Wikipedia:Non-free content review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blurred Lines (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 26 January 2014 (→‎Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of *blank* Episodes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

      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)[reply]

      • Delete car photo. I 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Comment I didn't follow this case too closely at the time, but this image discussion brings to mind editors' discussion surrounding the death of Mark Uganda. There, we have File:Mark-duggan.jpg (in the lead/infobox) and File:Kelvin Easton and Mark Duggan.jpg (a little lower down. Two years on, and there appears to be consensus for the retention of both pictures there. At the time of that discussion, WP:NPOV was cited,[1] with the comment ... but this is an encyclopaedia and we're trying to maintain some degree of credibility by not taking sides. (I don't see the subsequent block of that user as invalidating the argument.) So a question we should also perhaps be considering in the case at hand is that of how representative of the subject as a person the hoodie photo is. If the media chose to use this iconic photo, such editorial decisions are generally more to do with selling of newspapers, etc. than of presenting the subject in the neutral fashion which we must always aspire to here on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The two photos are for different purposes, both of which are required for a comprehensive encyclopedia article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep both One (the hoodie) is important because of its use as an icon in the protests, the other (the backseat) as a much better photo of Martin. htom (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the hoodie image as it is freely replaceable. The image was used on public displays of outrage, yes, so that is what should be shown, are crowds of people with the sign. Which at least one free (CC-BY) one exists at flickr [2] (ETA that I also see the flickr uploader has also uploaded at least one on commons, so there's going to be no question about getting more from this); one I'm seeing has his parents talking (bonus points), and a nice image of the hoodie used on protest signs in a de minimus fashion; a portion already used in Trayvon's article. The main profile one is okay and is the non-free that should be used on both pages. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete car photo. On the Travyon Martin article, both images are being used solely for identification purposes - the car photo in the "Digital footprint" section egregiously so and should both be removed. The Shooting of Travyon Martin article uses the car photo for identification only, while the hoodie photo is discussed in the text and so its inclusion does meet the NFC criteria. Masem's comment above is interesting, but looking at that flickr stream I don't see any photographs that, when used as a thumbnail in the article, are suitable for identifying the image in question that don't fail the de minimus requirements. A free image of the protests would be useable as well as the non-free image but could not be a replacement for it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the one with Trayvons parents with signs with the hoodie photo around them (of which a crop to just the parents is used in the shooting article) would definitely be de minimus of the hoodie photo and show its use in protest while showcasing his parents. Hence why the car photo should be kept for clean NFC identification, and the hoodie deleted in favor of it being shown on protest signs as described in text. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: I agree that having two photos is unnecessary, but why is everyone here saying that the car photo should be the one that is deleted? I would prefer a natural photographic image over one that is digitally enhanced and altered with instagram effects. The addition of special effects to photographs adds a psychological disbalance POV-wise for the reader (official imagery of North Korean president Kim Il-sung are enhanced to make him appear majestic compared to natural photographs of him, compare this with this). I believe that the hoodie image is too unnatural, displays the subject in an artificial light, and that the car photograph is more suitable for an encyclopedia. The airbrushing in the hoodie image is very obvious: we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a glamour magazine. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for my personal opinion, Keep car photo, delete hoodie photo, reason being that having two images violates WP:NFCC#8, and using an enhanced image violates WP:NPOV. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep both I looked and it seems we can have sourced commentary regarding both images so that would make both acceptable per the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      Note: I've left another note Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Unilever_Brands hoping for someone with more experience than I to give clarification, especially since we would have to license these images under the same licenses as those above (as derivatives) and potentially link to the OTRS ticket. Hopefully there will be response this time. I am inclined to agree with Masem, but if any Admin or OTRS member has concrete evidence, I would support this discussion being closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. I'm an OTRS member. We did in fact receive what appears to be a valid permission & release for the following files:
      The license specified in the tickets were all Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike v1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0. The email came from a legitimate source and there is no reason to doubt its validity. Feel free to wait for a third opinion. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As the 2 logos mentioned at the top (Dove, Knorr) are hosted on Commons then, (if the vector versions are concluded to be derivatives under the same free licence) it'd make sense to move them to Commons in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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 [3] 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. [4] USchick (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      From the image caption at [5]: "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Uploader here. I saw four alternative files in commons, Ghouta_Massacre1 through Ghouta_Massacre4. I removed the Ghouta_Massacre1 from the article (see here [6]) 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      I have to agree with Masem on this and USchick also. Blade-of-the-South talk 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete/Remove image. This image could be replaced by a non-free image, and as such fails WP:NFCC#1. As there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it can be replaced. The frothing that is depicted in the image can occur for more than just chemical attacks, including being the result of disease or exhaustion. Because of this, a free image of a person or child frothing could replace this image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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 [7], 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      The article presents and discusses changes in the typography (presentation of the text on the page) in these books. To do so, it uses non-free images that are pertinent, non-replaceable, and minuscule in extent. So the images satisfy Wikipedia's non-free-content policies. Masem's comment immediately above mine seems to get it absolutely right--alongside the PD images, the non-PD images give non-replaceable illustration of the "explanations...necessary/present." Wareh (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I lean to the side of thinking that these are PD-text and/or PD-old (for the older versions). I do not think there is anything creative enough in the layout of the text to make the images eligible for copyright. If these are determined to be free, I do not see any reason they cannot stay as they are the subject of commentary, and would therefore, in my opinion, pass WP:NFCC#8 (and the others). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg

      Isn't this {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Frankly, I do not know. Copyright can be claimed by organization which, however, is unofficial in terms of any domestic law as was never registered and neither was the logo. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it is PD-ineligible, but the image is originally created in Syria. I cannot find anything about COM:TOO having to do with Syria, so to be on the safe side, I would mark it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Syria}}. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm wondering if it's too simple to be eligible for copyright. Afterall, it's just a star and three letters - basic geometry and text? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont know if Im saying something stupid, but cant it be recreated as a free SVG file?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if recreated as an SVG, there remains if the design is copyrightable or not. If this was an image from a US organization, it would clearly be ineligible, but if was created in a country like UK, it would not be, and since we have no clear line of what Syria's copyright law is, we need to play it save. It's still okay to use as a logo for the organization in a non-free manner, but that's probably its only allowed use. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg

      The file name suggests that this is ancient (making it PD) but there is no source. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I see very little reason to even believe these remain under any type of copyright, given the looks and purposed age. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be careful about this one. In the rationale it is stated that this is from Company archives, so while this makes it appear as if this leads to compliance with WP:NFCC#4, I'd argue the opposite is the case. Material from private collections or archives has a high chance of being unpublished, so this image might violate NFCC4. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The material is certainly published now, as a google image search pointed me back to the Heming jewelry page with these images. When they were published, that's different. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. They are both displayed here, which means they comply with NFCC#4. So now it would be interesting to know whether that was the first publication or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If it was created in 1765 and not published before 2003, then it would satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If 1765 is the creation date, then I don't think that it would be copyrighted. There could potentially be problems if it was first published between 1923 and 2002, but if it was made in 1765, this seems unlikely. The only question is whether it indeed is from 1765. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is no good evidence that the image satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or that it was made in 1765, we should leave it as non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is left as non-free, then the image should be removed from Heming (company) for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Daktronics logo.PNG

      PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I have no idea how the United States copyright office would treat this one, but note that the blue figure could be created by merging and/or overlapping some simple geometric shapes (a blue square, a blue semi-circle, a white circle and a white semi-circle), so this might lack the amount of creativity required for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the image is PD-textlogo as the image can be easily recreated with simple shapes. I do not think the logo passes TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg

      Also File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

      Which one is better for white bikini of Ursula Andress: the file in heading, or the other image below the heading? By the way, one of the image is used in more than one article George Ho (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I meant, do such uses meet WP:NFCC, especially the criterion 3 (minimal use) and criterion 8 (contextual significance)? Rationale or no rationale won't matter much, as long as rationale is created, easily resolving "no rationale" issue. George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg

      Also File:Raquel welch 1millionyearsbc.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

      This image is the black-and-white copy of the famous Raquel Welch bikini poster. One of them is used in more than one article. We are trying to minimize the use of non-free images here, so which of these images must be kept: color or greyscale? And to which page does the fur bikini image belong? George Ho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As long as a fair-use rationale is properly completed for each article each image is used in, there shouldn't be a problem. One is used for the film, the other is used for the BLP, because it was a very widely published cultural artifact of a notable person, and is even notable WP:N in its own right. The black-and-white version appears a bit clearer, but the color version of her pinup poster is certainly more true-to-life. Tough call. Worth discussing. If there are any defects in the NFUR, let's get that fixed up. --Lexein (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The black and white version is not necessary in any article. The color version should be kept. It can be used in Raquel Welch where there is critical commentary. It should not be used in Bikini in popular culture at all. and I am not sure about the other use in One Million Years B.C. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Rationale for excluding the black&white version? It was certainly published in both forms. The black&white poster was cheaper. Just curious. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lexein:, good question. It is part personal preference and part policy mixed with common sense. We do not need both. Actually, policy prohibits both being on Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC#3a). And if we cannot have both, the color version does a better job of actually showcasing the bikini. This is an online encyclopedia, and cost of color is not an issue, therefore the color image is more relevant to the mission of Wikipedia. Also, one could argue that the color version plays more into the accompanying text therefore helping to better satisfy WP:NFCC#8. But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg

      Is this logo copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The interesting question for EN Wikipedia is whether this is eligible for copyright protection in the United States (see the third part of the introduction paragraph at Wikipedia:Public domain). I don't think this meets the threshold for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Tagged as USonly-ineligible. What about copyright in Philippines? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The copyright law of the Philippines is largely a duplicate of the copyright law of the United States, apart from FOP, copyright term, copyright formalities and some other minor things. The threshold of originality of the Philippines is therefore likely identical to that of the United States. Are the brush strokes in the circle eligible for copyright in the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know. I think one would have to compare this with other works in a similar style where it is known whether they are eligible for protection or not. I am not sure where to start, though, and won't have the time to do the necessary research before next weekend. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe this image is on the borderline for whether or not it passes TOO, and therefore I believe we should have it tagged as non-free unless more concrete evidence is given one way or another. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg

      Is this logo copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I am unsure about the red word. If the red word were eligible for copyright protection on its own, it might form a more than de minimis part of the whole logo and thus push the whole logo above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the red word is just a font. Its not really too unique and therefore I believe the image does not pass TOO and is therefore not copyrightable in the US or in the Philippines (as most of their copyright law is identical to the US). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the red word is part of a complete font. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Emblem of the National Coalition of Afghanistan.svg

      Image appears to fail WP:NFCC#3b: unreasonably detailed for a non-free file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't know if this affects that at all, but the detailed interior image itself is the National Emblem of Afghanistan. The only real difference is in the addition of the blue band with the party name. I don't know if maybe that then means that the party logo isn't creative enough to merit copyright? MrPenguin20 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The interior image isn't exactly File:National Emblem of Afghanistan 02.png, but is clearly a derivative of it. Might there be copyright inherent in the imperfect derivation of that image? If not, I agree, the blue band is not creative enough to cross the TOO. Though, I would also say, someone should look at the licensing of the files in Emblem of Afghanistan, which are mostly/all marked as own works, despite certainly being based on some official emblem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove/Delete image as it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is far too much detail in the SVG file. The image should be smaller where all of the detail is not necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Star Wars music

      I cant see justification for 18 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The music notation is absolutely unneeded (reading through shows no discussion of the musical composition, and the average reader is not going to be able to appreciate those for what they are) so that's half the non-frees gone. But I would think that the iconic nature of the Star Wars films and its music can justify a larger number of music samples, but I think there's maybe 2 or 3 that are too many (Princess Leia, Han Solo + Leia, and Yoda seem less icon than the other themes given). I'm also confused by the use of MIDI over .ogg for this - it wouldn't affect NFC outside of removing any possible creativity on the MIDI version from a soundtrack-ripped .ogg, and the .ogg would clearly be a better representation (even at the low quality we ask) for understanding the orchestration of the music. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The musical notation is absolutely needed if an article is going to discuss thematic material. It doesn't matter what "the average reader" is going to appreciate - apart from this being a highly subjective measure, Wikiepdia is meant to impart knowledge, not limit its content to what the reader already understands. There's always the option of replacing the notation with a text description - something along the lines of "the tune that goes dum-dum--dum dah-dahhhh dadada daaah da" - but failing that, there's no more effective way of illustrating a theme than with a couple of bars of notation. These fall completely within Fair Use and I don't know why anyone would want to go to the trouble of deleting them when their presence is perfectly justified. Take these out and the whole article is diminished - like a seventh.Wikidwitch (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need that many musical notation files, however. "Yoda's Theme", "Parade of the Ewoks", "Han Solo and the Princess", and similar don't seem nearly as significant as some of the others. We also should evaluate the need of these files strictly in terms of what sourced textual content is present in the article. In other words, if there's less than one or two sourced paragraphs dedicated to the material depicted in the fair use files, we should remove the fair use file as not necessary to coverage of the material. The project considers fair use files to be harmful, and only acceptable when necessary. Unless the editors involved in the article can demonstrate the significance and complexity of the material by adequately supporting it with sourced text in the article, the file doesn't belong. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with Mendaliv. "Princess Leia's Theme" is probably also non-essential. The main theme, the Imperial March, and the Force theme are the most important pieces of music in the series by far. Whether or not the Rebel Fanfare needs to stay is up for debate IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no description of the musical themes, however, to require the notation. Nothing about chords, notes, rests, etc. that show an appreciation of the music composition that otherwise can't be heard. Spot checking other articles on musical works, I don't see a lot of musical notations being used even when the thematic contribution is discussed in depth, opting to describe what the reader will hear aurally as opposed to the score. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I don't see a need for the notations either. They are not discussed at all in prose as far as I can see, with the exception of one sentence in the Rebel Fanfare bullet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are way too many non-free music samples. We definitely need to get rid of many of them. I do not, however, have a good opinion of which should stay and which should go. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg

      This seems to be sourced to a book from 1701. If so, then it is PD-old, not unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I tried to verify the source through my academic databases. Unfortunately there are a great deal of entries called Armorial général de France, but none seem to (based on a search) include an entry for Goetz. I can't find a specific Alsatian volume, nor one from the 18th century. But, assuming the correctness of the stated source, I agree that this would probably be {{PD-art|PD-old}}. However, if it's a redrawing rather than a photograph, the uploader (or whomever drew it) probably has some copyright interest, in which case this may be an original publication, and therefore failing NFCC #4. I somewhat suspect this may be the case because, looking at the versions of Armorial général de France to which I do have access, have only been digitized in black and white, and do not appear to contain any figures as opposed to heraldic descriptions. That is, I believe the uploader, or someone else, may have created the image based off a description in one of these books, rather than something printed in one. User:Sulbud or User:Prince of Sulbod (the former's userpage redirects to the latter's) needs to respond to this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason to not WP:AGF. After much searching, I can see the book does exist, but I cannot find any evidence of the content of it. I am more than happy with the uploader's source and I believe the file should be marked as PD-old. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      An Unearthly Child

      I was going to nominate the infobox image for deletion, but then I saw there were two others in the article. What do you guys think of this article's use of non-free content? It does not appear that any of them satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The infobox image shows one of the defining moments from the whole 50-year history of that programme - it is the first time that we see that the police box is bigger on the inside. Just watch the episode - if you've never seen it before, it really does come as a shock, and the look on the face of Barbara demonstrates Jacqueline Hill's acting superbly. The other photo is from the untransmitted pilot, and is used to discuss differences between that and the episode as broadcast, such as the clothing. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've no opinion on the use of the screenshots, but the book cover, surely, is adding nothing. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There's reasonable allowance for both screenshots (this is definitely a case that a episode could support a screenshot for identification), but yes, the book cover is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But that section of the article is about the novel An Unearthly Child, and surely usage there satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Both the images are useful to the reader - there is no problem at all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Covers of published works are only used when either the cover art is discussed in detail, or if it is the single identifying image for the published work in a standalone article about the published work. A cover of a novelization of a TV episode/series does not meet those requirements and thus is not appropriate per NFC. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or, one can have a cover image relevant to a substantial subsection that is important to the main topic of the article...
      But there is a more fundamental reason here. The original Doctor Who stories were typically broadcast once, and then never shown again -- at least not in their original country of origin. For a long time the books were the only forms in which stories the were accessible, and so the covers of the books became defining images associated with those stories.
      That is exactly the criterion -- a defining image for the work, for a significant period of time, in a significant market for it -- that is used to test whether alternate record album covers are justified; and the same logic applies here.
      The question we are asked to determine is whether the cover is something that adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. The status of the cover as the single image most associated with the work during that period means that it is significant to the topic, and our coverage of the topic would be significantly weakened without it. Jheald (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong, period; this is the same wrong logic that people apply to historical logos. If this was 1982 (a year after the publication of the book), sure. Today, the most identifiable parts of this episode are the intro sequence, title card, and first walk into the TARDIS, because of the restoration of that episode. So unless the recognizably or other factors of importance of the book's cover are describe, it is no longer the most identifying image for the episode. The alternate art aspect for albums is different because that is when there are two simultaneous covers that provide roughly equivalent identification. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete File:Unearthly Child pilot.jpg and File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg as they both fail WP:NFCC#8. I have no issue leaving the infobox image, I believe there is just enough context around the discussion of what is going on in the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comments - Pilot episode section deals with some of the changes, including the costume change. The picture there is a good illustration of that, so I'd say keep that. On the book cover - practically all Doctor Who articles have a cover of the novelisation, so if consensus IS no book cover, then the others need to be deleted as well. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep All files should be kept as each related to things-in-themselves, namely, realizations of the story. The broadcast is not the pilot is not the novelization. All are included in the article as related to the story, yet could potentially be articles unto themselves. So this is a multi-topic article, and each topic deserves a separate representation through image. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep I agree with ClaudeReigns, the broadcast pilot, the unaired pilot and the novelisation are all related but separate and thus each deserving of a separate image. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Taskbar

