in effect choosing to highlight one side. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

One final note: there are BLP issues here, which means the text explaining the images has to be written conservatively. It is touched upon in the section I linked to above, and expanded a little in the section about private detectives. I'll be expanding it some more too. But it has to be written carefully because of the BLP concerns. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's really not the images at the central focus of the issue, but just the conflicting reports. The existence of these images are of course explained, but we don't need to show the images as evidence they existed. I can take the image out and the article loses no comprehension of the topic as a whole (or in particular that there were two reports, conflicting, one considered a red herring but somehow put forth as the leading suspect), failing the second half of NFCC#8 outright. Add that the picture , which isn't highly detailed or of particular artistic merit, is fully explained in the prose already, so it also fails NFCC#1. And arguably its not the image that is the subject of this newfound issue as reported by the Times, but the reports from the eyewitnesses themselves, of which the image forms a small part. So yes, there will be more on the reports and why one was favored over the other, but that gives no additional weight to the importance of the image itself. Could that change with additional reports? Possibly but I would consider that a far outside chance since the issue appears to be about why one report was put to the public's attention over the other. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but this type of image weakens NFC and our attempts to continue to minimize its use because it is far outside expected requirements for a non-free image; I will generally try to figure out if an image is really usable with tweaks (see, for example, the eye image on this article, I'm pointing out a solution that reduces non-free but doesn't change the ability to se the eye mark at the same current resolution), but I really can't see anything in this present case to keep it, and the point here is that while you are providing more evidence, it really isn't helping to support the image's inclusion. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And to add, maybe there's more language that can be added to better justify it. As a case that is clearly allowed per consensus, File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg - the picture of the two Boston Marathon bombers taken from a security cam prior to them planting the bombs, has clearly been shown to pass NFC as 1) it shows both brothers, one who died a few days later, and now known to be the likely culprits of the bombing and 2) the FBI identified that specific image as the one that lead them to the identification and manhunt that captured them. Now, in this case, I know that the article says the publication of the image caused the man who believed he was the one that was seen to go to the police and prove that he was innocent. That sorta meets the same reasoning as the FBI's claim, above, but the image clearly fails to identify any person with clarity. That's why if you can write more to specifically call out to the importance of the images (not the reports themselves, but specifically the images) there may be more reason to keep it. Did the public flood the police with false reports of people matching the image to affect the investigation? Did they accidently arrest anyone based on that image? --MASEM (t) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that you're missing the editorial point, and I don't know how to make it clearer without risking BLP violations (there is some more context in this section, in the current second paragraph, which might explain why the Tanner image was promoted over the Smith image). All I can do is repeat that these images have become iconic, and are likely to become even more in the coming months as the sources discuss the implications of the S/Times report. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Understanding why there are likely BLP issues here that you're avoiding, the thing that I'm missing is a direct connection between that section and the Tanner report; I understand the Smith report's connection as it's explicitly stated. If I am understanding this correctly, the Tanner report and image were the public "image" that people were told to look for, but then only this last month, you had two events: the reveal of the Smith report, and that the person who believes he was tagged by the Tanner report coming forward to proof himself innocent. Is this correct? (This might be part of the problem is that where the relavence of the image to meet NFC might not be in the prose it is next to, but I'm also having some confusion in the article ordering, which might help improve that.) --MASEM (t) 22:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep a devastatingly powerful image - says more in one glance than anything written. Crucial to understanding the article...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't use NFC just because an editor believes it is powerful. If sources say it was a powerful image, that's different, but what may be powerful to one editor may be unimpressive to another, and hence the need to have sourcing to back up the image's necessity. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That assertion is plainly wrong in the face of the obvious. When something is plainly obvious common sense prevails and your argument doesn't hold water, sorry...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong, your claim that a rough sketch of a possible suspect which has since been proven as a red herring as "powerful" is nowhere near common sense for this. We need evidence that such images are powerful, not the word of an editor. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary - the image of the little girl being carried as she is being carried in that image is a vivid and powerful picture; should anyone remember seeing that ultimately terrible visage; brings it home to the viewer and now to the reader; no words required...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

. It's an artist's reconstruction, there's no emotion in it but intended to help the public possibly find the person in those clothes. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for the following reasons- invalid rationale. "purpose" is not because it cannot be replaced with text alone (which it can) and the source is inaccurate, as the source being referred to only states a book but not the actual Internet location this file was copied from which the meta data clearly shows as Picasa. Also, the artist is not named and "commission" is not a demonstration of work for hire, which requires the artist be named. As for the need to have the image on the article, I will only say that this, it's not actually showing anything that cannot be described with text. The face of the suspect is purposely left out so all you really have is a description of clothing and hair, and the manner in which the suspect was carrying the child etc. I am not sure if all of the info were to be added correctly if this passes NFC criteria, but would support it being kept if all info was added to thr rational per NFC criteria: Identification 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.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • As a note, I don't think the source concerns are as much of a problem to require deletion due to that factor alone. We want the source present to verify previous publication, even if it may not be the original source. We do want some demonstration of chain of authorship if possible; it is unlikely that the identity of the character sketcher employeed will be named, but we should know what agency they worked for. In other words, yes, these lines in the rationale could be better written, but it's far from the level where deletion is necessary since they could be fixed. Your other issue are completely valid though. --MASEM (t) 02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it matters, but the source is the Kate McCann book. It's also on the Find Madeleine website and has been reproduced by hundreds of newspapers. The image has no market value. The face isn't purposely left out; the witness didn't see the face. That, indeed, is one of the reasons the image is being discussed so much. People are commenting here without understanding the issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The issue at the core is that this image, without any other attributions to its importance, fails NFCC#1, since it a non-artistic representation of an eyewitness account that is exactly described by text; without any other means to show why this image is importance, it is considered replaceable non-free. Now, what you're trying to add to the article is to show that there is more than just this rendition, intangible aspects that cannot be replaced by text or other free imagery that would serve the same educational purpose. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no aspect of this image which cannot be adequately conveyed by text alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep this is an image weighed by law enforcement and discussed in the article. Text can only partially replace the actual image. There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it. The reader benefits from seeing the actual artist's sketch. The argument is only partially true that the image can be replaced by text. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. What exactly does "weighed by law enforcement " even mean? Text, most certainly can replace an artist interpretation of this kind as there is absolutely nothing unique to the image that cannot be described with text. You state: "There is a margin for inexactitude between the image and the words used to describe it and the reader's ability to imagine it". No, not when the image is the work of an imagination to begin with. As I said, there is absolutely nothing unique in the image that text alone cannot replace.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a poor choice of words for me to say that it was "weighed by law enforcement ". I mean that the image which resulted from one eyewitness account had significance for a time until a person came forward and said that he believed the person seen carrying a child was in fact himself carrying his own daughter. You are also correct that the image itself is the work of the artist's imagination to begin with. That is a valid point. But every effort is of course made in such endeavors to get an accurate representation. The powers of observation in accordance with verbal description are exploited to the extreme by police artists. We simply are not going to create in the reader's mind the image that you are arguing to have removed from the article. Removing such an image from the article would be to the reader's detriment. Yes, an approximation of the sketch can be conjured up. But the actual sketch is not 100% replaceable by a verbal description of it. Bus stop (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem rather reasonable so I will cut to the chase and say that since the artwork is the full result of a verbal description, yes...it can certainly be replaced by text. Now, having said that, I also see no criteria in NFC about being replaceable by text that requires us to delete it for that reason alone. But...NFC is clear, if the rationale is not valid, and all ten points of the criteria unfulfilled, we have an enforcement policy for that which states: "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". I already stated that I would support "keep" as long as the rationale was valid. At this time it is not. If it is fixed (a reasonable request) it need not be deleted and I would support that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The rationale has been adequately explained and is in keeping with policy and guidelines of the encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• No offense, but the rationale and its accurate completion is not a matter of consensus of editors. Should it not be filled out correctly it may deleted regardless of !votes. If the legitimate advice from editors here is simply ignored, I believe we can conclude that the image violates NFC criteria enough for its deletion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've added more context about the importance of the images (the Tanner image under discussion and the Smith image, which have to be seen and discussed together) to this section. I'm now having to write things in a particular way to fulfill people's view of the non-free criteria. This is the tail wagging the dog, but please consider it so wagged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, not really - as others have pointed out, prior to these new additions, the image is replaceable with the already-given text description of what the man seen was wearing (to fulfill NFCC#1). Now, what you've added is getting closer, but I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that. Eg, that might explain why the person who was believed seen in the Tanner report came forward to clear himself. I realize that the text is already implicit that because this is the image released to the public on the case, that the public was aware this was the description of the perp, but can there before to talk about how this image affected the public's perception of the case? It also might be the case of article structure here that's making it difficult to see the need, even when I read it aware of the details. Just tossing this out, for example, but maybe the images (both this and the efits of Smith report) should be in the same section, and makes me wonder if the sightings are out of place and should be closer to the Oakley report. It might already say something like "This image (left) based on the Tanner eyewitness account, had be used to publicly identify the suspect in the abduction, but new evidence brought to light in October 2013 has led the police to release thie efits image (right) based on the Smith report as the current suspect", which would be reason to have both images if they were used side by side. I note that one section talks about how widespread Madeleine's pictures were across Britian, who that first image also have had the same? (These to me make your case more concrete for inclusion) --MASEM (t) 18:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NFCC#1 does not state that if the image can be replaced with text that it MUST be replaced. in this matter, I believe that text alone could satisfy the same thing, but many others do not. This is a matter of consensus, as has always been the case. It is not as cut and dry and there is no criteria that says we must delete the image if it can be replaced with text. Please read that again Masem.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's based on if the text replacement serves the same educational value as the non-free was serving. My point for this is that without context of how significant the image was, the forensics image is sufficiently described visual in an equivalent manner as the text, which would be the same educational purpose. What has been done, though, is that SV's provided better justification that this is more than just a possible perp image, but an image of public significance to this case; while the image's details can still be distilled to the text description, the value of being a public image is not one that can be replaced with text, thus justifying that this likely now passes #1. That's the primary thing that has changed over the course of this discussion. --MASEM (t)

• You asked: "I think you will hit the nail on the head if you can show readily that this was the image that, from 2008 until now, that it was the image in the consciousness of the public of the abductor based on the Tanner report, and that the light of the new evidence from this month changed that." Yes, that's what the article says. Both images are in the same section, which is the section discussing the sightings. There is then a link to the section about the Oakley report. I am not going to rewrite the article to satisfy a non-editorial need (based on an extreme interpretation of the non-free-content criteria) to have the importance of the images explained entirely in one place. Editorial issues come first. Yes, to answer your final question, the Tanner image was widely published across the UK for many years. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article does not go into the statement that the image was in the public mind, it just says it was released to the public; there's a difference. (There's reasonable expectation that if an eyewitness gives an account of a suspect, that there will be a recreation put out for the public review; I'm trying to figure out how to assure this one is special). So, that said, I found these [32] [33] (and probably a few more) point to that Tanner felt guilt that she could provide enough detail on the face that would have helped identify the man (at which point we know this was a false report, but go with me on this). So I'm getting more positive that the image can be justified. But that led to me this story [34] which seems to be prior to the Tanner's image from an eyewitness; Tanner was later talked to about this image (before the one image in question) and said it was the man that looked like him. There's no mention of this and I'm going to assume that this was later affirmed a bad sighting but there may be more there? I do think there's enough forward momentum in resolvign around this that I no longer think the image should be deleted, but I hope you see what I'm trying to suggest to make this better. (And the rewrite is not just about the images - I find the flow somewhat disjointed, though the chronologically of the events in this case are not straight forward).
• And to note, the call of this image being replaceable by text is not an extreme position - the image is simple enough and lacks artistic merit, so it is up to you to show that the educational value of the image is lost if it is replaced by text; pointing out how it was a significant public image would do that. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I rarely disagree with Masem's judgement on these matters, in fact I think this is the first time. I find the image justified, though, per SlimVirgin's comments, and I do believe it adds what text cannot, and that similarly it's omission would be detrimental to understanding. No free alternative is likely to become available, and I think it would damage the article to omit this pictorial content. Free content is a glorious aim, but we have accepted fair use and non-free where necessary to also create the best encyclopedia we can, and I think this is certainly one of those cases. Begoon ^talk 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note on the general conversation here - I suspect part of the problem is the fact that there might a US vs UK issue here. I get the impression this case would be equivalent to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, which, as a USina, I know was splashed all over the news during the search for her (before the suspect was identified); I don't know how the Ramsey case was shown in the UK, but in considering the reverse I don't consider myself to be an aggressive follower of news but certainly not isolated from it, and yet I was unaware of the McCann case (this seems now more evident when I've gone to sources, seeing most are the big UK media ones).
• As sources state McCann's image was splashed everywhere, and by extension, these profile images; I'm sure those in the UK can attest to what degree that was the case -- but its definitely not clear from the article text as given and a factor lost to those outside the UK. It may be one of those those things that in writing that one may unintentionally forget the audience is not all from the same country and it is easy to overlook that not everyone experiences these things in the same way. Let's say it were issues with Ramsey's article (I'm not saying there are, this is just example), and one happens to be non-free of a suspected perp where the image could easily be replaced with text to describe what is shown. Knowing how much that case was broadcasted around here in the US, I probably wouldn't question the use of the image because I would have known it was used widely in the public news treatment of the Ramsey case, though I would hope and expect someone from the UK or elsewhere to point out the flaws towards WP:NFCC#1, if the photo's public perception wasn't covered in the article.
• The point is that when one is looking at non-free where the importance for inclusion is due to the public's perception or knowledge about the case, one needs to keep in mind that "the public" might be a limited set compared to the readership/editorship of WP, and thus it's likely best to make sure that public's perception is documented to some degree in the article to better justify it's use as an irreplaceable work. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - The issue isn't whether the image is vague or functional for the purpose of identifying the kidnapper. That is missing the point. What matters is that the image itself is now an iconic image for the case, and as such the image itself cannot be replaced by text alone. The image has been widely used by major news sources covering the case: The BBC, The Guardian, The Mirror for just a few examples. Consequently there is no free equivalent. Going through the rest of the NFCC criteria: As covered earlier there's no commercial opportunity for the image as it's already been made widely available without commercial interest. It's used a mimimum number of times. It's been published previously. It's encyclopedic--the image itself is of encyclopedic interest and there is article content directly supporting it. It meets the image use policy. It's used in at least one article. It's significant--I think those familiar with the case who came to read our article would be astonished if the article didn't include it. It's restricted to use in the article. The image description has been updated with the artist, publisher, copyright holder, copyright tag and article. As all the WP:NFCC boxes are checked, so keep. Zad68 04:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that the problem before this is that there wasn't anything that specifically noted the fact that the image was widely used across the UK for this case; this has now been shown so this reasoning to keep makes sense, but again, this point to my comment above - if you're very familiar with a news story with certain imagery that has national but not international coverage, you can't assume the rest of the world will recognize the images as important - they need to be described as having significant public awareness as is the case now here. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Masem, based on your response I can't exactly tell if you're convinced the NFCC criteria are met now. I want to point out the same image is used outside the UK. In this televised news programme from Australia, they run a series of "the standard McCann images" while a reporter talks; this image is seen at 1:15. Here it appears on a news website based in Spain, used to illustrate "24 hours in photos" covering the day's top news events. Here it appears on a Norwegian news site. Are we in agreement that the NFCC criteria are met? Zad68 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm convinced now; my point is before this discussion and chances in the article, the wide-spread-ness of this particular image and importance, which may have been plain-as-day to any UKian, wasn't apparent via the text given - at the start, to me a non UKian, it appeared to be the routine drawing of a suspect that is usually done with any such case, and one that would fail NFCC#1 normally. The discussion and changes made have convinced me that it was clearly a major image of this story and one of public perception, and thus should be kept, even just considering the sourcing from the UK that show how widespread within the country it was. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Teubneriana