      I cant see justification for 8 non-free files when we have free examples (Unix based OSes) Werieth (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep. They're very usable as images of Windows of which a large part of the article. So I don't see any problems with them. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Non-free images is a subset of non-free content. Just because a large part of the article is biased towards Windows doesn't mean that it is correct. Werieth (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What bias? Windows was the one that originated and shaped the concept of the taskbar, as well as the most well-known implementation, so it's only natural for the article to be largely centered on it. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Needs to be trimmed down drastically. The changes in the task bar for windows, for example, should be tracked in the article about Windows (along with all the other major UI changes). Really, all this article need is one image that can even be a free mockup to show what the typical features of a task bar is, and then leave the individual OS pages to go into any appropriate details there. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 8.1 and 8 taskbars can easily be "free" if its only loaded up with open source programs (8's logo is definitely pd-ineligible). ViperSnake151  Talk  04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To Masem: I fail to see the problem with showing the taskbar's history. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. The Windows taskbar and its pictures are an important part of the article, as they show the concept's origins, its evolution, and its most well-known implementation, which is the one most versions are based on. Removing them would hurt the article. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. I have nominated File:Windows 8.1 Taskbar.png for deletion but other than that, I categorically disagree with Masem. Keeping a low number of non-free contents in an article is good but we must not contract a psychological condition in which we are averse to seeing more then two non-free images in close proximity or more than four images in an article, not matter what. Replacing non-free images with mockups is against the spirit of WP:NFCC. Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How does the replacement of nonfree with a freely created mockup go against the spirit of NFCC?? That's exactly what NFCC says should be done. --MASEM (t) 09:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is a very dangerous argument. "Freely created mockup" is very close to falsification/misrepresentation. This is where NFC over-policing is clearly harming Wikipedia. I'm really sure I don't want to see "freely created mockup footage" of current news, for example. This page is an overview and historical timeline of taskbars. This warrants as many non-free illustrations as the article wants to discuss. Keep.Nettings (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A mockup of what the general concept of a OS taskbar (showing common elements like a launcher button, running tasks, etc.) is not misrepresentation and completely appropriate. A mockup of a specific OS version of a taskbar would be ( and also likely a derivative work and thus not free as well). The article is only about the concept of the taskbar so we don't need examples from every version of every OS. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What "we" need or don't need is really an editorial discussion that should be held on the article's talk page, by people willing to contribute to the article. There is no blatant NFC violation here that requires intervention or forced deletion of any of the NFC content. People who would like to suggest ways to reduce the use of NFC in a constructive way should really take that discussion to Talk:Taskbar. Until then, talk about what an article needs or doesn't need, is cheap. Nettings (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong. NFC is a global concern, and cannot be discussed in the vacuum of the article's talk page where retention of images will be desired. This NFCR process is specifically designed to discuss problematic issues and solutions in a global board since NFC is a core policy required by the Foundation, no different from handling BLP issues at a global noticeboard.--MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      FleetCommand, you didn't nominated it for deletion, you've just marked it as copyvio, that's difference. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Clara Bow

      Blatant violation of NFCC, given the number of free files we have depicting the person. Werieth (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Bow's life and career passes across the 1923 copyright divide, so we have a large number of free files in connection with her life and career prior to 1923. The fact the pre-1923 images are free and abundant shouldn't have anything to do with the usage of post-1923 images, which, in general (with a few exceptions), will be non-free. These should be evaluate in that post-1923 context, and not in the context of her life as a whole, or, for that matter, for the article as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      /headdesk. NFCC is evaluated at both a per image and article as a whole. Lets take a random example of the non-free files, File:Plasticagemp.jpg there is nothing visually unique or necessary depicted in that image that is critical to understanding who Bow was. It is a movie poster in which the actress starred in, We don't include those in the biography articles, See WP:NFC#UUI#6,9. Especially given that the file is also being used in the article about the film (which we can just link to, which would violate WP:NFCC#1) Werieth (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (hmm, "/headdesk". Now there's a rational, logical and persuasive argument!! What a minute.... ah -- /slapforehead. That'll show you, buddy!!!)

      Werieth, you don't write articles or improve articles or create articles, you do basically nothing but delete images, that's your chosen Wiki-shtick. So it's wrong of me, or anyone else for that matter, to expect that you would understand how the use of images in an article helps the reader in understanding the subject of the article. Given that, I think you had best restrict yourself to straight-forward and objectively obvious violations of the NFCC policy, and leave any subjective evaluations which require a nuanced understanding of context and purpose to other, more empathetic editors. That's because, as shown numerous times recently, when you start doing that kinda stuff, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing, and when people object to your badly thought out decisions, you get all upset and edit-war over them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There are too many non-free files in this article, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. File:Gritstrip bow hunter 1923.png could possibly be in the public domain, or if it is not currently, it would be soon, I would suspect. Until that date as it is proven to be in the public domain, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance within the article about the cartoon/comic. File:FMorgan JHarlow 1933.png fails WP:NFCC#1 as this image is replaced by any of the free images around that time. There is nothing that the image shows that could not be replaced by text within the article (it could be replaced by its own caption). File:Plasticagemp.jpg and File:It1927clarabow.jpg (the film posters) should only be used on the film's article. There is consensus that posters should only be used on the actual article about the poster's subject and not on actor's or director's (etc) articles. File:Bow1933c.PNG might potentially be useful in the Hoop-La article, if there was not already a poster. As it stands, this image is purely decoration. All of the remaining images on the page are acceptable in their use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ian Scott (artist)

      I had four images on this article which have been deleted. I believe the use of those four images meets critera 1-10 on WP:NFCC. In particular I think their presence "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and (their) omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is an article about a visual artist and to me greatly lacking without those pictures of his work which were previously there.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given, like I said 1-2 examples are valid, not the 4-5 you where using, I think that the Ian Scott (artist)#Controversies section would be a great place to both provide an example and use the sourced commentary about the images (the controversy ) as a good compromise. We don't just sprinkle an artist article with their works to make the article look better. Our policy on non-free media is very strict, and it may mean that an article cant be illustrated to your preferences, but policy is fairly strict. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The two images of works from the "Girlie Series" (Leapaway Girl) & (Track), were both illustrating not only commentary (by the curator of the national gallery, and an important historian respectively) in that section of the article, but they also best represent the 'controversies' section, as they are from the same series, but those two works are far more widely known & representative. (For instance, Leapaway Girl is one the few New Zealand paintings on the Goggle Art Project.). There is commentary throughout the article (35 cited art history publications/journals) so I can't for the life of me see any reason why the only image warranted would be in the controversies section? The other two images there (Quiver) & (Lattice No.58) are totally important to understanding the two different modes of Scott's work, realism and abstraction, local & international influence, which is really the core/theme of the entire article.

      I really think using 4 images to illustrate 12+ series of work over a 55 year period of work is 'minimal' as per the regulations & would appreciate the input of a few other impartial people here. Chriscs26 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mathematically, you are wanting to put nearly 25% of the artist's work on their article. I think two pieces is a fair compromise, but personally I think two pieces that show the styles of the artist's work would be the most beneficial. I believe with critical commentary about the style, including reliable sources about the style and the specific paintings chosen would be the best path. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you suggesting that Scott only produced 16 works? The work titled Lattice No. 58 suggests otherwise. Four images over 55 years is minimal. I'd much rather defer to the subject expert who wrote the article - than those going by mathematical principals. Note that the author already compromised in allowing File:Ian Scott Air Disaster Over Mt Sefton 1967.jpg, an image of his early work to be deleted. - hahnchen 04:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Arguably, it's not how many works of his he made (and published/displayed publically) or how many we used. Since each were published individually, that means that we are using 4 separately copyrighted items in full (albeit low resolution to respect commericial opportunity). If it was the case that the first and original publication of these works were in a single collected book, then the argument of what %age of the original work would apply. The only number that is important here is that there is more than zero non-free, so we have to just the inclusion of any non-free based on the need to understand the topic. And for examples of an artist's work on the artist's page, we consider a minimal number of examples that have been quoted as strong representative examples of the artist's work, otherwise relying on either standalone pages for the specific pieces of art that are notable, or external links that may be in a much better shape under Fair Use to showcase the artist's entire body. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The decision shouldn't be based on a bartering system of "good compromise" but based on what is needed to illustrate Scott's key output. Scott's obviously a NZ artist of note who produced work over many decades (though I'm surprised there's no sign of a newspaper obituary). The Leapaway Girl is an obvious "keep", being described by the Museum of NZ as probably his most important work of that period. Lattice No.58 is probably a "keep" too, being a representative example of his 'lattice' paintings. As for the other two paintings illustrated, well, I can't see any reference to their importance in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      In general, editorial discretion should have bearing on the inclusion of images in articles pertaining to visual art. I concur with the comment above by Hahnchen that we should be deferring to Chriscs26. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      His user name suggests he is the son of the artist. We generally go on what reliable independent sources say. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there's enough coverage of all four works in the article to justify their inclusion. - hahnchen 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png

      It was initially removed from the Arena Football League and restored by the uploader. I'm bringing it here as it appears to fail WP:NFCC#8, since there's no sourced discussion of the logo in the text. Mosmof (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The uploader appeared to just copy/paste the rataionale from the current logo, as it mentioned the sponsorship aspect which is in the new logo but not this old logo. And since the old logo is never discussed in text, it would fail NFC.
      I do offer the possibility of this being a uncopyrightable image in the US. If the logo were just the text and goalposts, it would clearly pass as an uncopyrightable image. The football shape is what is tickling creativitiy and I would think that this might fail the TOO test, but I would get more opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, now that I see your response, the best thing might be to move the file to Commons as a free (but trademarked) logo. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I just recommend waiting to get one or two additional opinions if its free/uncopyrightable in the US. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with Masem that the image without the football is PD-textlogo as it fails TOO. But I believe that the football just barely pushes it over. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know, I don't see the football being any more complex than the "W" in the Best Western logo that's sort of the benchmark for TOO. Mosmof (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live

      We have 5 non-free covers with zero critical commentary of the covers, 4 of them should be removed. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep the main image, plus the two alternative historical covers, as it shows the evolution of the recording. The anniversary reissue covers are not necessary unless there's something significant about them. Three images in this context is acceptable, and the release history is discussed. The actual covers can be mentioned in the text if that's desired in order to increase an understanding of the release history. freshacconci talk to me 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't keep secondary/remaster/reprinted covers for sake of showing the evolution of the album's printing, unless there is discussion about the new cover art. You get one cover image for identification and require commentary on others to include them, if the covers are otherwise non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Commentary can be added. Clearly there is a significance to the two historical covers -- I was clearly not referring to the reissues on CD. Deleting all images is overkill and ignores visually-oriented readers. And I remind you that "you get one cover image" is based on interpretation of policy as the non-free policy is very fluid (I'm not sure who the "you" is as I didn't add these files to the article). I will do some research on the album and see if I can find some discussion on the cover changes. freshacconci talk to me 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • NFC is not fluid when it comes to cover art. It's well established that there are very limited exceptions to allow for additional cover art for published works outside the one for identification which can be used without commentary on the cover art itself. This generally is only for alternative cover art that is marketed at the same time as the other release but in a different region or market. The ones used here for historical reprintings don't fall into those typical exemptions, and given that it is just text + photographs of Duke's band, I'm not seeing how this is going to have critical commentary, or help the reader understand the article. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. In the case of this album, the original phonograph version is rare and the album has been re-released in other formats with other titles and track configurations. The album was even awarded a Grammy under one of these alternative titles with a different cover. Allmusic has reviewed two of the releases separately and all of these permutations are discussed in the article. Based on this, multiple image usage for this article clearly passes both the affirmative and negative of WP:NFC#8's contextual significance test. Because a cover is the primary visual identifier of a music work, the images both "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Each version of the album has a different title and cover design in addition to content variations. I have added this commentary explicitly to the article. Having the article dependent on any one or two images would seriously mislead readers as to the sum of the article's content and (as User:Freshacconci notes above) erect a barrier to visually-oriented users. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The material you have added is completely unsourced, and has zero commentary on the pictorial contents of the covers. Just because an album has multiple covers doesn't mean that the visual covers are remarkable in any way. (Quite a few albums have had many many covers over their lifetime, and none of them where remarkable in any way). However cases like Virgin Killer are a prime example of the critical commentary that the policy is looking for. Visual elements of the cover are discussed in depth using third party reliable sourcing. Werieth (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien

      Zero sourced critical commentary on the extra emblems. They where originally in a gallery format and witched to right alignment when I removed them for NFG Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I concur the images fail WP:NFCC#8 as they are not necessary to the article. There is now a section on emblems that describes what the emblems look like, therefore causing the images to fail WP:NFCC#1. I personally do not feel that the emblem section is at all notable nor encyclopedic and the whole bit should be removed, starting with the images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that there is no commentary. There is commentary. Please review the article again. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is zero critical commentary. The only text about the images is describing the emblems and none of that is sourced. In fact, with full descriptions of the emblems (although not encyclopedic) we do not need the emblems themselves per WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arthur Dove

      Given we have 5 free files to provide examples of is work do we really need 5 more non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the fact that Arthur Dove is one of the most important 20th century American modernist painters - yes we need these images. And to make matters worse the above editor who was recently blocked for edit-warring and was warned for his attitude towards these somewhat debatable guidelines - Werieth attempted to DELETE nearly ALL of Dove's images - a few days ago. I'm removing the ugly banner he just placed on the Dove article, it's on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My original and subsequent edits where removing 5-7 non-free files used in a gallery. Which is totally unacceptable under policy. None of your reverts provide any kind of rationality for their inclusion except WP:ILIKEIT. If the works are notable they should warrant individual articles, otherwise we dont need that many non-free examples of his work when we have such a large number of free images to use. Werieth (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While the article does need more text; that is your erroneous opinion. Reminds me too much of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage isn't my opinion, its policy. We cannot justify 5 additional non-free examples of his work when we have 5 free examples. WP:NOTDIR we don't need to provide samples for each of his works. Take the 5 free and possibly 1-2 non-free examples and use that. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Great paintings and other works of visual art speak for themselves. Clearly you are clueless regarding the merit of visual art - perhaps you might find a new line of editing and leave the visual arts alone...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kindly stop your personal attacks now, or I will take you straight to ANI. We are not a directory of art, we dont provide examples of every artists every work. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is actually worse than I thought, taking a look at the 5 files:

      Not a one of them are referenced in the text except for the listing of his works at Arthur Dove#Selected list of works not sure how much more of a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC we can get. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Stop issuing threats...Modernist (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no discussion at all about his painting style or identifying any particular work of his as a core example of his style. We have 5 free images that show a good range of his style, and while there are obvious style differences in the non-frees, without any discussion about this, they are not permissible. (As a note, barring change to copyright law, I believe 3 of theme will fall into the PD within the next two years). --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added plenty of discussion, re- the paintings; more to come...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You've got justication sufficient to keep "Tanks" and one of either "the Critic" or "The Intellectual", but the other two are still unnecessary per the given text. Also, you will need a non-free of the person for the infobox (which I see there are some though I'm having a difficult problem tracing publication at the immediate time.) Remember: you can use ELs to point to websites which feature the artist's work too; you do need need to show every bit of work the person has done for an encyclopedia article. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Debra Morgan.jpg

      File could be replaced by the free alternative File:Jennifer Carpenter 2010.jpg, which shows the actress in costume as the fictional character. Kelly hi! 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably true, but it has been argued before (and particularly in this case as a notable character) that a promo non-free shot of the actor in the poise and manner of the character has some intrinsic weight it carries compared to a free shot of a character outside of the role, even if the actor is wearing the same clothes, etc. Having just binged on Dexter, for example, I can tell that the poise the promo shot here is an element of her character that the free image doesn't capture. This is acceptable only in the case of a standalone character. If we were talking a list of characters and the character wasn't notable in any way, I would otherwise agree that the free image trumps the non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      FYI, a similar example can be found in Trip Tucker. Kelly hi! 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Again, personally, I'm on board with that, but the consensus from the last discussion (proabably 3-4 years ago, and likely at WT:NFC) was that for notable characters, even for how close the character looks to the actor, a promo image of the character (the actor, in the role), is more encyclopedic than a photo of the actor in the same/similar outfit but not in character. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with everything Masem wrote. The file shouldn't be deleted.  InfamousPrince  21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The image should be deleted. It is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) by the actress in costume. There is not any specific difference in the actress in the free image and in the non-free image that could not be discussed by text in the article or in the caption. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif

      The use of File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif does not meet the NFC criteria: the photograph is replaceable. --Eleassar my talk 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a 14th century coin so definitely the design is free, and the copyright is the photographer's with respect to lighting and angle. The question becomes if that coin is readibly available to the public to take photography of in some museum or the like (the free replacement), and that's not clear enough to know. I will say that if it cannot be replaced, its unclear if the file can be used as NFCC (to illustrate the figure minted on coins, as opposed to the coin itself) --MASEM (t) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      BBC Television Shakespeare

      Can this really support 9 non-free images? Werieth (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably yes : there is attempts to source discussion about the set or costume design of the particular works. It probably could be argued that each of the play productions could have its own notable article and there would be no issue at all about a singular image on each of those pages with that discussion; to "penalize" the choice of keeping these in one cohesive article by limited non-free would be a problem. There may be a couple (like the overhead map one, and the image from Tidus) that are less discussed and could be removed, but I do think that how the information is presented, this article can support a larger-than-usual number of non-free. (no more than what is present, of course) --MASEM (t) 16:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:MAG osmani.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Also seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a: only source is a deleted Commons file. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The original photo, before the darkening, does appear to be a book, newspaper, or magazine scan, but we'd definitely need that source to affirm its prior publication. What hits I get from GIS seem to all pull from the WP version, but its hard to tell given the number of foreign language hits. The uses on two pages not about him are improper uses even if 10c is met. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The original source listed as http://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/lal-sabuj/31326094/36687505. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg

      Is this file really needed on 9 different articles? Werieth (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, it's an important painting by an important artist and has it's own article. It's use as an example is useful in most of if not all those articles. freshacconci talk to me 15:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg

      Pre 1972 sound sample, per Stefan 2 Fair use cannot be relied on. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment This refers to WT:NFC#Pre-1972 sound recordings. I think that we should finish that discussion before starting to nominate files for deletion citing the discussion. Also, didn't the servers move? In that case, we might need to use the laws of some other state instead.
      In either case: This theme song has probably been recorded multiple times, since it has been included in lots of TV series episodes since the 1960s. We would just have to use a more recent recording if it turns out that we can't use pre-1972 ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of the issues of the pre-1972 sound recordings, fair use provides the appropriate defense to use the recordings if they are copyrighted, and if they are out of copyright, then we're free to use them under the fair use defense. The issue affects their licensing, but as long as we presume non-free and that they meet non-free requirements (which seems to be the case here), then the image will be fine whether the license is free or non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that pre-1972 sound recordings are protected at state level, not federal levels. State law does not have to use the same fair use criteria as the federal law. There is no chance that this is in the public domain. Independently of this, the musical composition is protected by federal copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this recording was first published outside the US, doesn't it have federal copyright protection? Hirtle footnote 1 leads me to here where in section 7 it says "Furthermore, pre-1972 foreign sound recordings are accorded federal copyright protection — something U.S. sound recordings lack, as explained above". So, it is reasonable to assume the work is covered under federal copyright and fair use provisions apply. Thincat (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There is an ongoing discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record where Carl Lindberg says URAA specifically restored copyright (i.e.federal copyright) to non-US records. Even if state copyright applies as well, presumably federal preemption would mean fair use would be held to be applicable. In any case copyright on sound recordings is not relevant in this case since this was a soundtrack. not a record, and film/TV copyright applies in UK and US law. This is a snippet and so fair use law applies (in UK law as well). A fair use claim is a priori tenable. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:CNNAirport.network.logo.gif

      If File:CNNAirport.svg is correctly marked as a PD-textlogo, then this should be one, too. Otherwise, as a former logo not discussed in the text, it fails WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably no, as the way the plane shape is drawn is different from the commons version, though I'd even argue the commons version is not simple enough to be there. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      CNN

      This concerns the following images found in the CNN article:

      Since four non-free images is a bit excessive, some should be removed (WP:NFCC#3). Additionally, each image probably also fails WP:NFCC#8:

      • File:CNN Launch June 1, 1980.jpg: appears to only show that CNN existed. This is unacceptable. Nowhere is the early on-air presentation of CNN discussed, which might justify the usage of the image.
      • File:CNN Gulf War nightscope January 1991.jpg: the image (a blurry night-vision screenshot with a chyron overlaid) adds little to the discussion of CNN's coverage of the First Gulf War.
      • File:CNN Breaking News 911.jpg: this is a closer case, but the screenshot adds little to what is already discussed in the text about CNN's breaking coverage of 9/11. The screenshot could be used to discuss how CNN presented the breaking news about 9/11 to the public, but this is not discussed in the article.
      • File:CNN HD-American Morning 1080.png: this is used next to a discussion of CNN's HD programming. A screenshot really isn't necessary to illustrate that CNN had HD coverage, unless specific changes for HD are discussed in the article (which they are not).

      RJaguar3 | u | t 19:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree with all, save on the gulf war one, though this is a case of where the image may be better used. "Night vision" shots of Iraq during that time is part of the legacy of coverage of the war, though not necessarily unique to CNN. I don't know if there's a special article discussing the reporting of the war but that's where this image could easily be justified under NFCC#8 (with a bit of sourcing work) --MASEM (t) 20:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg

      Like File:Emblem of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg this should be a fair use image and not {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and requires FUR for usage. LGA talkedits 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files instead of here as the file isn't currently tagged as non-free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Windows 7 Hearts Shooting the moon with perfect score.jpg

      Is the scorecard PD-ineligible? If not, this is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1 (free scoresheet could be uploaded or screenshot from a free hearts game) and WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely unneeded. Since the compoutert version of Hearts is the same as the physical One, we don't need to see what a successful shooting the moon is. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Logo henry holt.PNG

      PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 04:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I believe the logo is no more complex than File:Jeff Ho logo.png which had its copyright refused. Agree that it is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:KPTLlogo2013.png

      Is this image simple enough to be PD-textlogo? my concern is the two partial circles (red and white). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg

      Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 except in Campbell's Soup Cans. Also fails WP:NFG in multiple articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove all but from article in work itself. The fact most of the uses share the exactly same rationale shows little effort to selectively puck the images use. It certainly fails on the product article about Campbell's soup. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So modify the rationales and remove from the product article...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That won't fix the issue. The image simply doesn't need to be seen in so many articles when a link will do. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all. The article about the artwork itself is a very obvious exception, where it is the main subject. Sionk (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Except that no policy suggests that an artwork be singled out for..critique as a prerequisite to its image being included in an article. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a vendetta against works of contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Bus stop - Try Point 7. I don't see a vendetta, but these are non-free images and they shouldn't be used ...erm ...freely. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sionk—I think you are linking to the following: "7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Yet you said: "Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." The policy language that you are now pointing to does not support your original assertion. In the future I think that you and Masem and Stefan should stop linking to policy codes and instead quote policy language. You are not a machine and I am not a machine. We should be speaking in plain English, quoting policy language where necessary. The language in policy that you are quoting makes an allowance for the inclusion of "images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Therefore this image belongs in articles where it serves to illustrate "a particular technique or school." Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Per your quoted bit, to be used in articles on particular schools, there needs to be critical commentary in that art as a representative sample of that school. Without commentary it can't be used. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Masem—the policy language does not say that the work of art has to be "singled out for…critique". Sionk's complaint is that "the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." But the policy language days nothing about any artwork being "singled out for…critique". Policy language allows for the use of "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Editors can debate if an artwork illustrates a particular technique or school. But if editorial WP:consensus concludes that an image is illustrative of a particular technique or school—that should probably be sufficient for inclusion. Policy language says nothing about concocting wording in article space relating to an artwork, as a justification for inclusion of its image. The Warhol "Campbells Soup Cans" are included in articles where they illustrate a school, namely Pop art. For instance, under "Pop art", at the 20th-century Western painting, the "Campbells Soup Cans" illustrate this movement. Our policy language is supportive of this use. And the language already in the article relates to the "Campbells Soup Cans": "Earlier in the fall of 1962 a historically important and ground-breaking New Painting of Common Objects exhibition of Pop art, curated by Walter Hopps at the Pasadena Art Museum sent shock waves across the Western United States. Campbell's Soup Cans (sometimes referred to as 32 Campbell's Soup Cans) is the title of an Andy Warhol work of art (see gallery) that was produced in 1962. It consists of thirty-two canvases, each measuring 20 inches in height x 16 inches in width (50.8 x 40.6 cm) and each consisting of a painting of a Campbell's Soup can—one of each canned soup variety the company offered at the time. The individual paintings were produced with a semi-mechanised silkscreen process, using a non-painterly style. They helped usher in Pop art as a major art movement that relied on themes from popular culture. These works by Andy Warhol are repetitive and they are made in a non-painterly commercial manner." The relevance of the text goes on and on. Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      You just quoted policy that requires critical commentary to include an image, so to say it doesn't exist is bogus. Consensus of editors cannot include an image of nonfree claimed as an important work without sourcing, otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art. Okay, yesd Warhol is mentioned as a leader in the school so one example is appropriate, but already exists a Warhol painting in the body so the one in the gallery is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello? They all have Fair Use Rationales and are allowed and encouraged to be used by the WMF. The foundation has rules and all of these images are in perfect sync with those guidelines. Maybe you Sionk should read them...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The extra uses fail the goal of minimal nonfree use set by the Foundation. One use of a famous painting on an article about the painting or the artist, if the work is not that notable, is in line. Plastering the same image on other articles without critical discussion is not, which is the case here, though a link is just fine. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "…otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art."[8] What would its "relevance [be] to Pop art"? It is Pop art. It is an example of Pop art. Bus stop (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There seems to be some curious elements to the history of this file. It went into use in 2011, but the current description page show that the file was uploaded on April 2013. I am curious if any of the pages that were using the prior file got lost in the switchover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      In 2011, after the image was changed from File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA reduced 80%.jpg to File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg the first was deleted as orphaned. So unless someone deleted the use of the prior one without adding the current one (which was probably uploaded around 2011, but resized in April 2013), there should not be any issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is what I am saying. Why does the file history only show April 2013?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Old versions of nonfree images where a newer version has been uploaded are routinely revdeleted, hence why this version is only showing the last uploaded version. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem What does revdeleted mean?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Revision deletion - Removing specific changes from a file's history. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand why that was necessary to merely shrink a file. Why not just save over it so the revision history exists. The file that was likely created in 2011 was probably only different than the current in terms of resolution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is what was done. A smaller version of the filed was uploaded at the same location, and later the old larger version - still stored in the file history - was revdeled. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it make sense and is it possible for me to request an unrevdelete. It is something that does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really. Here's what I can tell:
      • Original image uploaded in 2007 but at huge size.
      • You, Tony, uploaded an 80% reduction of this image to a separate file in 2008.
      • Despite this, the only change in either file as indicative of use was additional rationales oin this file by Modernist about 2011.
      • Shortly after this, your version was deleted as an orphan, I suspect Modernist did the rerplacement.
      • Somewhere about then, this original was reduced to a smaller size.
      • In 2013, the sizse was determined to be too large and was reduced.
      • After that, the two old versions of this file were deleted, --MASEM (t) 07:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, more for any previous version of a file that is considered redundant when a newer version of the same image is in place. Earlier versions at larger sizes are the most common, but other things like uncropped images or color corrections may be revdeleted too. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've made a suggestion here for something like a "visual arts mediator" to be chosen, someone familiar with the image policies who will help to seek consensus positions when these issues arise. Any comments would be welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Having read quite a few of the discussions here in order to make sense of a few deletion nominations and NFCRs in my own contributions, I'd say this is a great idea. I find this NFC bickering about seminal modern art paintings very discouraging (not to say ignorant), and there definitely needs to be someone to stand up for the editorial side of things.Nettings (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:'Still Life -20', mixed media work by --Tom Wesselmann--, 1962, --Albright-Knox Gallery--.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG and other criteria in numerous articles. Only seems to be needed in the article Tom Wesselmann. Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove from all but artists article as example of work. The reuse of the same rationale on all uses shows no selective concerns with regards too NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Stefan2, it's an appropriate illustration for Tom Wesselmann but elsewhere it is overused. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep the contextual significance is obvious in each of its usages. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Contextual significance cannot be obvious, include requires sourced discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—what policy language would call for discussion—sourced or otherwise—in the article? I'm going to ask you to please quote that policy language here. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, (in context of the article text), and if that significance is challenged as OR (as here), sourcing must be provided to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in fact WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "article text"[9]. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're wikilaywering. Contextual significance implies discussion in the text. There is no other way for this to be met, otherwise its a decorative image and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—there is nothing remotely "decorative"[10] about the use of this image, anywhere that it is used. Anyone can read WP:NFCC#8. "Contextual significance" means that in the context of one thing, another thing has significance. In the context of "Pop art" that image has significance by dint of its being an example of Pop art. No particular wording has to be found in the text of the article to justify the inclusion of that image. Can you please tell me what purpose any such wording would serve? If there was something to be added, such wording would serve a purpose. But are we just going to concoct meaningless wording serving no purpose? If policy said we had to do this, I would argue to have policy changed. But policy doesn't even say we have to have "discussion in the text"[11]. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In every article save for Wesselmann, and perhaps Collage, the image is decorative as either there are plenty of other examples of works that are free, or it is being used without sourced discussion of the work, the normal requirement for contextual significance to be shown. The use in all but those few articles do not given any significance except that which you claim and to that end I call out "citation needed" because I understand the articles perfectly fine without all those examples, hence failing NFCC#8. We are required to minimize the use of non-free images by the Foundation. Not eliminate their usage, surely, but simply be more judicious in their use, and that means to understand where contextual significant really is best done. If you don't like that we have to minimize non-free, you're free to start another wiki encyclopedia that doesn't have a free content mission, because that is a requirement here for us. --MASEM (t) 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The image is not "decorative". It is of course an example of a particular artwork. It is made in a certain way and it has a particular appearance. It is of course made by a particular individual. It is also made at a particular time and in a particular place. You are arguing against its inclusion in certain articles. Well-respected commentators refer to this artwork. You are even suggesting that other artworks can replace this artwork. You say for instance "there are plenty of other examples of works that are free". When you substitute other works for the ideal work for a given use, you run the risk of introducing WP:original research into the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the work is not described as the or a well established example of the type of school (such as Pop Art), and there are free images that are examples for that school, then the non-free is extraneous and decorative. It might represent that school, but we can do that with other free art. On "Collage" the work is actually described in such a manner hence why I think it's fair to keep there, but no where else (outside the artist' page). --MASEM (t) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem The Wesselmann is a well established example of Pop Art; however please show me some examples of free and usable Pop Art. The entire problem with art work after 1923 is that we must be able to show the visual art and fair use seems to be the best solution...Modernist (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that for Pop Art, you cannot illustrate it without non-free examples at the present time since the movement is entirely post-1923 where copyright will come into play. But you don't need 11 examples. The 4 presently inline are reasonable to include as they showcase the various styles that Pop Art encompasses - I would even include the Typewriter Eraser sculpture to show that Pop Art included 3D works. But all other images included in that gallery are presented without comment besides the names of the artists, and thus not appropriate nor needed to include per NFCC#8. A section to provide links to other pop art examples and notable artists falls in line with NFC and provides more useful links for the reader to follow to learn more. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can always add more discussion; the reason it's laid out as it is - is that years ago we agreed that the imagery would simply represent the various aspects of the oeuvre - hence I labeled the Warhol (repetition); which was a distinct aspect of his paintings and prints. With the Wesselmann I tagged it (collage). That was the agreement reached around seven years ago. I agree that the Oldenburg is important as an example of pop art - sculpture...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably important to note that the formalization of NFC and the Foundation Resolution is about a year younger than the age of these articles then, hence why there probably wasn't any issues raised at that time. That might be why there is a large disconnect here. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that begins to clarify our disparate points of view...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keepin the Tom Wesselmann article - this is being charitable because I can't see this painting mentioned, but it seems to represent a later example of his work. The image should be removed from the general articles about art, because there are non-copyrighted images which can be used for general illustration. Sionk (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sionk—how could there be a need to mention the Tom Wesselmann painting in the Tom Wesselmann article? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:MagrittePipe.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFC#UUI §6 on numerous pages. Only seems to pass WP:NFCC in The Treachery of Images. Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree it is an iconic Surrealist painting but, because there is a dedicated article about it, there should be no problem linking to this article rather than reproducing the non-free image. I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the Surrealism article! Sionk (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an important image that should remain in the Surrealism article; as should the Dali...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not in an encyclopedia with a free content mission, even with free art. We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On the contrary - they are not plastered all over the place - they are used selectively in a few articles; as important examples of the oeuvre each represents. The Warhol is one of the most iconic of his paintings; as is the Magritte and the Dali; as well as others that are targeted here...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Being used in more than one article with practically the same nonfree rationale and no significant discussion in said articles is plastering the image about. Link them instead. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On articles where the work of art is the subject of critical, significant discussion, sure to gain an appreciation of the work in association with the sourced discussion. But not anywhere else to avoid harm to the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out."[12] I don't think we are indoctrinating readers as to what to appreciate in art. We are familiarizing readers with commonly cited examples of twentieth century art. You call for articles to be "direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance…" This is not always clear. This is often debatable. We can't always tell the reader concisely and definitively why a work of art is considered "important" in twentieth century art. You are making unrealistic and I would argue counterproductive demands. The visual component matters. The reader needs to see the art. The commentary is not necessarily more important than the art. I don't think we should upend the article to provide the reader with an excess of pointless commentary. You are underestimating the importance of seeing the images of the works of art. I'm not an evangelist for any of these works of art. I think the primary aim we have as an encyclopedia providing coverage of the visual arts is simply to apprise the reader of noteworthy examples of the most talked-about art. The commentary itself is not more important than the art. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can't say why a piece of nonfree art ius important to a school or category of art, the including that piece of art fails NFCC#8, and WP:OR. The reader does not need to see an excessive number of examples to understand broad concepts of art; a few well-selected inline examples cited as well recognized aspects of a school are fine, with links to specific artists and works and external sites to provide the rest. Any other approach violates NFCC and size/accessibility problems. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, get some perspective, please. Above all, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Every policy here is subject to interpretation, and not everything is as simple and clear-cut as you make it sound (which, being new to all this template wrestling, took me a while to realize). There are legal constraints, there is a policy, but nowhere does it say that our free content mission trumps everything else (and it would a very stupid idea to do that in an encyclopaedia). It it totally unacceptable that every policy is ruthlessly enforced in its harshest possible interpretation just because some people here are on a private mission. You (and others here) are wasting everyone'e time, and worse, you are harming Wikipedia with your attitude. Judicious use of NFC (which is what our NFC policy is here to facilitate) means that NFC rationales are written by editors who are knowledgeable in that particular subject, not shot down at random by hobby cops who are totally disinterested in the articles in question. Nettings (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Being a free content encyclopedia is the first primary mission of the Foundation. The Foundation has required non free to be used exceptionally. This does trump anything that made be said in en.wiki. The arguments you and others give for why you should be able to use more violates this, and is more akin to the concepts described in VEGAN.
      Again I stress the point - notable works of art, or a few nonnotable works of an otherwise notable artist are reasonable non free to include on artist or artwork pages. Every other use is otherwise gratitious without sourced information to justify the reason for inclusion. Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach in using better summary style and moving away from visual galleries towards fewer but more helpful inline images. You dont lose images, you meet the NFC, and meet size and accessibility issues. It just requires rethinking how to break apart information into better bite sized chunks rather than monolithic articles that approach art gallery books. Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles in question are of exceptional quality. The visuals are absolutely necessary to illustrate the wealth of information presented there. You cannot compare an article about 40 years of video gaming to one about 3000 years of painting by counting images, and doing so is just ignorant. I am not questioning our mission to create a free encyclopaedia with as much free content as possible. In fact, I'm working towards this goal, like you are. But what some people here are trying to do is to censor important aspects of cultural heritage just because they are non-free. If we do that, we end up with something that might be sort of interesting, but it will not be an encyclopaedia any more. What you need to understand is that nobody here is trying to undermine the free content mission. What I and others strongly object to is to put image policing above all other goals of Wikipedia, to use WP:NFC to censor articles, and to circumvent editorial consensus by abusingly invocating policies which clearly leave some room for interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Part of the problem is that NFC supervision is dominated by people who just follow the recent changes and then come down like a steamhammer on articles which they haven't even read, much less taken an editorial interest in. I agree that we need NFC supervision to maintain the quality and legality of Wikipedia, and I really hate to invoke this "us and them" bullshit between editors and patrollers when we really are all working on the same thing, but you cannot imagine how frustrating it is to deal with random edit-warring and deletion nominations by drive-by users who don't even bother to leave a note on the talk page and frankly don't give a shit about the article they are hacking and slashing at. Besides, I find this attitude of anticipatory obedience really weird. We make free content because we think copyright is not the hottest idea in the world, particularly not for the dissemination of knowledge. That does not mean we do not respect copyright law (doing that would be suicide for WP), so yes to copyright supervision. But to constantly censor ourselves to not show things that we legally could show by fair use - why? I read the spirit of the NFCC, you read the letters (and very selectively). Nettings (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I should add that I appreciate your arguments how to re-structure the articles, and your ideas may even lead to an improvement of the NFC situation as you see it. But such things are editorial decisions, and they need to be discussed among the editorial community of the article in question. So the procedure should be to notify them, guys, I think you have an NFC issue there, can you do something about that, and discuss it and follow editorial consensus. Not single out random images for deletion. There is no blatant NFC violation there that requires immediate action to keep Wikipedia legal. So there is no necessity to disregard or circumvent editorial consensus and use the steamhammer instead, other than an unhealthy fondness for said instrument. Nettings (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No the articles are not of good quality of text alone because they are written with considering that 3000 years of painting can't be covered in one or two articles. If the text alone was written in a proper summary style like everywhere else, there would be no need to have 300+ images "needed" to illustrate it. 40 or so images to inline to help guide the reader, sure. Illustrations of paintings ate important but these should happen on specific sub pages to avoid unwieldy galleries and excessive nonfree use. Those working on these painting articles are not writing towards the free content mission and website accessibility, and hence why this is a major issue. These articles cannot be written as if this was ASN art textbook where prolific galleries wouilkd be of no question. They have to be written to meet the Foundations goal and making them as accessible as possible. Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points." You are making several errors in reasoning, the primary one being the overlooking of the value of editorial discretion. You would be making a more consequential argument if you were saying that Modernist was pushing a point of view. It is not so much that painting is a "special" topic but that there is latitude for editorial discretion that might not be found at other topics in which the propriety of non-free image-use was under evaluation. Editorial discretion is not something vague, undefined, and of questionable value. When User:Modernist chooses an image to represent some aspect of the visual arts, he is doing so for its ability to apprise the reader of something they need to know. One often repeated refrain is to replace with a free image. The free image may not be the ideal image. The article suffers when we devalue editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And when others are fairly questioning if that image needs to be shown, that does bring into question editorial discretion, which is not infallable nor immune from policy requirements. I fully respect that some non-free images need to be shown on articles about schools and periods of art history, but NFC requires these to be minimal and with more purposeful selection than just editorial discretion. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nettings makes some strong arguments above, about placing an extreme interpretation of the non-free mission above every other priority (including education and editor retention, bearing in mind that the latter is a Foundation priority). He also argues that it is odd to self-censor in order not to provide an image when there is no legal, ethical or editorial problem with it; Nettings calls this "anticipatory obedience." This is a key point that others have raised too. It would be good if you could address it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      First, no one is saying that non-free works of art cannot be used outside of the page about that work of art; as long as the work of art is notable, its image will be in WP somewhere, and can be linked to, and thus the impact on education is negliable. Similarly, there are editors that simply do no understand that we are a free content work first and foremost, and thus if they leave because they can't use non-free (which they will call out as fair use), that's not really any loss we can worry about. We're also not censoring, and that's not a pathway to walk down to try to argue against this. The point that I keep making is that I am not against a limited number of clear examples of non-free works in these various schools; I cannot imagine how one can have an article on surrealism without even included a handful of works like Persistence of Memory , for example. We just don't need dozens as these articles all currently sport. Overwhelming the reader with images on these pages without explaining the progression is less educational than removing all the images in the first place, in terms of being an encyclopedia. And all of this is towards maintaining the non-free requirement. Non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, and we've carved out places for these exceptions, but if we start making exceptions for these exceptions for one area, we will end up in the same aspect that WP:VEGAN talks about, and more and more non-free will be used when it was previously determined to be inappropriate. It is to some degree an exercise in ego-stroking - how free can we make en.wiki - but it is one that we are challenged to always explore by the Foundation. Everything else about en.wiki has been large experiments in groupthink development of a encyclopedic work, this is just an extension of that. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in the visual arts there is connoisseurship. There is also the attack on connoisseurship. But this is more recent. You say "Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach..."[13] You also say "Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't."[14] The visual arts are unlike most areas in which visual images are used. Specificity of image is related to connoisseurship and the legacy of connoisseurship in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And again, I stress - as an tertiary educational work, we are not here to help readers appreciate art (as per your connoisseurship idea), but to tell them why this art was appreciated by others in a direct manner. We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field, from which they themselves might come to also appreciate the art. But to show images with the expectation that the reader will come to appreciate it but without stating why it was appreciated goes against our core principles of not being a textbook. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—images of works of visual art are different from images of most other things as concerns their inclusion in our articles. The notion of substituting non-free images for free images is not always workable concerning visual art. A particular image may be ideal for a purpose in an article. Another image may be a very poor substitute. Editorial discretion should be allowed the latitude to construct a logical article. If there is nothing specifically problematic about material in an article we should not be reverting it. From where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"? And you say "We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field". Are you setting up rules for writing about art? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I am saying, on an encyclopedia, we don't leave things to the reader's interpretation, we are explicit about what they should know or where they can look to find more. And that's for every field, not just visual art. Take films - I'm sure that people in the Film project would vouch that there are films that must be watched to be appreciated, but they don't floor their articles with images or videos, they simply go to reviewers to say why and how the film should be appreciated instead of leaving that vague for the reader. The same can apply to visual art without question. You cannot claim that visual art is "different" because we have plenty of other visual arts fields that work without excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[15]? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, we are not an art appreciate book. We are not hear to explain to a reader how to appreciate something, but to be direct as to why the work has been appreciated. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—again, from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[16]? If you are deriving it from nowhere you can just say that it is a strongly held feeling. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're wikilawyering to try to find the exact text; I'm applying the intent of the language of what WP:NOT is and applied to non-free policy. Between those two policies, it is clear you can't just through up an image without discussion and say "here, appreciate this art". Non-free images must have strong reason to be used than just a vague hand-wave "oh, the reader will appreciate this image on its own." That's a function other websites and references can do for us, we need to be direct and explicit. And no, I can't point you to any exact langauge but again, remember, policy is not written as law but how it should be interpreted, and this approach to any form of visual art with non-free policy has long been in place. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you suggest substitutes for images you are objecting to in the visual arts? Perhaps you should try to. There is limited substitutability of images in the visuals arts. Well-known paintings tend not to lend themselves to being replaced by other well-known paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not talking about replacement of images, I'm talking about reducing the number of images on the top-level articles in the painting area. In this case, for example, the pipe painting clearly needs to remain on WP for discussion of The Treachery of Images and likely Surrealism. What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article. All elements of Surrealism are covered in Surrealism, so we can obviously have small number (10 or so, as it presently has) there. But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there to represent the school and use the {{main}} link for Surrealism to learn more. None of these images being highlighted here are asked to be deleted, just using them in the places they make the most sense, and reduce the number that are being used in these high level articles based on the understanding there are other places where the school or painting is discussed in more detail and where a few more images can be afforded. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You say "What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article." We are not trying to "cover every detail". "History of Painting" and "Western Painting" are important articles. There is plenty of leeway for editorial discretion. You say "But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there." How did you decide that we "only need one or two examples"? Such specifics should be decided by editors involved in writing the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      As Modernist has said, the history of painting covers 3000 years of works. There is no way that that can be covered in detail in one single article per WP:SIZE and accessibility limitations, much less a half a dozen. You need, as already exists, the individual articles on the various schools and geographic aspects so that you can actually give a fair amount of detail about that area in each one. Per Summary Style, the higher-level articles like History of Painting should just then be there to touch on each school, establishing each place in the history of the art, so the reader has an outline to follow and to know where to go for more details. As such, these top-level article should not be heavily illustrated since the details to support those illustrations will be in the lower articles. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arb break