Completely decorative, and replaceable. The files are used to illustrate font changes, which can be done using limited non-copyrighted samples. Note that none of the images are supported via sourced critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: we can use Lorem ipsum in the appropriate font to mimic the layouts. Now, that said, the text itself is suggested to be "ancient" writings - eg clearly in the PD, so the question is if the unique formatting / layout adds copyright to that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the assertion that the images are "completely decorative". In fact, the nominator contradicts this assertion by saying that the images illustrate font changes--the images therefore shed light upon a matter discussed in the article text. In fact, the typeface of the Teubner editions has been the subject of several discussions in secondary sources, at least one of which is quoted in the article. So it's not as if the fonts are irrelevant to the article's subject--they are an important part of the history of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana, and images of the text are crucial to showing this history. Nor do the images simply show "font changes"--a sensitive viewing of the images on the page should make clear a basic principle of book design, namely, that the choice of typeface affects the relationship of every element of the page. This is especially the case with a critical edition of a classical text, whose layout is much more complex than a basic literary text, and which has a high density of information, especially in the apparatus criticus.

I also find the assertion that the images can be replaced by using lorem ipsum bizarre. First, it is unlikely that a Wikipedia editor unfamiliar with the specific design choices made by the Bibliotheca Teubneriana could replicate the kerning, wordspacing, linespacing, and relationship of the elements of the page, even assuming that s/he has access to the typefaces used over the years. I'm fairly adept at generating ancient Greek text on my computer, but replicating the Teubner editions' double line-numbering system seen in [35], not to mention the line in the margin between lines 8 and 9 of the Pindar passage, plus the mark under the ἀε in line 7 of the Pindar passage are beyond my ability (this is assuming I even had access to the typeface they use, which I don't). But replacing all of this with gibberish, which seems to be what the suggestion to use lorem ipsum means, would render the images useless. In particular, I'm thinking of the apparatus criticus at the bottom of the page, which has a very particular relationship to the text above--it lists, in very abbreviated form, variant readings of words or phrases in different manuscripts. To replace this with random text would destroy the connection between the apparatus and the main text. It would be like taking a mathematical proof and replacing all the symbols with Zapf Dingbats, and then claiming that it looks the same. (Never mind that lorem ipsum, as a mangled form of Latin that is total nonsense, is especially annoying to those of us who know Latin...)

As to the copyright issue, it's my understanding that the features of a classical text covered by copyright is the material uniquely contributed by the modern editor of the text. That would be things like punctuation, the apparatus criticus, and the choice of variant readings. So much of the text in these images is probably not under copyright, since there's little indication of variation in the manuscript tradition. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no critical commentary that what you suggest (all these tiny font differences) is that significant to require seeing every iteration. To an average reader (one not familiar with fonts or Greek), the changes are not very obvious and would simply seem like slight differences in printing. If the font and formatting changes are that significant to understand the work (which I would argue presently are not even at that level - it's like having a long discussion about a change in article layout for a modern-day magazine - trivial in the long run), then you need a lot more sourcing to show that to justify the image use. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of book covers from Bibliotheca Teubneriana at Wikimedia commons. Their image are in the public domain because its copyright has expired (under license PD-old, - life of the author plus 70 years). It seems to me that a similar license applies here in WP. --Odysses (○) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not the book covers in question, it's the sample pages, like File:Teubner_Gk_type_Griechische_Antiqua.jpg. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the text itself is (since that was written ages ago), but it is given a specific layout that may qualify the specific format as copyrighted. That I'm not 100% clear on. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There are examples of old scanned pages with text, maps and diagrams at the Commons under PD-old, but one can never be sure, since they change the rules quite often. If not permited in WP, perhaps, images could be uploaded at the commons under PD-old. --Odysses (○) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, and at least on the images on this page is an PD-old version. The problem is that the page is set up to describe these "significant" changes to presentation that occurred since mid-last century (eg if they were copyrightable, they would still clearly be under copyright). If those explainations were not necessary/present, we easily could us PD imagery for the article. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

File:ITunes_11_Logo.png

This appears to fit "PD-ineligible". It's simply an image of two beamed musical notes on a circular background. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The glass/jelly look likely pushes it over the edge, but I do note that the newer NBC logo which has a similar glass look in the peacock feathers is considered okay at commons. I personally would play it save as copyrightable until we get better clarification on that. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do shaded gradients add to originality? I've heard arguments saying it does and doesn't. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not. That's why I point to the NBC logo that uses them but considered free at commons. It's not straight-forward and might be a question better to ask experts at common at where the line should be drawn. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

File:ScoreBig 2013 logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Is the tear effect on the right side of the logo too much to push it over the Threshold of Originality? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would play it safe and say yes its original enough to keep this copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WKVT (AM) logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Withdraw discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:01, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on saying it is uncopyrightable - the shadow effects are just simple enough to be uncreative. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Lindbergh (book).JPG

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#UUI§6 in A. Scott Berg and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:19, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6 in A. Scott Berg. Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup; image is fine on the article on the book, but we don't need the cover on the author's page. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Zahara (South African musician)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is article uses non-free images in an acceptable manner. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:58, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Inappropriate use of cover art in a BLP article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Here's a case where I think one can argue that the albums are notable enough to be separate but the editors have decided to keep the albums in discussion with the artist together for cohension (eg it is not just demonstrating this album, but doing the marking/branding that it would do if it were separate). In such cases, I would be inclined to allow at least one of the cover images. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create separate articles for the EP and DVD releases because I want to improve the overall rating of the "Zahara (South African musician)" article. I'll take improving the rating of the article all day over creating separate stub articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases. If my use of the images violates Wikipedia's non free policy, then I suppose I could merge the "EP" and "DVD" release into one article. If creating separate articles for the "EP" and "DVD" releases would prohibit the images from being deleted, then I guess that's what I'll do. If you agree or disagree with my proposition, please add to this discussion. I would appreciate that. versace1608 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, you did the right thing in terms of making something cohesive and thus why I'm arguing that, of the images, I think the DVD cover should easily be kept since this is also an article about that album. I don't think you should have to split it, because its atypical of when people typically just drop album art on an artist article. --MASEM (t) 05:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Does this mean the tag Stefan2 left at the top of the article deserve removal? versace1608 (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is just my opinion, so others may chime in. An uninvolved admin will close this discussion (hopefully within a few days) and remove the tag, if nothing else comes of it. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-CAGov and has been updated accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:23, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Isn't this {{PD-CAGov}}? Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it is, if being taken be the CA Dept of Corrections is true. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Basilisk snapshot9.png

Hi. I have been looking at this image and File:BasiliskII.jpg, which is uploaded on Commons and I have to ask: Is the license tag on this image correct? According to Basilisk II article, Basilisk II is a free and open-source product. So, is there something in this shot that makes it non-free? Codename Lisa (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Art assets do not necessarily have to carry the same copyright as the program's source, and can be copyrighted. That is, everything here is a default UI element from the Mac operating system, which are under copyright too. (Note the license tag say "Note: if the screenshot shows any work that is not a direct result of the program code itself, such as a text or graphics that are not part of the program, the license for that work must be indicated separately.") So unless the Mac UI elements have been considered free (Which, spot checking Mac app screenshots) they are not. Thus this image should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Michael Jackson - Got to be there (single).jpeg

Current upload seems to violate WP:NFCC#1, see initial upload by User:Smooth O from 2006 which appears to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

By Discogs, there seems to be at least five possible covers based on country published; the orange text-only is the Netherlands, the current one used is from France. There is one for the US release (just the disc label), which would seem to be the one one would use, given that Jackson was an American artist and all that; the only issue with that is if the map part on the top is of sufficient copyright (as the rest is just text and would be PD-text). Given that there is otherwise no unique imagery with this (in terms of branding), otherwise, we should stick with the free orange label if the US version is not free. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your link goes to a page which shows the disc, but we should probably use a cover image instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, it's just the vinyl 45 record; that is done in some cases where the sleeve cover has been lost to time or blank. I do agree the sleeve cover art is better in general. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Vinyl 45s were typically sold with a plain white or unbleached sleeve with a cutout in the centre so the label on the disc could be viewed. Or information about the label would be printed on the sleeve. It was rare to see one with images, even for the Beatles. See Google images for examples. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Suicide Squad

I cannot see justification for 15 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, way too many covers used just for covers. I don't know which images to immediately say are excessive given that we're talking two iterations of the group, I would say one only needs two or three non-free images total. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and cut the non-free media usage back significantly. At minimum, I think it is important to illustrate all four volumes of the comic book. Please advise whether this review can be closed. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even then that's arguable. I recognize that each Volume is a "new" Squad (as I read it), but I don't think that justifies the extra covers. The individual volumes don't appear to be notable on their own (the group is, that's not a question), and so using covers here is really not appropriate. If anything, one of the covers could be a better one to use in the main infobox, but that's about it. If anything, and I have no idea if this is possible, a single group cast image from each Volume would be more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like there might be some misunderstanding of what the page is supposed to be covering, which is totally my fault, since I've been maintaining it. In any case, my intention with the Suicide Squad page is to cover the team, and the four volumes of comic books that they star in -- similar to how the Justice League page does it. In fact, I used that page as a template for how to present the four Suicide Squad volumes. Please advise on whether this is optimal or wanted; I still think it is important to clearly define and illustrate each volume of the comic book, especially as this team exists across three separate versions of DC Comics' continuity. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Please advise on whether I may consider this resolved. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is enough. But let me ask: are the 4 volumes of Suicide Squad like four different runs of the concept at different times? In other words, from a pure comics POV, is it the same series or four different series, in like how the current Superman (as part of the New 52) is a different series from the original DC Superman? --MASEM (t) 12:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Your Superman comparison is accurate. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, two more questions then: 1) The current infobox image (The promo art) - how critical is that, in that if one of the current covers (like for Volume 1) replaced it, would it be a problem? I do understand that you're showcasing the team, and not the actual line of comics, which might affect this 2) Did each volume have some type of reception to it? I know you can probably check on Volume 4, which I see is part of the new 52 (so online sourcing should be easy to find), not sure how readily you can check the others. I feel that if you can show that these would have been separate articles but you're treating them as one comprehensive article, there might be allowance for it. I do note that one cover image will be appropriate for identification of the series/concept, but the difficulty is justifying the cover for each series; even Superman (comic book) doesn't include the cover of the first New 52 version of it, though I'm not sure if that has been something that has been vetted either way.

There is going to be a push by others to reduce the number of covers, and they are in the right that as the article stands, you still probably have too many, but I'm trying to find if there's any way you can improve the justification of the covers better. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions: 1) No problem, I've replaced the infobox image with one of the other covers displayed on the page. I've also added a sentence to the end of the top-page summary, to make it very clear what this entry covers -- which is, in fact, the team AND the four associated monthly series. 2) I am happy to create and source a "Reception" section for each volume. This should not be a problem. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do that - showing that you could have chosen to make each notable (where there would be zero question of using all four images on each page) but per WP:NOPAGE, you've decided that the article is better when one complete article, then I feel you're okay keeping the original cover, the four volume covers, and the cartoon shot. That's my opinion, but others may disagree. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico

I cant see justification for 8 non-free files for a single album Werieth (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some images, and three short sound clips. I'm not familiar with NFCC as it applies to audio files, but I think the number of cover art images could easily be reduced by half. There are three key ones for the vinyl release, all duly sourced and useful to reader understanding (or whatever NFCC8 says these days) — the iconic banana, an image with the banana sticker peeled off (the case is slightly weaker here), and the back cover. The article goes into some detail on lawsuits involving all of these. In my opinion, nearly identical images of the CD cover are superfluous and could safely be trimmed. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The two covers in the infobox are fine. The original back cover is discussed in text, so that's fine. I do agree that 3 sound files aren't needed (since these songs have their own article), one or two samples are only needed for representation. The CD cover comparison is unneeded (its not even discussed in text). The acetate label may actually qualify as free - it's just text. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:Velvet underground album cover 2.png is essentially a pealed version of File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg and therefore redundant. File:The Velvet Underground and Nico back cover.jpg is critically discussed and therefore fine. File:VU&N CD comparison.JPG duplicates File:Velvet Underground and Nico.jpg with only very small differences and is therefore unneeded. Are the colour effects at File:VU 1 acetate label.jpg caused by damage to the disc, or are those effects printed there? In the first case, retag as {{PD-ineligible}}. There is significant discussion about the music, but the songs have their own articles, so this is essentially WP:NFC#UUI §6 with the caveat that it says "image" and not "sound". I would assume that the people who wrote WP:NFC#UUI typically meant to include non-image files even if it says "picture" or "image" but that this was overlooked as almost all files on Wikipedia are images. You can even refer to sound by using the "Image" namespace name: Image:TheVelvetUndergroundI'mWaitingForTheMan.ogg. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The "peeled version of" comment, intentional or not, wins the Wikipedia free content wry humor of the day award, thanks :) - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would actually put forth that the "peeled" pun used for naming the alternate cover may be okay. May, being the key word, though I personally would have not included it and just mention the alt cover shows the peeled banana as part of the pun on the cover. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The peeled version is pretty important, given that it's the one version that's hard for a record buyer to see otherwise: it's not only "peeled" it's a 40+ year old cover. Few copies still exist, even fewer unpeeled ones are likely to have their owners allow a peeling. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tweenies

Do non-free fair-use character images belong on an article about a children's TV show based on such characters?