      Rather than getting bogged down in a meta-discussion about free content encyclopedias and art, could we see a list of the articles it's used on and evaluate them individually? Each use is a separate case, it's quite possible that some are warranted and others not. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • As of a few seconds ago it was used on 4 pages:
      • History of painting
      • Surrealism
      • The Treachery of Images
      • Western painting
      • Werieth (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly okay on Treachery. Most likely okay on Surrealism. Everywhere else is not needed (as in the higher level articles you only need one/two examples of surrealism as a precursor to the main article in light of the larger topic, and there are much better examples like that work there). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—why do we "only need one/two examples of surrealism" in articles such as Western painting, History of painting, and 1929 in art? Is Surrealism important? Is "The Persistence of Memory" particularly similar to "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? They are both "Surrealism" but they very different paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Because we have a separate article on Surrealism with several fitting examples already and further links to more. In the context of the outline articles of History of Painting and Western Painting, you only need a paragraph of text to explain how surrealism fits into these larger scopes, and just one or two examples to visually show that, since you have an article that goes into much greater detail on the school. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alex Katz's 1970 painting of his son 'Vincent with Open Mouth'.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 except in Alex Katz. Fails WP:NFG in numerous articles. Potentially fails WP:NFCC in Alex Katz: this is somewhat similar to WP:NFC#UUI §8 & §9. Stefan2 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      An image such as this is easily justifiable for inclusion in the articles in which it is presently found. Strong keep Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Only appropriate use in Alex Katz (as a representative work of his of discussion). Not needed in the broader Painting articles as a undiscussed example. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—wouldn't this painting be justified for inclusion in the article Pop art? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The painting, much less Alex Katz, is not even discussed in Pop Art save for the image caption; if the work could be described as a preeminent example of pop art (like the Warhol image), then there may be reason to use as an inline example, but right now, that as well as the other images in the Pop art gallery fail NFCC. The current set of images used inline - with the addition of the rubber stamp sculpture as an inline to demonstrated 3D pop art as I've previous argued for, is sufficient to set what the examples of pop are are, while the links to the various pop art artists are there for the reader to learn more and find more images. You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art, but we definitely should be providing ways for readers to find more examples via the artist links. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you have not suggested a free image for substitution, and you say "You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art". In my opinion the other images in the article are fairly dissimilar to the one under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why do I need to suggest a free replacement? My argument standands that 5 images (the 4 presently in inline locations, and the 5th of the rubber stamp sculpture moved into an inline) is a sufficient number of images to represent the otherwise diverse nature of Pop Art while respecting non-free content. Since it is nearly universally the case that all examples of Pop Art are going to be post-1923 and thus likely under copyright, there's no possible free examples, but what I'm saying is that removing this and the other gallery images do no require a free replacement, as "no image" is considered an acceptable replacement for non-free in such cases. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—our aim at this article is to educate the reader about Pop art. How are you helping that aim by arguing for the removal of this image? We are including images that exemplify Pop art and yet you are arguing for the removal of one of those images. Editorial discretion should play a role in determining what images are found in an article such as this. Other editors feel that the image should be in the article. Are you an editor involved in writing this article? Do you feel that the remaining images in the article serve the same purpose that the image under discussion serves? I think they are quite different from the image you are proposing for removal. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing in the article discusses Katz or that work as representative example of pop art, ergo, you can't use it in that article as an example of pop art. Pop art is a hugely diverse school of art, so there is no way you can represent the entire school in one article without severely violating NFC. Instead, you go by how the article points out the modern, bold styles and reuse of everyday objects that formed the basis of pop art, show the handful of examples (5, as I've pointed, which is a fair representation) and provide links for artists for the reader to learn more. That meets NFC policy without taking way from the given text. Editorial discretion does not override NFC policy when it is challenged by others. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—I believe that we are permitted to use non-free images under certain circumstances, and you have not quoted any language from policy showing otherwise. As this is an article about a movement in the visual arts, it follows that representative examples of that "style" (using the word loosely) should be included in the article. This is well within our purpose as creators of educational material. The images in the article are partially the product of editorial discretion. Have you been involved in writing the "Pop art" article? Or are you simply demanding that an image be removed? Please quote language from policy if you feel that you would be justified in removing the image under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wikilaywering again asking for exact policy language, when policy does not work on apply exact language but how it is applied. I have pointed out many many many times how NFC is practically enforced and how it applies here; critically commentary is nearly required in all cases. It doesn't matter if I was involved in writing the article - if I read it and see that it uses too many non-free to get its point across, that is a problem. The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this." Please quote from the "Pop art" article: where does it say that "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement"? Do you see "elements of popular culture" in this image? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, nor do I see text explaining why this style is considered pop art, still making it an invalid example to be used. If this is an example of a different style of pop art, there is no text on this page to explain why this is considered pop art so the image would be improper to use. Now, just doing a curosity check, I can easily find a few sources (eg [17]) that explain that Katz' "deadpan evocation of flat, bright figures had an everyday quality that linked them to commercial art and popular culture"; adding this text and additional to explain that pop art is not just incorporating pop culture but containing that commerical art "quality" would be justification to include the Katz as an additional exactly and to contrast with the other current inline pop art examples that are clearly showing elements of the popular culture. This is why contextual significance is important, so that there's no doubt for the inclusion of a picture. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Images on History of Doctor Who

      File:First Doctor colour.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Second Doctor b.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Third Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fourth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fifth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Sixth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Seventh Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who and Sylvester McCoy. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Lungbarrow.jpg

      Violates WP:NFCC in the history articles. Cover art is normally only appropriate in the article about the item itself; see the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in those two articles as there isn't an individual FUR for each of the articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eighth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ninth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tenth Doctor b.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eleventhdoctornew.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments

      The use of the images are fine on the individual pages, but their use on the broadcast history is inappropriate; as that page is out of universe, images of the new Doctors can be shown via free imagery of the actors that played them with links to the Doctor pages for the in-character poses. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      And the Lungborrow cover is only appropriate on the book's article, not the other two. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who)

      There are currently seven non-free images being used in this article, which depict the various regenerations of the Doctor and others in Doctor Who. This is most likely a violation of WP:NFCC#3a, since one image or animation of a regeneration is likely enough for the reader to understand the concept. Some of these images do not even seem to convey useful information about regeneration, and fail WP:NFCC#8 as well (for example, File:Zero_room.jpg which depicts little more than the Fifth Doctor floating suspended in a room soon after regenerating). FunPika 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I would safely argue two images are appropriate, given the change in SFX between the old and revived series. The animated gif of Fourth-to-Fifth is reasonable here since it shows how they used camera overlays to simulate this back then, while the one of Tenth regerating with the burst of regeneration energy is fair to use for the new series. All the others are simply duplicate of these two themes. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Black Widow (Claire Voyant)

      We dont need 14 non-free images of this character Werieth (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There's nearly no discussion of any of the images, and they are used primarily decoratively. We don't need to have comic panels to describe a characters superpowers if they are mostly by through and speech intimidation. Delete all but the infobox image for character identification. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The images relate directly to topics discussed within the article, and serve to illustrate those particular areas. Is it more effective to simply mention the "frequently reprinted panel where Satan resurrects Claire Voyant as the Black Widow" but not actually show that panel, or to actually show that panel? Is it more effective to discuss the fact that in the character's brief five appearances in the Golden Age she had four different costumes, and describe the differences but not show them, or to show them? Is it more effective to just discuss the "black widow mark" but never show what it looked like, or to show what it looked like? And so forth. Imagery and words can work together - and should.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      Non-free images and text have to work together, but we require more than just saying several different outfits exist or the like. We need critical commentary about the subject of the non-free image to use such. Perhaps this means the panel of her resurrection and of her black widow mark can be kept, but if no one discusses that she had had 5 different outfits during the Golden Age, we cannot use non-free imagary of each outfit. Most of these images fail WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps I'm not understanding here, but there is, for instance, an entire section on the Black Widow's various Golden Age costumes, that deals in-depth with their differing appearances, what changes were made from outfit to outfit, that is much more comprehensible with the images actually showing readers those points, than without. There are several mentions of her regenerating Pepito's leg, thus the inclusion of the actual panel where that happens. Instances like this meet the standard of illustrating a topic that is discussed within the article, right? Not trying to do anything wrong here - and yes, I'm the person who added these images - they just seemed to make it a more comprehensible article, and meet the "If it's discussed, it can be illustrated" rule.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      We need sourced discussion from third-party sources - not your (or any WP editor's) words, and not just from the primary source, but from third-party sources that have noted the costume change. Otherwise, it is a rather trivial detail that we don't go into detail per WP:UNDUE, and certainly don't use excessive non-free to illustrate. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I'm not saying that third part sources aren't out there, I don't really know, but all most people are aware of, re the Black Widow's Golden Age costume, is that one, frequently reprinted panel of her resurrection. Most people have never read the original stories, which I have, nor do they have digital scans of them, which I do. Therefore most people don't know that what they think of as "the Black Widow's costume" only ever appeared in one brief story. That's a pretty interesting fact that would appeal to serious Golden Age comic book fans, the sorts of people who would predictably be reading an article on the original Black Widow, and certainly the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the character. I can send you scans of those stories, if you like, to verify the truth of those costume changes. Or would reading the original stories count as "going to the primary source" or somesuch and therefore be verboten for some reason?