See also Talk:Tweenies#Images and User_talk:Andy_Dingley#October_2013_Tweenies

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Textbook violation of WP:NFLIST, and WP:NFCC#3a. If you actually bothered to read my post on the talk page you would know that we can get 1 group shot to replace the 4 individual images that I removed. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable show the main characters of a notable show, but as Werieth said and I just checked, you can use one image of all four to reduce the non-free use to 1 instead of 4. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So where is your "one image" and why have you (repeatedly, to the point of EW) already blanked all of the images from this article, specifically against the warnings about NFCR that you've already had in the last week? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The group shot I was referring to can be found here. Please stop lying about my actions. I did not removal all files. I removed the 4 individual files as clear violations of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3. I repeatedly removed the files as I said, textbook violations of policy. We dont have an image on Matthew John Armstrong even though a quick google search provides plenty of non-free files available. Its because any non-free file used is a clear violation of policy. Our policy isnt to leave non-free files in place until a replacement is available, but to remove violations until an acceptable file is available and can be used. I have clearly established that the files do not meet inclusion criteria, as a single group shot is available and sufficient. The burden lies on those wanting to use the media to ensure that policy is met. I dont need to bend over backwards and upload files for you. Your whole refusal to follow NFCC is appalling. Werieth (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Appalling? But your edit-warring, for which you've already been warned on just the same issue is perfectly OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing text book violations is perfectly OK. What grounds do you have for repeatedly violating WP:NFCC? Oh wait NONE. You where told several times and explained to why the files failed but you either dont listen or are incapable of understanding what I was telling you. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In this case, Werieth is absolutely right - there is an unequivocal route to reduce non-free use per #3a and thus the four existing images can be removed. This is not comparable to his ANI case where there is some possible ambiguity in use. And he is right that it is your burden to do the replacement if you want to have the image of the 4 characters. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NFLISTS tells that you should use a single group picture instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Alfa P33 roadster GS.jpg

The uses in Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale#Italdesign and Alfa Romeo concept cars might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a difficult time believing that there aren't any of this model that have been kept in museums or car collections that a free image can't be made (I mean, we're talking an Alfa Romeo concept car, not a run-of-the-mill Buick or the like) And in consideration that it's not the main subject of the article, we don't need a non-free to display it. So it is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why it might violate? I dont see any problems using this image, if you cant read it says "30 year old concept car not exsiting anymore, so a free alternative would be almost impossible to obtain" , Its also important in this article which tells very rare car -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The car existed at one point, and while I understand it was a concept car with very limited production, I'd have difficulty believing that all known cars produced from this line are no longer in existence, given how auto fanatics treat such cars with great respect. Which means that unless one can readily demonstrate that there is no existing version of this model, anywhere, it should be possible to get a free image of the car. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Only one car has existed. Its not possible anymore to get new picture of it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:EntarteteKunst.jpg

Used in Degenerate art, Der Neue Mensch and Otto Freundlich. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all three articles. In addition, some of the uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I put out the option that the age of the work and that it was a program brouchure that its copyright might not have been renewed, making this possibly non-free. However, given that it is also a foreign work, that might affect that too. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, it is actually completely fine at Der Neue Mensch - the art pictured on the cover - which has been destroyed so there no chance of a free image, and given the period, unlikely there might be a version of the sculpture without the text of the program on top of it. For this same reason , it might be okay at the artist's page. And furthering this, the cover text is being used to show how such art was made into a scary form in Degenerate art, and thus may be approprite there. Yes, #10c is violated - we need separate rationales and in this case there are very different reasons on each of the three pages. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume that this was first published in 1937 (the year of the exhibition) or shortly prior to that. If that is the case, then it would have been subject to the Copyright Act of 1909. If the copyright was not renewed, then it entered the public domain in 1965 (28 years after publication). If the copyright was renewed, then it would be copyrighted for another 95 years, so assuming the copyright was renewed around 1937, it would still be copyrighted until 2032. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, actually if I am not misreading {{PD-US}} we would have to determine whether this was published in the United States at all and when. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean - I'm unsure, but the age of this suggests that if someone did the footwork to see if it is free, that would be great, removing any questions about the use. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the catalogue was published in the US, although we are actually only interested in the cover image. I see no easy way to determine whether some book published in the United States contained a depiction of this cover or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Per [36] prior to 1989 the work would have had to had an explicit copyright notice to fall into the Berne convention, so we would need to see the whole image here. For now, we should treat this as free, but really, this is one of those images that scream that it has a good chance of really being a free image, and while we're playing it safe by treating it as a non-free, we can fix that later. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As this was first published in Germany, no renewal or anything was needed – this is copyrighted for 95 years since publication per Commons:COM:URAA. There is a fair use rationale, but it lacks necessary components and doesn't refer to a unique article, so it is invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Czech Republic FA.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It says

  "Purpose of use: To appear only on the article Football Association of the Czech Republic and those of its representative teams below

• Czech Republic national football team
• Czech Republic national under-21 football team
• Czech Republic national under-17 football team
• Czech Republic women's national football team
• Czech Republic national futsal team"

The image cannot be replaced by a free logo, and as such, it doesn't violate the WP:NFCC policy. If it is needed to have a notice per article, it can be easily done. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what the issue is here. They are proper logos for each individual team (and appropriate said articles), but we'd prefer to have seperate rationals for each. Because they are logos, you may want to use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} which is allowable boilerplate rationale for logos. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Leiabikini.jpg

There is a recent resurrection of Princess Leia's metal bikini. This image is used in more than one article besides that page, so should the image be used in only one page? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems justified on Bikinis in popular culture, but I don't think it is on Princess Leia. There's a section at the bottom about the bikini which appears to be where the metal bikini article was pulled out from, and that's the only place where the image in the Leia article is discussed, so it is unnecessary on the character page. (I will argue that I don't know if the metal bikini article is really a good idea for a separate topic, and if it was merged back into Leia, then the image would be appropriate there). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Reese, Derek.jpg

What is the contextual significance of this image? I think its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate (nor, on the same page, the other character shot), in light that a primary group cast photo (non-free) is reasonable, and for this show, does exist such as here). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Chan

Too many unfree images. Unsure if the scenes are discussed in prose. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: all non-free images, excepting File:Jackie Chan Fist.JPG. This one is discussed in the article and is relevant to Chan's life. The other images appear to be decorative. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Images removed from this article. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Ellison, James.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See above section for File:Reese, Derek.jpg - one non-free cast image would do the same job as two non-frees (as well as capture the other characters listed). --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Luis Buñuel

• Luis Buñuel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I notice you zapped images in the article on Luis Bunuel with the explanation that "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here. The Non-free content policy states: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." I'd like to make the following points:

1. Permission to use the file(s) in question was explicitly granted by the copyright holder, and this is explained in the summary for media data on the image file.
2. As to critical commentary -- this was provided in the caption to the image: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies." This included a reference to an RS. Isn't this "critical commentary" bearing directly on the use of the image?