      This just seems to me, as a lifelong comic book fan in general and a serious Black Widow fan in particular, a really interesting fact, and the imagery presented really serves to bring it home.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg

      Is this file really needed on all 6 articles? especially when it has its own article? Werieth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It is needed in the various historical articles in which it appears. It illustrates educational articles about the history of western painting as an example of the birth of British expressionism. It visually illustrates the European connection with abstract expressionism as well as the state of important contemporary painting in the UK after WW II...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again this shows the problem with how the Painting article hierarchy is written not using appropriate summary style to avoid reuse of the same works multiple times. With proper summary style, the painting as an example of 20th century western art would be fine but it wouldn't need repeated uses in the higher outline levels. The number of uses can be trimmed to three (work, artists, and one period example). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again we disagree - you say 3 I say 5...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Because you haven't shown understanding oif how to write articles on a visual subject with regards to NFC policy properly. The goal is minimize non free use and this is a clear case of overuse. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images are needed; the few times it's used are well within the policy guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No they are if these articles were written in proper summary style. You have nearly the same paragraph text about one painting (this one) in History of Painting, Western Painting, and 20th Century Western Painting, violating both writing style guidelines and showing little discretion for using NFC in only the most limited locations. Particularly considering there is a full article on the work itself. You've written the articles in a poor manner to force and require the use, but the articles structures can be changed to avoid that and minimize nonfree and better present information to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Personally, I would limit it to one, but two (painter and work) would be acceptable too. Using this image in five articles is just playing too loose with the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As it is an important work by an important artist, its placement in articles spanning long periods of art history is justified. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Rankin-bass-1969.jpg

      Could this logo be considered pd-textlogo? It seems extremely simple, just text, a rectangle 2 circles and a rounded rectangle. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      In the US , yes (and I think Rankin-Bass were such). --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That is correct, both of the founders Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass were American. It is was an American production company and both conglomerate former owners Warner Bros. and DreamWorks Classics are American companies. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:WLFM-LP logo.png

      PD-TEXT? Please note that file has definite non-free orphaned revision. Levdr1lp / talk 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      New logo definitely is in PD-text. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Update non-free orphaned revision has been deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 09:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:The Biography Channel 2000.svg

      Looks like a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yup, should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:OSCmeetings.jpg

      Use outside of First Meetings seems to have little contextual significance (NFCC#8).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Except for the Ender's Game short, the other articles that the image is used in have nearly no notability, and it would better to merge all those into a single article about the collection, reducing the non-free to one. The Ender's Game short could be merged here, or could be expanded on the main Ender's Game book page. Either way, the usage can be cut down completely to one proper use. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or simply removing the files, which would invite a bit less drama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:FaithOfMyFathers.jpg

      Needed in the articles where it's used? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It's appropriate on the book article but completely inappropriate on the John McCain article. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's definitely needed in the article on the book, as the cover image viscerally illustrates the three generation of military McCains, which is the central subject and theme of the work. Regarding the use in the McCain biographical article, the discussion at the time may be found at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_11#Removal_of_book_cover. The editor arguing for it to be in, Ferrylodge, is now User:Anythingyouwant, so this mention will ping him. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi WTR, Happy New Year. Regardless of whether the fair use rationale is adequate, it is doubtful that this image of the cover of Faith of My Fathers is even protectable by copyright. In other words, it may be eligible for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. The image of McCain, as well as the image of his relatives, are both public domain. See here and here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably it could be considered nonfree because the arrangement of images can be considered creative enough. But this is not a sure thing. I agree that ignoring the placement, the rest of the elements are pd or uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Image removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eva Julia Neer.jpg

      copyrighted image located at http://archives.focus.hms.harvard.edu/1995/Dec1_1995/On_the_Quad.html reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Don't see a problem with its usage under NFC/fair use. Neer is deceases so NFCC#1 can't apply, and the photo from the Harvard publication isn't a press photo, so NFCC#2 is fine. This is an allowed use. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Bucky

      Do we really need 5 non-free files for this article? Werieth (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I would say so, the character has had several drastic notable transformations in its history and there isn't one that would accurately represent the character as a whole.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Hang around comic book articles much? Doesn't make it right I know and I know of the other ones exist guideline that I have mixed feelings on...but I do feel this is better than some of that particular media. My two cents is that the article wants to depict him as the sidekick Bucky, along with him being the Winder Soldier and Captain America. Also wants to depicts the depiction of Stan as both Bucky and Winter Soldier. Perhaps a merging like here and this will work for the images that aren't leads. (Separating the comic book aliases from the IOM aliases of course). Jhenderson 777 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Merging images in a user-created montage does not work to reduce non-free. The one in Eddie Brock will be considered as 3 separate non-free images even though its all in one file. Only a montage created by the copyright owner can be used and considered as a single non-free. (Note that user-created montages are not never allowed to be used, as sometimes can be appropriate like in the case of the Doctor Who character image) but they simply don't reduce non-free usage). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for explaining that. I am glad you got that out of your chest. Although what you said is right. I still think it can help with fair use on a article...and help benefit the article too. Just like Wikipedia guidelines want little images on a list article as possible. Jhenderson 777 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, but replacing X images with a single image that is user-built from those X images (assuming all non-free) does not change how NFC is enforced - that will be considered X non-free images. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I am aware of that...my only problem with these lectures is that they aren't asking the OP's question. It's about a article just as much as it's about images. Thanks for clarifying that that isn't a solution but it is slowly becoming a different topic entirely. Jhenderson 777 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So yeah to sum it up I agree with what TriiipleThreat then. Unless there is strong opinions otherwise. Forget my own merge image idea that still helps improve articles sometimes (like the Doctor article you mentioned) but doesn't change how many fair use images there is. Which I better understood the first time you said it. ;) Jhenderson 777 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:RadioShack Logo 2013.png

      This seems to be a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, PD-logo for a US company. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Lecter, Hannibal.png

      Image collage seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a as three of the actors in this collage are duplicated in other non-free photos in the same article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed, either that article can use that collage and ditch the other 3 non-frees on the Hannibal Lecter page, or drop this montage, keep the 4th image that isn't duplicated by the other three, for four images total. (and even then it is arguable if you need non-free for each given that there's little makeup involved from the actual actors). --MASEM (t) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I personally think that four non-free images of the different actors is too much. I think they could be replaced with free images of the actors. If we do keep some, which is better to keep, the collage, or the individuals? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh I completely agree only one non-free is really necessary and that's of Hopkins version of the character which is the most recognizable - the others can all be done by free images of the actors involved. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png

      Starting to think this is pd-ineligible; it is just a sphere with basic gloss effects in it (even more basic than the previous) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Gloss effects likely make it copyrightable - they are similar to the idea of photographers having copyright on 3D works for lighting and shading even if they are photographing a PD work. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Masem: I don't know about that. There is an image on Commons with the same exact look, and it hasn't any attention from anybody to think that it's copyrightable. Blurred Lines 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The most recent example that has been reviewed is the Oreo logo File:Oreocookielogo.jpg which had been on Commons but review there pointed out that the 3D/glow effect was too complex to be uncopyrightable and moved here. That ABC logo on commons is probably not appropriate either. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Paul Smart and Hilary Smart.jpg

      Did I upload this unfree image correct? It is used in two articles. Are both uses OK in this case? Wirenote (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You need a second rationale for the Hilary Smart page use, but the usage in both is otherwise okay since both men are deceased. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Le Pont de l'Europe

      File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg is being used in violation of WP:NFG with zero supporting critical commentary Werieth (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, this is improper. On the other hand, the now-PD painting can be used on the JEff Wall article to show how "Mimic" borrows that arrangement. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Civil Affairs Branch Insignia.gif

      I'm pretty sure that this is actually PD-USGov, but I'd like another pair of eyes before I make the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It looks like it to me. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

      I'm wondering if this would qualify for {{PD-simple}}. Apart from the shiny gold foil effect, this album cover is just made up of a simple typeface and a monocolour background. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Technically it would be, but because of the "shine" effect of the letters (which depending on lighting can be copyrighted by the photographer), the best way to assure a free image is to have someone provide us a free photograph of the cover. (the present image does not appear to be). --MASEM (t) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that would effectively make the current image a replaceable fair use item. I wish I had bought a physical copy of this album a few years ago and not just the download version... De728631 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, but that's my read of how the concepts interact - without the foil effect, the cover is clearly PD-text, but the way one positions the light can influence the final result thus making the photograph's copyright come into play. A question is how this cover is presented (if presented) at places like Amazon and iTunes? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The one on Amazon looks like it has a little shine, but I could be wrong. It is closer to PD-simple. The one at iTunes is not reflective, but adds the words "ebay queen" and some odd dots that make it pass TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The iTunes cover seems to be some double album re-release of Peekaboo and E-Bay Queen, so that's not what we need here. But as a side-effect of this review I've now found out that the sleeve is actually an award-winning design [18]. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting fact and the whole package is rather nifty. If there were another reliable source maybe saying why it won silver, you could almost justify a non-free image of the whole package (since there would be contextual significance that the cover alone would not suffice). But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Jimi Hendrix

      How many unfree files does this article need? There appears to be a dispute over the arrest photo in the Drug use and violence section. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't really see a problem with - excluding the arrest photo - the 4 photos and the 3 sound samples for how notable an artist Hendrix is; that's a completely fair number and if anything there's only one (the smaller one of him playing solo). I don't think the arrest photo is necessary to discuss the fact he was arrested. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Gone with the Wind cover.jpg

      In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state) and Arts in Atlanta, the image fails WP:NFCC#8, as the book cover is not the subject of discussion in the article, but rather the image is being used decoratively. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed completely. File:Crescent Apartments, Atlanta, Georgia.jpg can be used instead (a free image where margeret mitchell lived while writing it) to showcase this. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Smokey And The Bandit Poster.jpg

      In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state), the image is being used entirely decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely agreed. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:CoalChamber.jpg

      Replaceable - a currently active group, free image could be obtained. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely. I looked to see if maybe there was a major band lineup change that would make an older shot appropriate but these four seem to be the same current four in the band and they are still active. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are free images of all four members of the band (whilst playing the same gig) at Commons which could easily be made into a single image for the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The Byrds

      Can this article really justify 16 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Images: Of those given, I don't think File:Roger McGuinn-glasses.jpg is needed (you can see these glasses in the lead image), File:The Byrds Raga Rock.png (the band is similar to the lead image at this point, and there's nothing interesting by the adding of a sitar that isn't described in text). The rest of the images do seem appropriate.
      Audio: Too many samples when the songs that are being sampled are all notable (where the sound sample can be located) I would say one per section is appropriate to show how their sound changed over the years.
      That should reduce the image use to about 9-10 files which seems reasonable compared to other major notable bands. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Microsoft Visual Studio

      I am not seeing justification for 8 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Three non-frees seem reasonable - showing the normal text-editing mode, the visual class version, and the winforms interface (all major modes of editing discussed in the article). All other screenshots are excessive or duplicative. The old logo is not discussed and thus should be removed as well. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Battle of Britain (film)

      I cant see justification for all 7 files for this article. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I can see justificatoin for 2, maybe 3. The film poster (obviously), the one of the planes in flight to show that real aircraft were used for production, and perhaps the show of the RAF base "under attack" to again discuss authenticity. The other images in production are just excessive, and there's no need to see actors in character. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Charlotte Salomon

      I cant see justification for all 7 files on this article Werieth (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This one is a bit harder to see where to cut down. The three images that are used to make up the "Signature images" appear to have to be discussed as a whole together based on the sourcing, and while it would be nice if we could do that with one file containing all three images, I don't immediatley see this type of image out there (And a user montage of course would be improper). So these three need to stay. Of the others, then, I would likely consider replacing the self portrait with the photograph as the lead image and remove that self-portait (it isn't a particularly good example of her style). The other images all appear appropriate so, six images should be fine given the nature of 3 of them. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      User Werieth didn't notify me,the uploader of these images, that he had made this request for a review. Rather he began by nominating the article for an AfD, then edited that to indicate it should have been an NFCR without either deleting the AfD nor notifying properly the NFCR.
      Masem's analyis is a good one I think, and he's right to say the self-portrait is not characteristic of her work. I don't have any objection to replacing the portrait by the photograph (though the portrait is referenced in the note about Griselda Pollock's criticism of the 1981 edition of Salomon's work). It's also rather iconic. Worth stressing I think that Salomon's work came into PD in EU this year and there's no question of lack of respect for commercial opportunities here. Just an attempt to get work illustrated in an encyclopedia mounted on US servers. In the past the Charlotte Salomon foundation has been very protective of her. I wrote a blog a few years back on her for Holocaust Day, illustrating it with a single image (sitting alone in an hotel room after leaving Berlin, not one of the images I elected for the article), and was astonished to receive an email from the Foundation reminding me that her works were still in copyright! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I used to leave a {{non-free review}} on the article, but a recent RfC determined that such a notice should not be left on an article. I am not an administer and I cannot delete AfD's, However I did tag the AfD for deletion and it was later deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Salomon. Werieth (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, cheers. Understood. Thanks for that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Coat of Many Colours—I haven't seen any source suggesting that this is "not characteristic of her work"[19]. Also I don't think we are restricted to including images that are "characteristic". Notability for this individual is not limited to activity in the visual arts but also for being a victim of the holocaust. The dual notability of artist and victim of the holocaust is, in my opinion, addressed by the self portrait. In it she presents a subjective though (in my opinion) seemingly accurate image of herself which might compare favorably with a similar photographic portrait. I don't think the self portrait should be removed from the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust, then that's reason to keep as well. I would, however, still switch the photo and that, since the photo is appropriate for identification but otherwise not the subject of commentary and thus fine in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that there would be a need to "source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust"[20]? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You've been told several times what NFCC#8 "contextual significance" requires, particularly in the case where there are multiple appropriate non-frees that do the same job. If this picture is different from those, we need to know why to justify their inclusion, and that means backing up the claim "it's influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience" with sources to include. Which sounds like it can be done, but that does need to be done. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that the self-portraint is "influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience"[21]? Who said that? Did somebody say or imply that? I certainly did not. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Coat seemed to imply that the dullness of her self-portrait is based on Holocaust-related experiences. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And a simple search reveals at least a few such sources exist [22] to support that after learning many of her relatives were killed, her self-portrait reflected the bleakness of her situation in the early 1942. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The "uncharacteristic" remark comes from Griselda Pollock noted at note [1] in the article. But Pollock was at pains to open new spaces for a critical appreciation of Salomon's work other than merely autobiographical ones (starting her piece with a quote from Walter Benjamin , another holocaust victim - he committed suicide rather than face a concentration camp, "Reminiscences, even extensive ones, do not always amount to an autobiography ..."), and those spaces would certainly include viewing her work as a holocaust document, which is where we should all find common ground (and which indeed I had lost sight of), so I do support Bus and would really prefer to see the self-portrait kept. It is her only self-portrait. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, now that I've looked up to verify, I think the self-portrait can be kept (along with the rest), but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described to explain the situation she was facing when she painted it so that we assure no further issues with NFCC#8 are there (this possibly can be more in a biographic context). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in this post you linked to this source. You are saying in this post: "…but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described…". Can you please tell me what material from that source you find applicable to the image of the Charlotte Salomon self-portrait? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't copy and paste from Google Books but it the point where it says "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggled of uprooted people everywhere"... and where it ends "her self-potrait magnified a life that was expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless, and Jewish." This is not the only valid text but representative of making a strong case for keeping the image without question. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you refer to "making a strong case for keeping the image without question". Who are we "making" this "case" for? Can you please tell me who we are trying to convince that justification can be found for the inclusion of that image in this article? The image is of a painting made by the subject of this biography. I believe this is the language in your source that you are referring to: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." Maybe I'm overlooking the applicable text. What do you find in that excerpt that is applicable to our article? I am not sure I really find language in that excerpt that is applicable to our article. Nevertheless I think there is justification for adding the image to our article because it is an image of artwork made by the artist who is the subject of our biography. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Because as everything is currently presented on the page, the image would otherwise violated NFCC#8 (there's no contextual significance give for the self portrait), and NFCC#3 (it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo, and other more significant examples of her artwork); thus to avoid any of these images coming up in question again in the future for different people, these must be addressed. Yes, this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article but that means that a different person reviewing non-free use may come across it and reach the same issue, that #8 and #3 are not met if they are unaware of this discussion.
      The importance of that source (and others like it) point to the fact she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that. That's not an inference we as Wikipedia editors can make but we have secondary expert sources that do that for us so that allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life, making its inclusion crystal clear in meeting NFCC#8 and being a unique style that the other non-frees don't capture, allowing NFCC#3 to be met. We don't just include artwork painted by a person on that's person's page just because they painted it. It has to have contextual context to assure that it is an appropriate exception of non-free allowance as required by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I'll leave it to others to make an edit here. I don't really feel confident about making one myself. I simply don't know her work well enough and there's been rather a lot written about her in the last 30 years or so, much of it very closely argued. Regarding the self-portrait I doubt there's much known about it. All I was really at pains to do was to try finally to get her article illustrated. I don't think there's an unreasonable number of images there, but I'm content to let the community judge that. Perhaps some brave soul will split Life? or Theater? into a separate article (I couldn't possibly myself, but I should be happy to assist: I'll keep the page watched). That should help. Thank you all for your time and input here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Incidentally I thought to try to upload some of these images to the French page, expecting I could do so on a local upload. But when I tried I found myself at a Commons upload (where of course these images aren't allowed because they're not PD in the US until at least 2059). Is that right, or is it just because I wasn't trying on a French server? It strikes me as slightly odd that we can see these images (or at least some of them) on the English pages hosted on the US servers on a Fair Use rationale, but not on EU pages where in fact Salomon's work is now PD. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure of the technical problems, but unfortunately as en.wiki and commons are on US soil so we have to treat them with US copyright laws, which have longer terms. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—the photo is not an artwork by the artist that is the subject of this biography. You are saying that "it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo"[23]. The self-portrait clearly has "contextual significance" because it is an artwork of the subject of this biography. I understand that you disagree on this point. You have expressed that before. But we must look at the language in our policy. You are implying that we should include language conveying that "she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that."[24] The inclusion of any language approximating that in our article is entirely optional. Policy does not require the inclusion of language as a justification for the inclusion of a Non-Free image. You say that your source "allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life"[25]. That is probably original research. I don't think your source draws a connection between the appearance of the self-portrait painting and the "trauma" in her life. We are doing more than just justifying Non-Free images. We are writing an article. Any language in the article should contribute to the overall article. We should not contrive to include unlikely or dubious commentary as a justification for the inclusion of Non-Free images. Policy does not call for this. We should almost always opt for the inclusion of text in the article if it advances the quality of the article. But when text is problematic in some way, its inclusion should be avoided. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are clearly being tenacious and wikilaywering and there's no point in continuing to repeat policy at you. The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so." You should not degrade the quality of the article to "justify" the inclusion of a Non-Free image especially as no language in policy is compelling you to do anything at all. As you have said, "this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article"[26]. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Now you are twisting my words. Please stop now. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—WP:NFCC#8 calls for: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This says absolutely nothing about the presence of text in an article providing justification for the inclusion of a non-free image. The language in policy could very easily say that text was required if this were the case. It does not. If you wish to change policy then that is what you should be endeavoring to do. You should not be endeavoring to enforce nonexistent policy to the detriment of an article. Sources are used to advance the interests of quality in an article. We should not be contriving to concoct language perhaps tenuously supported by sources if that language does not add to the overall quality of the article. In this case it is perfectly clear that the artwork is contextually significant. The subject of the biography is an artist and the the artwork is her self-portrait. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't meet "contextual significance" without discussing it in the text" - that's the meaning of that phrase which has been made clear to you many times. And to say that adding the fact that her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing as a result of her experiences and the loss of her relatives in the Holocaust is going to make the article worse, how? That seems like extremely compelling information to add to the article not only for helping non-free but to explain what influenced her style. And that all can be sourced without original research. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "You can't meet 'contextual significance' without discussing it in the text"[27]. But this is not found in policy, and in many instances incorrect. Policy language is perfectly capable of alerting us to a requirement for text in an article relating to a non-free image, as a justification for the inclusion of that non-free image. You repeatedly point to WP:NFCC#8 as a source for such instruction in policy. It is not found there. WP:NFCC#8 reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "discussing it in the text"[28]. Bus stop (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Masem—here again is the quote from your source: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." What would you add to the article about the self-portrait, based on that excerpt from a source? You say "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing"[29]. The source, an excerpt from which I quote above, does not support your assertion that "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing". As concerns "contextual significance", would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Gouache? Why not? The self-portrait is executed in gouache. But is the self-portrait significant in that context? Probably not. There are many examples of artworks executed in gouache, some of which would be free images. Would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Charlotte Salomon? Probably we would. In the context of an article on the artist, Charlotte Salomon, a self portrait by that artist would have "contextual significance". In that context, a self-portrait of Charlotte Salomon is very significant, and it is not likely that any free images would be available to substitute for it. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

      You continue to wikilaywer and refuse to get the point, especially when the discussion to be added would improve the article and the non-free justification. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)

      Given that the work is PD-1923 all the non-free files are replaceable Werieth (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes - the recordings will still be copyrighted but we can now use a MIDI version created by a user put to the CC or PD to replace those now that the original score is no longer copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have tagged the sound recordings as replaceable non-free files. The images should in my opinion just be retagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} as there is nothing there which is copyrightable apart from the lyrics and musical compositions which are in the public domain because of age. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Gallery of country coats of arms

      Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which may have articles about everything which has notability. Every independent country in the world is notable enough to write about. I think everyone would agree on that statement.

      The most prominent symbol of an independent country is its coat of arms. It may not be the most well-known symbol (that is normally the flag), but it is arguably the most prominent, as it stands for the government and its power, is displayed at central government buildings, at embassies, at border crossings, on official stamps and on the cover of passports etc. So I think the coat of arms of an independent country is notable enough to be displayed on Wikipedia. To display these coats of arms together and with links to the articles about each one of them is what an encyclopedia should be about, in my opinion. This is encyclopedic, fair and well within the limits of what is allowed for the images we have. I believe that the use of these works, to illustrate the object in question together with its corresponding symbols for other countries, where no freer equivalent is available on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

      Some people think that some (but not all) coats of arms should not be allowed to be displayed on that page. This is not consistent. Either we have an encyclopedic gallery of the coats of arms of all independent nations, or we delete the gallery all together. To treat some of the coats of arms as not free enough for this gallery is not rational.

      The way they want the gallery to be displayed, seems to indicate they wouldn't even think it proper if the images they find to be non-free would be replace by other, acctually free images. They want these coats of arms not to be present at all in the gallery, as far as I understand. Arms Jones (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      No, first we are not to have articles about everything notable. Being notable means you can have a stand alone article, but we do not require it, nor is it practical.
      Second, indexes based just on visual image identification, even if they were all free, is against how we work we images, per WP:IG. We link to Commons for galleries of free images, and we don't allow non-free in pure picture galleries, which this article presently is. Add to the fact that most people will not recognize their own country's coat of arms, less that of other countries - the better way for a reader to find this is to go to the country article where the coat of arms will be present in the infobox - whether free or not. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote may, not must, have articles about what is notable.
      Commons is for plain image galleries, not for galleries with links to the apporpriate articles on each symbol. If people do not recognize the arms of their own country, then there's even more reason to have this. The gallery is for comparing coats of arms with eachother, which you can't do if you have to go in and out of articles all the time. What if more comparative text was added to the article? Should we delete the gallery of national flags too? But that's not the question here, the question is the rationale for displaying the arms. Arms Jones (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no text to guide the reader for comparing the various costs, so there's no reason to include all the images for that purpose. And yes, the gallery of national flags should be deleted too even though most of those are free images. It still fails WP:IG. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd put it slightly more softly than Masem, but the point is correct - from WP:IG, "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." Note that it doesn't say "prohibited," just discouraged. However, replacing any fair-use imagery with free versions would certainly overcome one of the concerns raised. Repeated AfD's going back to 2008 have shown there is consensus to keep this page, but genuinely comparative text would also seem an important requirement. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that each one of these coats has its own article it looks like this is a WP:NFC#UUI#6 violation too. I cannot see justification for non-free media in this gallery, especially when most of these coats have their own article which goes into fairly detailed information. Werieth (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consider what you'll find in a print encyclopedia. Galleries are extremely rare in such a context, but the few exceptions I can remember seeing include flags and coats of arms — if we ignore the copyright issue, there's no good reason to prohibit such a page, since we shouldn't presume to tell the professional encyclopedias that they've included sections that aren't encyclopedic. Now back to the copyright issue: the whole reason for the existence of this page is to highlight the coats of arms themselves. You can't have a proper depiction of coats of arms, a proper kind of page to facilitate identification, with a thoroughly unprofessional Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies notice. Professional encyclopedias can include such sections because of fair use; if such a use be fair for dual educational/commercial purposes, it will definitely be fair for our purposes because we're nonprofit, and again it's absurd to think that omitting constituent parts of the gallery makes ours better than ones that the professional encyclopedias provide. The only good reason to exclude an image on copyright grounds is the issue of replaceability, since fair use provisions mandate that we use a PD or freely-licensed depiction of a blazon in place of a nonfree depiction of the same blazon. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you've completely omitted the fact that we're trying to minimize non-free use. Replacability is not the only reason to not use non-free images; if the non-free image is more appropriate in the academic context on one page, we should be limiting its use to that page, and reusing elsewhere where the context is much weaker is not appropriate. In this case, just to have a gallery of coat of arms with country names doesn't provide any context, when the individual COAs are used on the various country pages and probably with explaination of why the COA is like that, is way against the free content mission/non-free content resolution. Yes, it would be fine by fair use, but its not appropriate per non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • What we are discussing here is wether this is fair use or not for Wikipedia. Nyttend has clearly understood the implications of the questions, Masem has not. Still, Masem says "it would be fine by fair use" but then doesn't reach the logical conclussion to agree to allow this. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep removed Non-free content must meet every requirement of NFCC, not just some of them partially. A gallery should not display copyrighted images considering the lack of significant content (criterion #8) required to explain why non-free content is needed on the article. We can certainly including content on the gallery page that 'due to some coats of arms being held in copyright, that <insert countries here>'s coats of arms could not be displayed on the article directly', and link to the article's coat of arms. This would be the clear alternative, not to violate NFCC. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text already existing on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") It is quite possible to meet criterion #8 with the right explaining text, so there is no reason deleting the images just because such text does not exist there at present. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete all Non-free coat of arms images almost always violate WP:NFCC#1 as a free replacement can be created from the blazon. See for example Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17#File:Arzachena-Stemma.png (and the following sections on the FFD page). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text which already is there on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have not placed words in your mouth that you never said. You are the one who have wanted the text "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies". I even asked you if you could accept free images but you didn't reply to the question even if you commented on it.. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Im going to have to place a {{fact}} tag on that statement. I have said that wikipedia policies forbid the use of copyrighted CoA's in galleries. To my knowledge if a CoA is still under copyright there is nothing we can do but except that fact and treat the image as we would any other under WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • The copyrighted image is one thing, the coat of arms is another. What if there was a free image of the same coat of arms? You have to understand, the same coat of arms can be rendered in many different images. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not necessarily, If the underlying CoA's is copyrighted anything based off of it is covered by the same copyright. (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). Copyright is a fairly large can of worms. If you can get an image that is under a free license and that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is under a free license there is no issue. However in many cases that may be difficult or impossible to do, due to the nature of copyright. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You mean if the blazon is copyrighted? Well, normally it isn't, because it is protected legally by other means. The grant of arms is what protects the arms. Just like an invention is not copyrighted either but rather protected by a patent and a trademark is not copyrighted but protected by trademark registration. The coat of arms as such is never copyrighted, because it is another kind of intellectual property as compared to works of art or literary texts. So yes, there is a good chance there could be a free image of the arms, in a copyright sense, which possibly could be used. Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Never use the term never, If you can provide solid evidence that the image/blazon is not under copyright that changes the media from non-free to free. However that evidence must be solid. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As I said, the coat of arms as such is never protected by copyright but by other laws and regulations, and an image of the arms can be copyrighted while another image of the same arms can be free for use. You must understand this difference between the arms as such and one image of it before we go any further in this discussion. I have the feeling you don't understand it. Arms Jones (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove non-free images this article is about a clear a failure of NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 as you could see for any image that is not free, and it could be argued strongly that the whole thing should be deleted due to its obvious failure of WP:IG as well. Howerver, for the time being the most important thing is to remove the non-free images and at least get it in line with our policies. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please elaborate. Why is this a "clear" failure of NFCC #3a and #8? I don't read them as you seem to do, I don't see any violation of those guidelines, so I don't understand your reasoning just because you say it is a "clear" failure. Also, consider the nature of this gallery - that's part of the question. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      A place-holder image by Arms Jones
      I think most people here do not fathom the nature of coats of arms or national coats of arms. They seem to see this as a gallery of just any kind of images, without thinking about how this is intended to be displayed to the user, that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia giving information to people and that national coats of arms do not follow the same copyright rules as most images do. They also don't seem to have any intention of trying to solve the problem they see, they just want to delete instead of trying to find a solution that could benefit Wikipedia. I have created a place-holder image which I think could be used for those arms where Wikipedia does not have a free image (even if I still think the use of the images is fair use in this gallery) but perhaps you don't like that either? As I understand the suggstions from some of the deleters, it wouldn't even be possible to use this, because I understand they think, if a country has had a coat of arms image up to now which was non-free, it should stay out of the gallery even if a totally free image were to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Have I understood this correctly? Arms Jones (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was about to replace the non-free CoA's with File:No shield available.svg on 10 January before I noticed there was a revert war going on. A placeholder image does look better than notices that say "some coats of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies" (which also seems to violate WP:SELFREF). What about creating an image that says "See article" (or something else that makes clear that the CoA can be seen by clicking the link beneath the image)? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So why didn't you? You didn't want to interfer with the war? I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I think what you are saying sounds like a retrospective rationalisation. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't because multiple users editing the same article simultaneously results in edit conflicts or unwitting reversions of each other's edits. Also, the text "No image available" shown by File:No shield available.svg doesn't actually apply in this case (there is an image available, though it can't be shown in the article since it's non-free). Do you agree with the rest of my comment? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The rest of your comment actually seems like a good idea. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you haven't understood a number of things. Firstly, as far as this article is concerned, any free image is fine. Secondly, you're clearly missing the point with "I still think the use of the images is fair use". Wikipedia does not operate under the fair use laws of the US, our stance (and policies) on copyright are far stricter than that and are listed at WP:NFCC. The non-free images here fail NFCC3a (because they are excessive, being used elswhere), and NFCC8 (because there is no critical commentary, because this article is merely a list). Galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are loads of images used on Wikipedia with fair use rationale, and you say fair use is not used on Wikipedia; I don't follow. Using some of the commonly explained fair use rationale, Wikipedia should be able to use the images in a gallery like this. I can't see the problem with them being used elsewhere too: Of course they are used elsewhere too, since this is a list directing the reader to more extensive information on each coat of arms - just like the list on countries direct people to more extensive articles on the countries as such. As for critical commentary, what about it? I could write some, but so far most of what I have tried to do to make this gallery better has just been reverted. Then you say yourself that galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Almost always. That means you can accept that his gallery could perhaps be developed into something which everyone would accept? Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are lots of lists on Wikipedia with images illustrating the list. Look at all the lists of prime ministers and presidents, where there are portraits of the people who have held the positions. Should all the images in these lists be deleted too? Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ill make several points, the use rationales are not fair use rationales, they are non-free use rationales. Those lists you are talking about? guess what they use free images. usage of free media has almost no restrictions, where usage of non-free media is on the other end of the spectrum. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The rationale is about the use of non-free media, but the rationale is usually that the use of it in spite of it being non-free is that the use is fair and reasonable in the context where it is used. That is what I mean. That is what we are discussing here, not wether the individual files are non-free or not. Arms Jones (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Even if this debate is not over (far from it, it seems), I have made another suggestion at Talk:Gallery of country coats of arms#Suggested change to this page. If you would be so kind to give an opinion there? Arms Jones (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Placeholder images

      Do the other users support replacing the non-free coats of arms with a placeholder image (the image created by Arms Jones, my suggestion, or something else)? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      If an "image block" is needed for formatting, placeholder images would be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by an "image block", though IMO a placeholder is better than text underneath the gallery pointing to a project page to explain why some coats of arms are missing. Removing the non-free coats of arms entirely, without the current text, results in many talk page comments pointing out several countries are missing (as can already be seen on the article's talk page). SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Official-Logo.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Even if a raionale was added for that second article (about the founder) it would be inapproprite given the organization has its own article where the logo is otherwise appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So, just to be clear, the point of debate is whether or not this logo can be used in this article? If that is the case, then why not simply remove it from the offending article and only allow it to be used on the organisation's own page? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Jimmy two-shoes titlecard.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Violates WP:NFCC#8 in Jimmy Two-Shoes (season 1). The image is not essential for a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. Doesn't seem to fall into one of the categories listed at WP:NFCI, unless the use is considered similar to a titlecard and as such covered by WP:NFCI#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the season 1 titlecard is different from the season 2 titlecard, it would appear to perform the quite useful service of helping watchers of an unknown episode identify which season the episode is from. But the basic rationale would seem to be exactly that explained in WP:NFCI#1 -- for identification, and to show how the show was presented/marketed. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:On Earth's Furrowed Brow.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that the use in Timothy Lee Barnwell violates NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:The Face of Appalachia.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed, should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Hands in Harmony.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Russian Football Union.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ABS-CBN logo 2014.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • This doesn't look original enough for copyright. I'd rather change it to PD-textlogo or at least {{PD-USonly}}. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, too, expect that the United States copyright office would refuse to register it on the grounds of lacking sufficient graphical authorship. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:East Wind Over Weehawken, Edward Hopper 1934.tiff

      Violates WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c in List of works by Edward Hopper. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This may be free. Hopper's big work, "Nighthawks" in '42 lapsed into the public domain, so the same might be the same here. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would think this is PD...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Checking around like I did for Nighthawks, I think we need assurance that the work was not renewed 28 years after its first display (presumably 1962 for renewal), which is why Nighthawks is in the PD. We can't assume Hopper or his estate failed to do that on this as they did for Nighthawks, but the possibility is there. (Note that if it is non-free, the use is improper there. And a suggestion would be to avoid using inline images - even if they are free - and select 5 or 6 good representative free paintings - including Nighthawks - to illustrate that list on the right side, as then it can easily go Featured) --MASEM (t) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are no entries for this image in the copyright catalogues of 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966. So if it ever became effective in the 1930s, the copyright has not been renewed. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the first publication was in a book, newspaper, exhibition catalogue or something, then don't you also have to look for the book, newspaper or catalogue by searching for the title of that publication? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No. The copyright for books, newspapers, catalogues etc. first of all applies to the text and the general arrangement of text and images. But images by individual artists published in a book are always copyrighted separately. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, we don't know exactly when it was first publicly displayed - the point considered "published" for artwork. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fewclick home1.png

      This violates WP:NFCC#10c as the article isn't, despite the claim in the FUR, specifically dedicated to a discussion about this screenshot. Maybe it is {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably, this is a candidate for CSD/AFD (the only external source is Alexa page rankings, and that's not helping). The screenshot, if made by a WP user, however, should be PD-text. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Exploration Flight Test 1 Delta IV Heavy.jpg

      If the NASA claim is correct, then it is {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Insufficiently sourced. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      TinEye gives no results for this image. Hard to tell where exactly this comes from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If it can't be verified that it is from NASA, then WP:NFCC#10a isn't satisfied, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And peeking around nasa.gov, there's clearly plenty of PD-NASA free imagery there to replace this. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It might come from here, found via Google. Also found it here, but that appears to be a cropped version of the original. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:LCN TV logo.png

      Used twice in the same article, but only the infobox use is policy-compliant. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The non-free images should be removed from the table per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Sun Shenlu PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      There's several images on that page that also fail NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      See also File:Li Han PLAAF.jpg, File:Fan Wanzhang PLAAF.jpg, File:Zhao Baotong PLAAF.jpg‎, File:Wang Hai PLAAF.jpg‎
      Now wait a minute, WP:NFLISTS also apply to unique historical photos as well? Even when the photo is only thing that readers can use to identify historically notable persons that the list discuses? Jim101 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We have individual articles on the fliers represented by these photos (according to that table), so the identification is fine on the respective pages dedicated to the individual pilots. But not on the list page. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Li Han PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This appears to fail the first main test at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and as such to be in the public domain in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The first main test at Commons:Commons:URAA-restored copyrights requires that it was published in an eligible country. The country of first publication was presumably China, which is an eligible country. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the first test requires that this had been published in China (or another eligible country) in order for URAA to restore US copyright in this work. I see no evidence that this image had been published in China (or another eligible country) prior to the publication at the site specified as the source of this image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The image looks like a scan of a paper publication, so it was definitely published somewhere. Unfortunately, the only source is "图片来源：新华网", i.e. "Photo source: Xinhuanet", the website where it is hosted. Also note that URAA is irrelevant for unpublished photographs; such photographs instead have to comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}, regardless of their source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Quick question on the definition of published vs unpublished due to China's stupid two tiered publishing system...what about publications, which by law, can only be made available to certain members of a society (in China's case it would be card carrying party members vs. everyone else)? does that count as published or unpublished?
      Also, an extension on the previous question...what about mass media sources (People's Daily, PLA Daily, etc published in the 1950s) which were originally available to public, now were restrict to research achieves controlled by the Chinese government...does that count as published or unpublished?
      Anyway, those are just questions on what to look for and what to upload if I go on my next research trip. Jim101 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In the United States and before 1978, "publication" would typically mean that any member of the public could access the newspaper. If access to certain newspapers was restricted, then this might count as "limited publication" (which doesn't count as publication), but I'm not sure. This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure exactly how a US court would argue here. To make it further complicated, there is also the possibility that photos like this were published outside China. If the publication in China didn't qualify as "publication", but the publication outside China did, then USA would consider the other country to be the source country, which may result in different URAA considerations.
      It shouldn't matter whether access is restricted for the moment, if they were originally published in the 1950s. Compare with things such as ancient books. There might only be a single copy left of certain 15th century books, and if that copy is held by a private collector, then the book might not be easily accessible for other people, but the book still counts as "published". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Hotchkiss gun team.jpg

      If this is from 1922, then there is a fair chance that it was published before 1923 in which case the non-free copyright tag should be changed into {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Some info about The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine can be found here, but I am not sure whether that's Volume III or not. If the book contained the photograph, it means the image was indeed published in 1922. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg

      Claimed to be copyrighted in the United States, but likely below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed. I too don't see anything in this work that could make it eligible for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:WitchesofEastEndSeason1Poster.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      My personal opinion is that those two uses are unnecessary, but note that both uses "might" be appropriate per WP:NFCI#1 iff the text present in those two articles is considered enough critical commentary about the season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Washington Avenue in the 1940s.jpg

      1940s postcard. It's a bit dubious if things like this were renewed, so likely PD. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alexander Pushkin Foggy Bottom, Washington.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fighting Illini coach Fletcher Lane.png

      Incomplete source, see WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Windows Phone Store.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 in one article and WP:NFCC#10c in the other. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not even really needed since the design follow the bare Metro style (save for the backing image here, but that itself is a separate copyright to Sega). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Rhythm Nation

      I really dont think 17 non-free files are needed. Werieth (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, given those montages which appear to be user constructed, I get at least 86 non-frees on this page. Way too many, even if one can document the influence of the video on other videos.
      • Infobox cover is fine.
      • Song sample is fine.
      • Of everything else given, the only other example I would think reasonable is a video clip of the video to demonstrate the choreography, since this is 1) an element of discussion on the video and 2) difficult to show by stills.
      Everything else is inappropriate - we don't need to see the full album cover on the single, and the use of films and TV show shots to show where the video's influence has gone is inappropriate as well. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed some images from this article. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Legends of the Hidden Temple (assembling monkey).jpg

      (Yes, I know this image is only being used on one article, but I'm not sure I want it deleted, so I am listing it here. If the consensus is to remove it, then this image will be garbage collected along with other orphaned images.)