Finally, wouldn't it have been better to discuss this on the talk page rather than taking unilateral action? Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Im about to go away from the keyboard for a while. If you are in contact with the copyright holder request that they email WP:OTRS and release the file under a free license. A caption or passing reference may be commentary on the image, but its no where near what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file. When I get back Ill do an image by image breakdown with details. But for now the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the copyright holder did email WP about these images over a year ago. Isn't there some record of that? As to critical commentary, I look forward to a better understanding of "what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file", along with a reference to MOS or other authoritative source that provides a clear definition of "critical commentary" that invalidates the example I provided above. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont see any records on the file pages about an OTRS ticket. I am not a member so I cannot look up the case. but lets break this down one at a time. We already have one image of Bunuel which is free so additional images need justified. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Other than the image caption there is no reference to the image in the associated text. It is easily described with plain text X character writing Respect the property of others on a chalk board. (This would mean it fails WP:NFCC#1, and the second clause of #8 because there is nothing visually unique or distinguishing about the image that requires it to be in the article.). Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the subject of this article is a filmmaker -- therefore, images from his films are of particular consequence to an understanding of the subject. Films are images. The image of a small child writing a sociopolitical message on a blackboard has meaning over and above any textual description of that image. Using screenshot images as part of an article about a filmmaker is just as meaningful, even essential, as using images of paintings is for an article about a painter. Also, again, the image was accompanied by a caption providing specific commentary from an RS. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments dont hold any water, taking a look at two of the biggest producers J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg there is a total of 1 non-free file between the two. Werieth (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Jburlinson (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed this image claims that "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, before it was deleted, this image included the caption: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies.[64]:p.59" (The reference is to an RS published by Univ. of Calif. Press.) It was placed in a section of the article covering Bunuel's years in Spain in the early 1930's, the first two paragraphs of which discussed Bunuel's joining the Communist Party. Thus, the image is a significant component of critical commentary relating to Bunuel's political interests and their impact on his art. Integrating the text of the caption into the article without the image will result in a loss of information and value to the reader, who will be deprived of a visual example of Bunuel's ironic style. Jburlinson (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a child writing on a blackboard; there's nothing unique about the visuals themselves, only the scene which you've just described in text. It is appropriate to state the importance of the influence, but you don't need the visual aid as given. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Same issues as the previous file. Looks like an upside down picture of a rooster, something fairly easily described in plain text. Not critical to understanding who Bunuel was as it lacks any significance to who he is. (yes its a shot from one of his major pictures, but not actually anything major). Fails, #1,8 again. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "but not actually anything major". That's one person's subjective opinion. As such, it should be the occasion for a discussion, not a peremptory deletion. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor deleted this file with the claim: "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, the image included this caption: "An early scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan depicts a local wedding custom where the bridegroom tears the head off a rooster suspended by its feet from a scaffold above the main street of town.[64]:p.57" The reference is from an unquestionably reliable source. The image appears in a part of the article that discusses the highly unusual status of the film as a "surrealist documentary", which also includes an extended quote from a well-known film director stating: "Though the material is organized with masterly skill, the very conception of 'art' here seems irrelevant. It is the most profoundly disturbing film I have ever seen." The startling nature of the combined image and its caption supplies meaningful and valuable information to the reader and constitutes "critical commentary". The image reflects Bunuel's unique brand of surrealism, which is discussed in this article and which has been described as: " "visually Spartan and yet spasming with bouts of the irrational." Jburlinson (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you possibly find a better image to help this (I recognize you might be dealing with the limited screenshots that are provided to be used on WP)? Right now, this image looks like an upside down chicken. It doesn't show the elements of the rope or scaffold as to show the shocking nature of this scene, and hence why its use is being questioned, as it doesn't line up well with the quote. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A close up of an upside-down rooster is surrealistic in almost any context. Jburlinson (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But easily described by text. On the other hand the key word "disturbing" is the one that the right imagery will make it more appropriate to include an image. What is "disturbing" about an upside down chicken (without knowing that it is tied up and about to be decapitated?) --MASEM (t) 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The caption explains that it is tied up and about to be decapitated. Disturbing, no? Putting the words together with the image makes it even more disturbing. Jburlinson (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, even with the text, it's hard to call that disturbing. All I'm asking is that if there's a frame in the movie a few seconds before or after that shows the chicken actually hung, or the axe about to come down, or something that is unmistakable the act of decapitating the chicken, then this image would make a lot of sense to include to talk about the disturbing imagery. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying that this particular image is not "critical commentary" but if I supplied one that you believed was more "disturbing", it would be "critical commentary"? That simply boils down to what one person believes is disturbing as opposed to what another believes is disturbing. How does it make one image more or less "critical commentary"? Your argument here contradicts your argument about the other image from Las Hurdes, the child writing a capitalistic slogan on a blackboard, which is explicitly relevant to Bunuel's Marxist philosophy. Jburlinson (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant doesnt make it critical commentary. The chalkboard image is easily described with text. The current image you are use (Just an upside down chicken) is easily described with text. If however there was something visually significant and unique about an image (being "disturbing" in this case, I can cite other examples if needed) that isnt easily described by text alone, there may be justification for the image. However in this case a picture of an upside down chicken is no where close to meeting those criteria. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Meeting what criteria? The criteria of "critical commentary"? You mean if the image were more "disturbing" (to you) it would meet the criteria? Is the only issue here that the image isn't "disturbing" enough? Jburlinson (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Critical commentary has several factors, It needs to be visually unique and significant (something an upside down chicken isnt), and those elements need to be discussed in more than a passing way by reliable third party sources. One example I can think of, (which is actually technically invalid, as the group still performs and thus would make the image replaceable) is the unique visual style of Kiss (band) and the facial paint that they use. Or a example of something that is valid would be Virgin Killer where the album cover is notable for the controversy that it caused. Werieth (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have described a scene about the beheading of a chicken as a disturbing scene in text. Okay, for all purposes, that would be sufficient to even run without an image, but I can completely see an allowance for an image here if and only if it showed exactly that, scenes that show something that, by common sense, is visually disturbing without even seeing the caption. A simple upside down chicken would not do it. However, the same chicken, shown hung upside down with an axe about to hit it, would be. It would also be more understandable what's going on without reading the text, while one would need to read the info around to wonder why we were just showing an upside down chicken. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.jpg

Similar to the previous two, we dont need to know the set of a film to understand the person. Fails NFCC#1,8 Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Viewing the image gives a sense as to the nature of the film productions being discussed at that point of the article. In addition, the image includes text describing the nature of the work done at Filmofono studios. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The caption that accompanies this image is: "Location filming at Filmófono". The image is placed in the section of the article which covers Bunuel's involvement with the Spanish film studio Filmofono. This is an aspect of Bunuel's career that is very little known, even by film enthusiasts who applaud his more famous productions from earlier and later in his creative life. The image, its caption and the text of the article combine to provide the "critical commentary" required by NFC. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Jburlinson (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.jpg

We dont require a picture of the staff to know that he worked with those people, fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The article discusses the "team" effort of the MOMA department -- a picture of the team is totally appropriate. Once again, this is a subjective situation that should be the occasion of a discussion, not unilateral action. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A photo of a group of people, where only a few are identified is not needed to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. (If the group were notable as a whole, that might be one things, but there's no indication of this here.) --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image was accompanied by the caption: "The staff of the MoMA film department, c. 1941; Buñuel, first row on left; Iris Barry, first row on right". The image appeared in that part of the article that covered Bunuel's career in the early 1940's, particularly his years working for the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). It includes a picture of Iris Barry, the head of the MOMA film unit and a significant figure in Bunuel's life at that time. She is also discussed in the article. The article makes the point that Bunuel was a member of a team that created anti-fascist propaganda during the war years. Including a picture of the team is relevant to the article, supplies information that cannot be provided by text alone, and is part of the critical commentary concerning Bunuel's war years. Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a non-free picture of Iris on her own page, and we don't need to illustrate the MOMA team to understand that Bunuel worked as part of the team with Barry to create propaganda, since you have that discussed by sources. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.jpg

Again almost identical issues was with the first three images. Zero ties to the article text, non-critical image, image is decorative. (Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8) Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The image expands upon points made in the article concerning the violent nature of the protagonists of the film and the caption contains a quote from a well-known film critic that bears directly on the image. It is far from decorative -- it is critical and it is commentary, making it definitely "critical commentary." Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The scene can be described in text - just as the critic's quote has done - and as it is not about the visual style, again, the image does not help here per WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image included the caption: ""A legless cripple who refuses the children cigarettes is robbed and left to lie on the pavement at some distance from his cart, and yet he is clearly no better than his tormentors." – Film critic André Bazin[130]" The image and the caption combined together have meaning and information content that is of value to the reader which cannot be conveyed as significantly by text alone. This is why people make movies -- the images have value and they have impact. Bunuel was a filmmaker, a maker of images. Therefore, images are of unique importance to an article about him. The image is a significant part of the critical commentary of the article. Jburlinson (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The critic's quote is commenting on characters and how the scene plays out, but not on the direction, where there would be better justification for using visual imagery. Again, reading through the article, this director is not so much praised for the visual aspects or direction of the film, but how he brings in critical commentary to the films, which is better discussed in text than with images. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Le Fantôme de la liberté.jpg

Again just decorative usage as the film has its own article The Phantom of Liberty we can provide a link to it so they can see the poster. Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and see also WP:NFC#UUI#6. @Jburlinson:Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

In general we dont need 6 non-free files in an article with 8 free files. See WP:NFCC#3. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC) above was copied from my talk page Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the above issue from my talk page because Jburlinson isnt seeming to understand WP:NFC. Can someone else help educate the user on why we dont need 6 non-free files for a director who isnt know for anything warranting non-free files? Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, most of this director's works were famous for political commentary and the like, and not so much for art direction. As such , we don't need visual media to understand the importance of his works; they would be nice to have if they are free (and that claim if there are ORTS tickets to allow this, should be checked out to verify that, as that would help). In contrast, Stanley Kubrick has several noted visual styles to his works that are critically commented on to show how they visually look (not the films, but his directing techniques). Basically, what Werieth's point is here is that you're simply using screencaps from the films to show what the films are while discussing the films, but there's no critical discussion of the visual elements being shown in the screencaps (such as a directing technique or some juxtaposition that reviewers found unique), and as such, they would fail NFCC#8. If you can get them free through ORTS, great, they can be used, but as we minimize non-free - and considering there are free examples already present - additional non-free is not helping here. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bunuel's films are works of art; works of art composed of images. That's what films are. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles written about Bunuel's artistry -- not his political views. Throughout his life, he was associated with surrealism -- an artistic movement. His films are studied not just for his political or social commentary, but for his artistry and the special nature of his image-making. Examples of his images are of critical importance to an understanding and appreciation of his achievement. Saying otherwise is like saying that Goya's paintings don't have much to do with what makes him famous or that Jane Austen's novels are famous for their social criticism and not for their artistry.

Above and beyond the appropriateness of any particular image is a larger issue -- which is the procedure that was used to delete multiple images with a single edit with only the barest edit summary which said "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC". The editor has done this over and over again to many articles, resulting in many disputes and edit wars. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Werieth reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: warned) for an example. There are more. I have asked this editor repeatedly for a clear and explicit instance in policy or guideline that defines the meaning of "critical commentary". In searching through WP "help", it's become clear to me that this term is a highly subjective one. Different people understand it in different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all definition. As a result, WP operates by consensus. Consensus does not mean that one person goes from article to article peremptorily zapping images that don't suit him and then telling every editor who protests that he or she simply "doesn't understand" policy. My guess is that people do understand the policy well enough, they just don't all agree with his interpretation of policy. To say that everyone else needs to be "educated" is insulting.

So, regardless of what happens concerning any particular image here, I hope we can arrive at an understanding of the appropriate procedure to use if someone questions the application of WP:NFC or any other policy. Simply summarily zapping the work of other editors and then wrapping people's knuckles when they protest is not a good way to run this particular railroad. Jburlinson (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has had problems with how he enforces, but not what he is enforcing. As I've pointed out in several cases above, you may have critical commentary about the scene, but it's not about the visual elements of the scene, and most of the scenes you are showing are not difficult to explain via text (eg the child writing on the blackboard), belying the claim that these are "surreal". If his work is surreal, show us scenes that are considered surreal - that's why, for example, the chicken beheading scene is moving in the right direction, but it would need an image that is clearly surreal (not just a picture of an upside-down chicken). And to stress again - if there was permission to use these images on Wikipedia, someone needs to track if that request was legit as that would remove the issue with those specific images. Unfortunately I don't have ORTS access to confirm that. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe your comment illustrates my point about how different people understand the term "critical commentary" differently. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless there's critical commentary about the "visual elements" of a particular image, then any other critical commentary is irrelevant or invalid? For example, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), that would be OK? Jburlinson (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why WP:NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that's why we're looking for critical commentary on the visuals themselves, especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image). You've described the scene in text in a manner that is not improved on by the image, and the commentary from the critic injects things about the overall work that one single frame is unable to show (how the cripple is himself considered an antagonist). Again, you've mentioned surreal, and that implies that there's a likelihood of some visual imagery being appropriate, but what you've chosen to show falls far outside of what one would consider surreal. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You say, "especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image).". Well, Werieth deleted the image from the article on the film, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Olvidados&diff=579548816&oldid=579539489

Can I at least restore the image to the article on the film? Jburlinson (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, are you just ignoring the other dozen issues he raised about its usage? Werieth (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a tag team? Let him answer for himself. He just got through saying that the image was more appropriate for an article on the film. And I haven't ignored any of the issues he's raised (which don't add up to a dozen, by the way). Jburlinson (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please dont put words in his mouth that he didnt say. He stated that it would be more likely to see the image in the article about the film, not that it was appropriate there. Werieth (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to please let him speak for himself. And again I ask, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), would that would be OK? If not, why not, since it would be directly addressing the visual elements of the image? Jburlinson (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Any image needs to be tied to the text, a caption isnt enough critical commentary to justify a non-free file. Werieth (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Who says? Please identify a clear statement in WP policy that says this. Where does it say that a caption isn't important or can't contribute meaning to an article?In this case, the caption is a direct quote from a famous film critic. That's as "critical commentary" as you can get. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the text does support the information content of the image. Jburlinson (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in other peoples mouths, I never stated that the caption wasnt important or couldnt contribute to the article. What I stated is that a caption does not justify the inclusion of non-free media. WP:NFCC#8 requires Contextual significance, meaning that any image must be tied to the text and that by removing the image its detrimental to the understanding as a whole. If an image is only tied to the article via a caption removal cannot cause a detrimental loss of understanding to the article as a whole. Werieth (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the images are tied to the article and the caption, as explained above. Jburlinson (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Cheers intro logo.jpg

I have recently uploaded print ads of TV shows and TV movies, especially those unavailable on DVD. Some title cards I replaced with print ads for substantiality. Even I added ads of Baby Bob and The Lyon's Den (in place of title card). In this case, if this title card is replaceable, then File:Cheers premiere ad tv guide 1982.jpg must be undeleted to replace the title card. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the opening credits of Cheers - being as memorable as they are with the use of old-time art behind the credits - would allow the justification of the actual screencap from the show for not only ID but discussion of the credits. I'd spot checking ghits and it's clearly had an influence (it was parodied on Simpsons and It's Always Sunny in Philly, for a start), so I would probably not replace that. To be clear, this is only becasue the actual title sequence can likely be discussed as memoriable; many shows don't have that. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Los Bravos - Black Is Black 86.jpg

Is this image too simple for copyright under German law? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html this would have to be accompanied by a copyright notice in order to enjoy copyright protection in the United States. So unless such a notice exists, I assume this can be uploaded as {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that, this probably doesn't meet the threshold for copyright protection in the United States anyway. Also, why is German copyright law relevant here? Was this cover first used in Germany? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what Discogs said. Well, I can't find any other edition of the remix vinyl. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that this does probably not meet the Schöpfungshöhe in Germany, though I am not sure. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Caverns of Mars

Someone tagged up NFCR in Caverns of Mars, but didn't start the discussion here, so I'll do it…

Caverns of Mars is one of the best selling software packages on the Atari platform, and was widely written on in magazines of the era - not just about the game itself, but as a rags-to-riches story for the author, a high school student.