      I would like a second opinion as to whether this meets WP:NFCC#8 in Legends of the Hidden Temple. I'm not aware of a reliable secondary source discussing the graphical presentation of the final round (which would give this contextual significance). Other elements (the Mayan setting, the obstacles), could be described by text alone, and another free image already illustrates the structure of the Hidden Temple. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Given that it is the only non-title screenshot, and that particular event is one of the signature events, I think the image is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Werieth here. The show is notable for that final round (running through the temple), but unfortunately due to age, a broader shot of the overall set - which would be better - would lose relevancy of the types of tasks they have. So this is a suitable replacement and appropriate NFC use. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      One pound (British coin)

      I cant see justification for 23 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I looked to try to see if there's any discussion of why the given designs were picked across the years but I'm not seeing anything to support that. As such, most of those images in the table need to go. If there was a way to explain why they chose a particular emblem for a specific mint year, that might be something but that doesn't seem to exist. Also, I tried to see if there was a pre-made gallery of these mintings from the Royal Mint, but they don't appear to have one, but if that did exist, the single montage would be sufficient to use. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep It clearly serves the interests of the article to include pictorial depictions of the coins. The Royal Mint has this to say about pictorial reproductions of their coins: "The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste." Going by that the Royal Mint obviously wouldn't have a problem with their use in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • FAir use has nothing to do with it. They are copyrighted images, and harm the encyclopedia's free content mission. (Within fair use, their use is certainly fine, but we employ a stricter requirement than fair use). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If Wikipedia was truly committed to the use of only free content that it would limit usage to just free content. However, Wikipedia's primary mission is to educate and disseminate knowledge and it accepts that the use of non-free materials supports that aim. Our fair use guidelines are in place not to support a "free content mission" but simply to protect the foundation from legal proceedings. They are more restrictive than the legal definition of "fair use" simply because editors are not copyright lawyers so it's safer to err on the side of caution. In this case, the article is certainly better with the images than without, and the Royal Mint's explicit guidelines on the reproduction of the coin designs easily fall within the scope of their use on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia has no "fair use guidelines". We have "non-free policy" which is aimed not for legal protection of WP (though through it, it assures fair use defense for US law is met), but to encourage free content and avoid the excessive use of non-free where it is not fundamentally needed. It is completely wrong to think of NFC as a fair use guideline. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the images in the table for violation of WP:NFTABLE. Several of the images are even used multiple times in the same table. This case also seems similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14, except that we are talking about coins instead of logos. The infobox images look fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't violate NFTABLE which 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. Exceptions should be very well-justified...". The exception invoked here is that the Royal Mint explicitly allows not-for-profit reproductions, provided the usage is not in bad taste. The guideline permits us to judge these things case by case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter what the Royal Mint says or allows (unless they say it is under a compatable free license, which is not the case); the images are non-free, and thus NFTABLE fails here; we're looking to meeting the free content mission and minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Let's get down to fundamentals:
      (1) The images substantially can't be replaced with other images that are more free. Yes, in some cases photographs by the Royal Mint could be replaced with photographs by Wikipedians -- and that is something that should be done. But that is not what the more fundamental discussion above is about, namely the Royal Mint's copyright in the design of these coins, which is something that we cannot work around, if the coins are to be shown.
      (2) These images are not free; but there is no purely legal problem with us showing these images, on the basis the Mint's stated position above, which amounts to a clear licensing of use, even if not a licensing to create derivative works.
      (3) Given the Mint's position above, use of these images will not in any way inhibit dissemination or reproduction of the Wikipedia page.
      (4) The purpose of the encyclopedia page is to survey all aspects of the coins, including the different designs that have been applied to them -- something of particular interest from a numismatic perspective (even if the coins are not particularly rare), in common with a similar purpose in other numismatic articles across the encyclopedia as a whole. This purpose would be essentially gutted by removing the images, turning the article from being a valuable resource for this purpose, and an integrated part of the wider valuable resource that is WP's articles on numismatics, from that into something essentially informationally useless for the purpose. (In my view, removal of the images would therefore fly in the face of NFCC #8).
      The bottom line, to me, is that if you take a decent comprehensive article on a topic, and essentially gut it in an irreversible way for no good purpose, that doesn't encourage people to upload free images. It makes people frankly less likely to upload any images, or lift a finger for any other article they might otherwise have been tempted to improve.
      These images are not harmful to Wikipedia, and cannot be substituted by free ones. It is not in WP's best interests to remove them, and gut an otherwise decent article -- and it certainly is not in our readers' best interests. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no discussion about the individual designs, so as such they fail contextual significance - one can understand that the Royal Mint has used several different designs in the past w/o images, while showcasing the current circulating design. Inclusion of excess images that do not meet a free license fails the free content mission and non-free resolution, irregardless of how useful the images may be. We can link to the page on the Royal Mint site that have all these designs pictured to avoid using them in a manner that harms the mission in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There doesn't need to be discussion.
      The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does the reader need to know what the designs were while reading this article on Wikipedia? The lack of any text to show the importance of these old designs belie this need. We can certainly point the reader that if they are curious to the old designs (there is a single page at the Royal Mint that does this just fine) but as a tertiary source we do not need to document these old designs if it harms our mission. Hence the need for contextual significance, as would be the case for old logos and the like. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't have any text to justify the presence of entries on Timeline of information theory either. The point is that if a reader wants to know the sequence of discoveries in information theory and who made them, we have an article for them, and that is the article. Similarly if the reader is looking at the different one pound coins in their pocket and wonders just how many different designs there have been, when they were made and what they look like, then we have an article for them too, and One pound (British coin) is that article. We're an encyclopedia. That's what we do -- we provide information, and we present it in a systematic organised way that anyone can edit. We bring together information and do it ourselves, rather than just leaving it to pages on external websites that may be here today and gone tomorrow, none of them at all systematised with any of the others in the way that we can be.
      But nobody would seriously suggest gutting timeline of information theory "because people can just look it up at the IEEE". So let's get down to the other half of why you suggest we gut this article, namely your claim that it "harms our mission". To remind ourself, lets look up m:mission to remember exactly what that mission is:
      "... to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
      Now, this is not free content. But nor is it threatening or harming or diminishing in any way our ability "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Instead, it seems to me, that our ability to provide articles that give a decent comprehensive treatment of a topic specifically does engage people to come and develop free content here (of which, for example, the (free) article text is a not insignificant 1/4,000,000th of what just en.wiki provides), whereas gutting such an article is specifically likely to make people feel dis-empowered, and less likely to come here and collect and develop any more educational content under a free license for us.
      So it seems to me your citation of m:mission is entirely spurious here. This material is not supplanting any free content; and it is by encouraging and empowering people to build articles, including articles like this, that the free encyclopedia is most likely to thrive. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't use non-free images because there happens to be no free images for replacement, as no images + text is considered a free replacement for a non-free image. Note that we're not talking about stripping away the table, which the second column states the textual description of the mint design, so between that, and the Royal Mint page, the reader that is trying to go the reverse way (they have the coin and want to look up what it was) has enough resources to do that (and of course the number of people that actually might benefit from this use is very small, and violates WP:USEFUL). We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information, that's not even the purpose of the encyclopedia which is meant to summarize information and provide reference to learn more. We are being challenged by the Foundation to minimize non-free and that means we have to think of different ways that information can be grouped and presented that minimizes non-free that would otherwise be acceptable in other works where fair use is the only limitation. This is a very clear case where, as presented, there's no reasoning to include that many images of the old coins. If there was a single image produced by the Royal Mint that showed that so that it would be treated as only one non-free, there might be reason to include that, but I've yet to be able to find one, and to show every single coin via multiple non-frees is not an appropriate approach. The Foundation is very clear our goal is to use non-free exceptionally, and that means being very discriminating and coming up with ways to avoid using non-free images on WP while pointing readers to find non-frees they may be looking for, and here's a prime case. Yes, it is very unlikely we're talking any legal harm to the Foundation, but the point is that if we allow cases like this, that creates the slippery slope of allowing non-free documentation without discussion of any type of historical media that can only be presented through non-free images. That's why NFLISTS exists is to prevent this type of gross misuse. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are trying to recognise and identify the coins in your pocket, those images are going to help you a lot more than the text in the table ever would.
      There are fundamental good reasons to keep strong pressure on the use of non-free content -- to encourage alternate free content; to minimise legal risk, both ours and any for our commercial reusers; to maximise re-usability; to uphold WP's reputation. But none of those are issues in this particular case. So we should not gut a decent, useful article. Jheald (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "It's Useful" is not a reason to keep an article or an image when there is more harm to the mission in keeping the part that is considered "useful". Again, this thinking presumes that people will come to WP first to look for information when we should not be that high a priority for information like this. We are a tertiary source meant to summarize information, not fully document it. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no harm to the mission by keeping this material. It's wanton removal that's more likely to do harm (as argued above).
      And I'm sorry, but I stand by m:mission. I want to document as much of the world as I can in freely reusable educational content here, in as much detail and comprehensiveness as we can -- because that's actually what m:mission calls on us to do: to build, rather than to destroy. Nobody ever came to a website for the articles it decided not to treat properly, and it doesn't encourage editors and contributors either. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If we are using non-free where it is not necessary to document, in a summary tertiary manner, a topic, we are harming the free content mission. That's the reason the Foundation's resolution exists, and why we have NFC, and why this is the problem here. There is "utility" but no readily-apparent educational value - as written - to retain all but images of the current front and back of the present coin. Since we can defer the utility to a easily-linked page, we can keep the rest of the educational value of this page while reducing non-free, avoiding any harm to the mission. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't agree with your analysis. If you look at WP:NFCHIST the fundamental drivers of the NFC policy were practical considerations of the sort I listed above, at 21:59. And as I wrote then, none of those are issues in this particular case.
      And I reject your view that this page is somehow harmful to our m:mission. Our mission is to encourage and empower the development of free content. The presence of the images takes nothing away from the free content on the page. It might have done, if it involved the considerations listed at 21:59. Then we would have had to weigh its presence very carefully. But it doesn't. If you take m:mission seriously, what is most likely to empower and engage people around the world etc to come and build, it is keeping a decent article in the decent shape that it is now. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As soon as the Foundation set the resolution, using NFC as a example, that changed the purpose of NFC from being a means to keep fair use in check to minimizing non-free. The same rules apply in terms of documenting all that but now we have to be more refined about what is kept. And while the goal is to help create free content and draw more editors, we have to be aware that in that potential pool of editors are those that do not even attempt to adhere to what the encyclopedic purpose is; they complain already that we don't use more images or don't spend the few minutes to understand non-free before uploading more. Our mission is clear - to create free content that is freely redistributable - not to draw in more editors, and even if our NFC policy is driving away editors, that's better in the long term because that means a larger percentage of editors that do understand the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, I believe in free content as much as anyone. I've spent much of the last four weeks of my time slogging away trying to create an index in an effort to make over a million PD images the British Library just dumped on Flickr even vaguely accessible or usable. With the result that coverage is now almost 40%, from nothing.
      If these images really did affect the freedom of redistributability of our free content, or represented any kind of legal theat, or in any way prejudiced our reputation, or could be replaced with free content, then fine: that is exactly what the NFC policy is drafted to control. But here none of that is the case. Instead -- as is typical with currency articles -- having the images directly does add to reader understanding (NFCC #8), and the same encyclopedic value would not be achieved with fewer (NFCC #3). So this is the kind of use the NFC policy is drafted to protect -- a policy that it should be noted was fundamentally confirmed by the Foundation licensing resolution, and changed hardly one iota in response to it.
      These images do not harm the m:mission. (Which is to create free content, not to remove non-free content). They were not added by people who "did not understand NFC". There is none of the practical benefits listed above that getting rid of them would serve. Doing so would merely make a valuable article significantly less valuable. (And it is the value that it can give to the world which is what makes the freedom of our content worth fighting for in the first place). So lets keep the value in a valuable article, keep up the motivation of the valuable people who created it, and (per policy) resolve to keep the images. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The mission is to promote the generation of free content; that might not seem much different from just creating free content, but it weighs the freeness of material extremely heavily. We should not be using non-free where its use is not clearly aiding in the educational goal. That's why we outline a lot of what Wikipedia is not, and one of those is that we are not a catalog, including ones around numismatics, which this table in this article borders on. There are plenty of other resources for those seeking details on coins to refer to and that we can point them to in the context of an encyclopedia, but a listing of the out-of-mint coins presented without any other comment is pretty much not what should be included, serving a very narrow purpose. If there were reasons why the various symbols were used (as likely can be documented on the US State Quarters series), that moves the table out from being a simple catalog to something of educational value. Otherwise, we're just listing for the purposes of listing and without considering summarizing and highlighting important information for the reader. Again, we have to keep in mind, we're not the only site on the internet that documents this, and it is not WP's goal to document everything. A page (or at least, in this case, the table on this page) does not serve the larger purpose of the encyclopedia as it stands; even if we had free images of the coins, without any discussion of the various iterations, that would not be an appropriate table to keep here.
      What's important here is to understand the slippery slope problem. Everyone things their area of expertise in subject matter is important that we can relax the policy to make these stand out. But that creates the situation which has repeated over and over that "Hey, this article uses non-free images in a table, my subject is just as important so I should get so too." And thus we get people using non-free images completely inappropriately because they saw them being used in a somewhat stronger location, and creates larger problems over time. No area of WP is more important than any other area in terms of NFC allowance, and that's why I point to the fact that the Resolution challenges us to how to present information in the free-est form possible with the necessary exceptions to make a topic understandable as presented on the page. If that means that we have to use novel approaches that other works don't have to employ, or rest on third-party sources and links to delve into information more than we can, we have to take those. I know the table format used in this article is likely common across coin collector books, but it does not work considering that we are 1) an encyclopedia and 2) have a requirement of reducing non-free usage. And this is a point that applies to all fields of WP, not just numismatics. There is a balance of course, which is why I've said if there was a single image from the Royal Mint (the ones that own the copyright I believe) that had all the old coins in them in one shot, that's reasonable to include, but not all dozen-some variants. I've said it before elsewhere, this all may seem like intellectual wankery to minimize non-free but it is the type of thing that if we are not vigilant in identifying where non-free should not be used, it will become a point of abuse and hence the need to close off holes like this. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't accept your view that because either sites exist, we shouldn't try ourseves to give as detailed and comprehensive survey as we can of a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest.
      As for your view that we need to remove these images because that is what the Foundation wants, I have asked Jimbo for clarification. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We're not supposed to be detailed - we're supposed to be summarizing at a reasonably high level with links to sources of more detail. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what policy says. There are limits to what should be included, but level of detail is not one of them - proper weight of coverage is the major criterion for inclusion within a particular article, i.e. you can also summarize "low level" details if those are relevant. And I'd say that the various versions of the coin released throughout its history are very much relevant to the article covering that coin as its only topic. Diego (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]
      NOTPAPER is only directed at topic inclusion, not the level of detail of coverage, which is more detailed by WP:UNDUE, and of course, by the definition of what a encyclopedia is (a tertiary summary of topics). Have there been other third party sources that go into detail about the historical significance of these coins beyond the Royal Mint? If not, that probably points to the inclusion as undue and putting the external link as a reference for readers to learn more. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems a perfect example for WP:EL: "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".—Aquegg (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep for the reasons stated by Betty Logan and Jheald. It's also worth remembering that the call to minimize non-free content has always been conditioned to the possibility to replace their usage with free content of acceptable quality, for the same purpose. I'd also point out that slippery slope arguments should be dealt with at policy pages, not individual image discussions - these are expected to weight the particular aspects of the image under consideration. If the same rules could be used as a general template for all similar cases we wouldn't have NFC review, we would have delegated enforcement to administrators with no need to discuss each image. We don't accept "this other article uses non-free images as a valid reason to keep a non-free file; therefore the opposite shouldn't be valid reason to delete them either. Diego (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Keep. Someone says above that "The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose."
      I agree that that's legitimate. The problem is that the policy is broken. The policy only permits multiple non-free images if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary. If the text is about one pound coins, you're only permitted to have a single image of a one pound coin. In order to have multiple images of various types of one pound coins, you would have to have text that talks about each kind of one pound coin specifically.
      Furthermore, this situation seems to be clearly covered by "non-free usage in galleries or tables". While some people have tried to justify this above, I don't see how these justifications wouldn't apply to pretty much every case where someone makes a non-free image table; they don't really explain why the coin table is exceptional compared to those other cases.
      I am tempted to say IAR, but this isn't an edge case, it's an intentional decision by the WMF. If we were to IAR this there would be equal justification for IARing every case of "the purpose is to show what the designs were".
      So I'd say delete it, because it's based on a clear policy that you can't IAR away, and maybe put some pressure on the WMF to loosen the policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does policy say that multiple non-free images are only permitted if "if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary" ?
      NFCC #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", and NFCC #3a says that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Arguably both of those are the case here. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Each piece of NFCC is evaluated on its own as well as in context of the article. So each individual image has to meet NFCC#8 (among the other NFCC criteria). Given what is discussed about the historical mintings (read: little to none), what is the harm in replacing the images with the Royal Mint link (a free replacement) where they are pictured in a single place? Why do the images need to be on this page on Wikipedia to understand the rest of the details about the One pound coin? --MASEM (t) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply, because our articles ought to be self-contained and self-sufficient -- for one thing, so that people can print them out if they want to; but that's not the only reason. As stated above, what the different designs of the coins look like is directly relevant to the topic of the article. And it has a direct practical relevance as well, because it is what makes the coins that people have in their pockets readily identifiable. Given that Jimbo himself has now said he doesn't have a problem with these images, I'm surprised you haven't dropped the stick. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How is it important? If you took that section out, the article is still "complete". If you took the table out and replaced it with text to point out that different back designs and sayings have been used over time, it would still be a complete understanding of the coin. Knowing the history of the coin designs does not aid the reader to understand the history and importance of the one pound coin itself. And saying that its needed to identify the coins in their pocket shows that the only purpose this table serves presently is as a coin guide, which is something we are not. Again the idea of having to be detail-complete is the wrong type of thinking for an encyclopedia. We are not meant to be the only resource people will ever use, by design. We are here to provide the broadest level of coverage so that we get readers familiar with a topic and gain enough understanding, and then when we get to more detailed information that may only be of interest to a small subset of that readership, provide them with the approach references and links for them to learn more, particularly if we can offset non-free use to these areas. And to note, Jimmy's opinion is only one voice with regards to anything on en.wiki, and has no weight compared to anyone else unless he said he was specifically speaking on behalf of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you say that a reader adequately understand the topic when she is not able even to tell whether what's in her pocket is a one pound coin or not? Understanding a coin in common usage passes at the very leat by being able to identify it with some confidence. Diego (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If I have a strange coin in my pocket, I would not be turning to an encyclopedia to identify it, I would be looking for a coin catalog that is specifically designed for this function. This is a common failure - people expect WP it be something it is not, considering the type of feedback I see regularly on pages (eg for fictional works, people want full fledged fan guides; for video games, full strategy guides, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's a miserably small perception of what WP is for, a 'failure of ambition' as I put it on Jimbo's talkpage.
      No, we'll never cover everything. But in every article I contribute to, I try to get in as much of the topic as I can. That's the ambition that built WP, and the ambition that it needs to survive and to continue to grow. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a reason we have WP:NOT and why one of the 5 pillars is about indiscriminate information. It's valid information, but its not the type of information that an encyclopedia would necessarily cover as it is better suited to a coin collector's catalog/guide. Add in the non-free issues with presenting that information, and that makes it even more a point to use a reference link than to include. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well it's for the community to decide of course, but I don't see the systematic organisation of relevant information about a topic remotely as indiscriminate information. To me this seems a world away from the examples of indiscriminate information presented at WP:IINFO. Last night when I went to the cornershop, there were five pound coins in my pocket, each with a different design. It seems not at all unreasonable to want -- and to expect -- to be able to be able to find out more about them.
      More generally, I see your definition of an encylopedia as a "tertiary summary of topics" as unduly narrow. Something we excel at -- and which encyclopedias have always excelled at -- is to collate and organise primary verifiable information about the present and the past of the world in a systematic organised accessible way. Just as this article does. Verifiability is non-negotiable, but whether I am writing about Quantum Mechanics or about the London Underground, the ambition is the same: to describe the world, not to describe what others have written about the world. Jheald (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And that would be original research - we are meant to be writing about what others have said about the world, as a tertiary source, not what we feel is important. We are supposed to mirror the coverage of a topic by sources, and not give undue weight to small details that may be verified by not widely covered by sources. From the standpoint of these coins, I have tried to look for other sources that talk about the history of the minting but while certainly not a thorough review, have come up blank save for Royal Mint hits, telling me this is an interesting detail but not the type that would be in an encyclopedia. (I am not saying there is no such information out there, but it's not obvious to locate). It would be undue weight to use the dozen-some non-free images to illustrate something that is basically datum (that varieties of mintings have been done over the years) and not discussed in depth. If this information could be found, that would be something. If a single image from the Royal Mint with all (or most) of the coins pictured (as to keep it to a single non-free use image as opposed to a user-created montage), that would be something. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed; we have policies that (for good encyclopedic reason) require us to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources". This is especially important in the case of NFC—we have to use the works of secondary sources to be able to determine if NFCC#8 is satisfied, without them, we have to assume that it's not.—Aquegg (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Significance for NFCC #8 is something that is assessed by the community using its sense and good judgement. Secondary sources can be helpful in that, but it is not a requirement. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      But without any sources to discuss the matter, and without the use being clearly obvious (eg those identified at WP:NFCI, the need for the images will always remain in question. Providing sourced commentary about non-free images is the most objective measure of meeting NFCC#8 and one that few can dispute towards the NFCC#8 end (there may be other reasons beyond that). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, c'mon, don't give me that. Non-free images are regularly deleted that nevertheless have sources covering the topic described in them, even for cases directly accepted at WP:NFCI, because "the topic is not of visual nature, and can be described with words". That line of reasoning would be much more solid if those arguing for deletion actually changed their opinions, when sources describing the topic identified by the image are provided (you sometimes accept those, but I think you might be the only one; and not consistently). Flip-flopping between "doesn't have references" and "can be described with words" is a common technique used in deletion discussions to win arguments when NFCC#8 is the only contentious subject at hand and every other snippet of policy is met. Diego (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And you completely ignored the caveat I said, that sourced commentary assures NFCC#8 but doesn't assure the other points are met. If an image can be completely described with text even though the concept is described by sources, that meets NFCC#8 but fails NFCC#1. There are 10 requirements that have to be meet for all non-free. This concept is even spelled out at NFCI, that while those cases will generally be appropriate, there are still other NFCC conditions they could fail. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Your idea of a single photo covering as many coins as possible is a good one; though the result would still be non-free, so it won't trigger NFCC#1 (text wouldn't serve the same purpose) nor #3 (all coins should nevertheless appear for identifying them all, which is the point for which they're used) - so it's a "nice to have" if that image can be created, but not a must - and all the other points are covered. My point is that deciding whether any criterion at NFC, and NFCC#8 in particular, are always subject to editorial discretion during the review discussion, as Jheald remarked. Diego (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is editorial discretion, but local consensus does not trump global, so when it comes to deletion discussions, what the interested editors feel is correct could be proven wrong by the global involvement. That's why the idea of critical commentary as objective evidence that there is contextual significance is the best way to show that NFCC#8 is at least met, though that doesn't necessarily speak to the rest of the terms. If there was discussion about all or even some of the historical mintings, my arguments that this fails NFCC#8 would be very flimsy. But without discussion, there's very little obvious reason to keep them, since NFCC#8 is not clearly met. This is why even a single montage image with some of the coins as taken by the Royal Mint would at least be more suitable; it may not cleanly meet NFCC#8 as much as we'd like, but now you've met NFCC#3 much better (you'd have 2 + 1 images instead of 2 + dozen images) and still give the reader an idea of what these other designs looked like, since the table includes a verbal describe of the mark. (And as a possiblity that just came to mind, since the latter part of this series has used heraldic marks, is there a possibility the heraldic symbols might be in the PD - not on the coins but as a standalone image?) --MASEM (t) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I only hope that you hold on to that sentiment for the deletion review of Jessica Alba's Playboy cover, which is coming anytime soon. ;-) Diego (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      On that, as previously mentioned, the image of her in Playboy wasn't discussed in a critical manner - that she had an image in Playboy, yes, but you didn't need to see the image to understand the text as nothing directly commented on that image. So both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 failed. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So you didn't really mean to base the evaluation of the criterion (significance of the image with respect to the topic) on the availability of sources then? It still depends on how you choose to interpret what the sources say? Diego (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you're missing the point. In the Alba case, the issue with her photo being used by Playboy was certainly covered by sources, but there was no specific critical commentary from sources on the actual image used by Playboy discussing the photo. If there was that, the image would have certainly been kept. So now the question falls to that while there was sourced discussion from secondary sources about the overall incident that happened to involve a photo, is the photo necessary to document that? And the answer was no - it showed Alba, which we had images (free) of already, and the concept that there was a controversy about a photo on Playboy is understood without seeing the specific photo, thus failing NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. This is why we generally ask for sources discussing the actual image or concepts in the image itself, which did not happen here. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that you're moving goal posts. The NFCC#8 criterion requires "contextual significance", which could be decided by editorial judgement, yet you're here claiming that it should have "sourced commentary" of the topic depicted. But when pointing out that you still opposed an image that included sourced commentary (and there were sources commenting on the content of the photo, they can be still found at Jessica Alba#Public image), you change the criterion again to "specific critical commentary of the photo itself", even when this discussion started you didn't consider the content of the image itself to be significant enough to provide understanding to readers. You have to make up your mind - either the content of the image is significant to the understanding or it isn't, but you can't have it both ways. Diego (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes you are missing the point. The first test for the Alba image is if the image itself was the subject of sourced commentary, not the events around the image (there is a difference here). If there was sourced commentary on the image, NFCC#8 would have been met, and in considering all the other NFCC, those all would have been met. But without sourced commentary on the image itself, that considering with NFCC#8 fails. Thus, the next step is to consider if there was sourced commentary about the events around the image as to meet all NFCC. There certainly was sourced commentary about the event, so that helps to meet NFCC#8 but, as pointed out by the FFD, NFCC#1 wasn't met as "a nude picture of Alba used on the cover of Playboy" is easily described by text, and that the other part of NFCC#8, the omission of the image, wasn't deterimental to the reader's understanding of the situation. Thus it failed there. The counter example is the image of OJ Simpson as used in O._J._Simpson_murder_case; the booking photo of OJ isn't what is the subject of commentary but how Newsweek purposely darkened to cover the story, and this is a visual aspect to the overall issue; there is no such thing with the Alba case. Getting back to the coins here, again, there is no sourced commentary to necessitate a need to see the historical versions of the coins or the situation around the coins, and as the reader's understanding of the Pound coin in general is not harmed by their removal due to this lack of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. There is no double metric going on here, it is straightforward application of looking for criticial commentary to give the most support to use images. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the topic is visual in nature, to the point of requiring sources to cover the image itself and not just its content, then it cannot be replaced with text. In any case, you've crafted a collection of requirements that you're passing as mandatory; even if you manage to make them coherent, they still are way stricter than the already stricter-than-free-use criteria that were agreed by consensus when the NFC policy was written. Diego (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Not everything that is visual in nature needs to be seen to understand it, if the visual appearance is not discussed and the only manner to show it is NFC. Hence why the Alba cover was not necessary - it is a (ymmv) an artistic visual work but there was no specific discussion of the visual aspects, just that it existed (this was sourced). Ergo, you don't need to see the image to understand it existed. Of course, if the image was free, no one would stop you including it, but non-free policy requires a strong metric to include. Similarly, while we know and validate historical versions of these coins exist, there is no discussion on the importance or visual nature of the design, and given how many NFC images would be needed to show them all, it would be inappropriate to include them. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed my !vote to "Keep" because WP:NFC permits images of "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." It is plausible that "currency" includes coins, so we are permitted to have images of coins to show what they look like, even though the policy does not permit that in general. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To comment on that, each case listed in NFCI (which is a guideline) does note that all other NFCC have to be met still for those conditions to apply. There's no question from NFC that the front/back images of the current minting can be kept per that reasoning from NFCI - the coin is being discussed at length. But all additionaly images weight on minimal use (NFCC#3) and lack of any significant to be kept (NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:George Ferguson manifesto.jpg