The author followed the game up with a number of sequels, which is there the gallery comes in. It is worthwhile pointing out that each of these is an image from a different program. In this respect, one can trivially find thousands of articles on the wiki with NF screenshots from different programs in them - Spreadsheet for instance.

It appears that the "problem" in this case is the use of a gallery tag to collect them, setting off someone's alarms. I suspect that if the images had not been collected in a gallery, I wouldn't be here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion but it was quickly closed (As yes non-free galleries aren't allowed), and has been archived.

That said, I saw the images, and really, due to the low-quality graphics at the time, you didn't need all four. Of course, you should have one for the general gameplay and describe what is happening (to justify a sourced gameplay section), but after that, you need better justification than "this is a an important game series". There has to be sourced commentary on the graphics (their changes or the like) for each subsequent image. You may have a case where the graphics approached that of Scramble in Mars Mission II, but you need a source that makes that acknowledgement to show the need for the image. General graphical improvements of the same game on different platforms is generally not sufficient to justify an image. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Where was the discussion in question? And why weren't any of the main participants in the article invited to take part? And why doesn't that discussion appear here, the place the tag specifically refers to?

Non-free galleries are allowed, as the NFC page clearly states: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Well, this is the consideration on a case by case basis. The images in question were used to compare the various releases of the program. I have also provided examples of mainstream articles that also show multiple NFC images in exactly the same fashion, illustrating the mainline concept and then showing notable variations.

So I'm afraid I'll need a little more justification. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The user who closed the discussion (Werieth, I believe) should have removed the tag from the page on closure, as once closed, the archive bots move it to the archive pages, nullifying the link on the page.

And while NFG does allow exceptional cases for non-free in galleries, the handful of allowed exemptions is typically when one or two non-free images are mixed with free for the purposes of comparison and contrast. I'm aware of no gallery with a majority of non-free images which has been accepted readily by the community. This is why, in this case, the closure was correct - this is not one of those exceptional cases where the community would allow it.

This doesn't mean your images are necessarily unusable, but you need to find a way to put them inline and with proper justification for each image, and that's the points I raised above - I don't think you can justify 4 images for this page. Two, perhaps, but nowhere near all 4. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, then, it appears that my initial statement about gallery tags is correct, right? Consider it fixed. And none of this explains the lazy efforts on the part of everyone involved. Was it really to much to ask Stepha2 to post information tags on the pages of the people involved? And was it really too much to ask Werieth to wait more than one hour in the middle of a work day before closing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Its more than just the gallery tags, its the way the files are being used. Its a fairly clear violation of WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, again, the use of the gallery here pretty much has no consensus, even considering the exemption of NFG, so rapid removal made sense. The question of "everyone involved" on a article problem is solved by tagging the article, otherwise, you're asking editors to tag every editor that may have contributed to an article, and that's not a reasonable expectation.

Now you still have a problem, in that the three additional images beyond the one that is normally allowed for video games, and so these are still a problem, even outside the gallery. It doesn't matter if you consider this game very important, it is what the sources say about the game that would justify the use of additional screenshots, and that's simply not shown with the sources you presently have. None of the graphics are discussed in a critical way; even the one for Mars Mission II, where you state they are comparable to Scramble, is not repeated in the source listed, though I would think that you should be able to find more sources for this. But the images of Phobos and the official 2600 game? Those absolutely are not needed as you have no sourced discussion about their graphics that would be necessary to include those images. NFC is about minimizing non-free, and that's why we have NFG, and why we don't just use screenshots to justify that a certain version exists. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Press Your Luck.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Obvious PD-textlogo and has already been updated to reflect. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

Possibly a PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly in the US, but where there's a lower threshold like the UK, probably not (the curvature of the letters would contribute there). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What? Press Your Luck was an American show, not UK. It should be uploaded to Commons. Now I've tagged it as PD-textlogo. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:10 things -logo.PNG

I found the promo ad of 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series). Shall I replace the stand-alone logo for the promo ad? George Ho (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the promo ad is going to be copyrighted (2009, means it automatically has copyright), there's no reason to do this, and you should leave the title card. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the logo copyrighted also? Anyway, the promo ad has cast in it. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The logo, with that paint-like effect, is copyrightable, so yeah, I see where you're going with the cast too. The only thing to consider is that, particularly with sit-coms in which the actors appear as themselves, that one can also likely construct the case like from free images. This might be a larger question to ask at the TV project, but non-free, either works. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:CallahanvsVamp.jpg

Rationale indicates that this is a book cover, but it's actually an interior illustration. Kelly ^hi! 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As the article that the rataionle claims it is for already has a cover image, this is only being used as an illustration of the plot, without critical commentary, and thus inappropriate per NFCC#8 and should be deleted. (If it was being used as the ID image, the rationale could have been fixed, but that's not the case) --MASEM (t) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg

Closing this as it's listed for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

To save this image from deletion, I must put this image under review. Somehow, I'm not sure why it is replaceable, but Image:BRafamily.PNG is a banner (or some sort), not part of the opening title. Also, under WP:IUP rules, a JPEG should be used for photos. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Use of JPEGs is a "rule of thumb", not a hard and fast rule. We've never quibbled over the formats used in TV infoboxes. File:BRafamily.PNG has been used in Brandy & Ray J: A Family Business since 2010 and was sourced from the the VH1 website. File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg is a print ad sourced from somewhere else. It was uploaded today and used to replace File:BRafamily.PNG. It is currently orphaned because its addition to the article was reverted. We simply don't need it. The image that we've been using in the article since 2010 is more than adequate for the tas and more in line with the convention we use for TV series infobox images. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would a banner from website be more substantial than a promo ad? Since we couldn't obtain the title card when the series originally aired, how do we obtain one, now that it's unavailable on DVD? The banner itself shows a happy, smiley family. The promo ad doesn't do that. What's wrong with the promo ad besides being just a "promo ad"? George Ho (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "more substantial", I said the existing file was "more than adequate". There was simply no need to upload another item of non-free content to replace an existing item of non-free content. All we try to do with these images is to identify the program. The existing file does that. The poster provides nothing that the existing file doesn't already provide. In fact it provides less. The existing file gives us a reasonably good view of the four cast members, while the new file has two of them in the background, making them much harder to identify. The existing file uses only 30.8% of the screen real estate that the new file does. It's less overwhelming than the new file. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:French Printer and Engraver.jpg

Clearly PD-Old, tagged as such. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 3 November 2013 (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.

---

A 1521 work is Public domain surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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