      The subject, George Ferguson (architect), is alive, kicking, still making public appearances as Mayor of Bristol and still wearing red trousers. There is therefore no true bar to creating a free replacement. William Avery (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This might be justified if it was in a context of "George Ferguson, as he presented himself for his manifesto photograph". Certainly the wearing of what looks like a white poppy and red poppy together is politically significant (that alone would justify the image, if anyone cared to write content discussing it).
      If it's being used as merely a Ferguson mugshot though, it's a clear fail. If you just hold a camera up in the middle of Bristol, Ferguson will materialise in front of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The current rationale says "The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, illustrating a single educational article", so I would say it is being used as a mugshot. The article where it is used contains no discussion of poppies, or how he presented himself, beyond a mention of the standard red trousers. William Avery (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And if he is as public as that, I would not be surprised if one can convince he to dress and pose for such a photo to match the manifesto one, if that appearance is critical. But yes, this image is completely improper. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Maids and Music.jpg

      The use in All-female band violates WP:NFCC#10c. Both, the use in All-female band and the use in The Ingenues might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Allmonsters.jpg

      The use in All Monsters Attack violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:OwlCityGalaxies.ogg

      The use in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) violates WP:NFCC#10c. The uses in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) and Galaxies (song) both violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alliancefrancaiselogo.png

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance Française French Film Festival, Alliance Française de Madras and Alliance Française de San Francisco. Might not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ALDE logo.svg

      The yellow stars in my opinion are ineligible for copyright protection in the United States. I am not sure whether the blue brushstrokes alone are eligible or whether the combined work with the strokes and the stars are. As such, this might not meet TOO. Currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:PR image6-crop.png

      This image might violate WP:NFCC#1, though I am not 100 percent sure about that. The uses in Altair, Altair in fiction and Stars and planetary systems in fiction violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. Unsure whether File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg#Fair use rationale is considered to bring the file in compliance with 10c in Chevelle per WP:NFURG or not. Both uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the uses in Alternative metal and Chevelle might both violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alice in Chains, Alternative metal, Facelift (album) and Man in the Box. All uses might also violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tool - Undertow - Prison Sex - sample.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. The uses in Alternative metal, Prison Sex and Tool (band) might all violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might also violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Usm100.PNG

      The use in OZ (Ultimate Marvel) might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Alma Halliwell

      This article contains two non-free images, namely File:Amandabarrie.jpg in the infobox and File:Alma sedgewick.jpg in Alma Halliwell#Casting. The use of both images might violate WP:NFCC#3a. The second image also appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in this article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      One non-free character image on an article about a notable character is generally accepted for identification, so one of these is at least okay. I don't know enough about the show to judge which or if both can be used, though the article text doesn't suggest a lot about needing both images. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Americanchamberofcommercejapanlogo.gif

      I am unsure whether the red stripes on the letters are enough to push this above TOO or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Astley Cooper School (crest).jpg

      Unsure whether this meets WP:TOO or not. Without the small deer emblem, I'd be almost certain it didn't meet TOO, but perhaps the emblem pushes it above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the school's in England, which has a lower originality threshold than the US, I would say it is considered creative enough for copyright. It would be a different case if it was a US school. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case the file should be tagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Could the use of the animal image in this file be considered de minimis then? I guess not, since the animal forms a quite recognizable part of the image. So the image should perhaps just be left 'as is'. Maybe the file redirects should be eliminated, though that is probably not really an issue. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No way that's de minimus use. Image redirects are fine. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Wang Hai PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This ridiculous situation is a perfect argument to move Wikipedia into a place with a less broken legislation, fast. US disregard foreign copyright, they get publicly slapped in the face for it, they "fix" it in the usual convoluted lawmaking style, and end up disregarding foreign copyright expiration. If it were possibly to buy a nation a cookie, here's a good reason to do it. All the while, the Wikipedia content police have everlasting fun. No, this is not a call for action, just a remark :) Nettings (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to find the same copyright issues anywhere in the world. The laws are not unified to any significant degree, and if we were to move the servers to say, Europe, you'd still find lots of problems with foreign copyrights. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the same kinds of problems exist in all countries. For example, Japan discovered an interesting bug in the Berne Convention: by simply refusing to recognise the statehood of a country, you can refuse protection to works from that country. See this case between a North Korean film producer and a Japanese TV broadcaster. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fan Wanzhang PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Zhao Baotong PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Album covers on Nyles Lannon

      Following a merge of two articles about albums into the artist's page, Nyles Lannon now has two non-free files on it: File:Astronomy for Children.jpeg and File:Chemical Friends (album).jpg.

      While I think one image is fine, I am not sure that having both meets the minimal use requirements of NFCC 3. I don't have any preference which image is kept if only one is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Kuwait FA.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Epica - Design Your Universe.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Nightwish - Nemo.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ridin Dirty.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif

      Violates NFCC 1, because an image serving the same purpose could reasonably be created, and NFCC 3, as it uses the same resolution of the original work published in a commercial publication. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      At first impression I thought a free replacement could be created. But then I noticed that the designs themselves are also copyrighted, so an editor-created drawing would still be a derivative work.
      And the image is merely line drawings and text. How could you reduce it more without making it unreadable? The half-size version created automatically makes the text labels too small and blurry to read. Diego (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • USA only has FOP for buildings which have been constructed. Aren't some of these unconstructed variants of a constructed building? Only those variants which actually have been constructed would seem to qualify for FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would expect that one could remake this drawing as a free image, using highly simplified versions of the five buildings, even if simple rectangles and triangles. At some point in the future when all buildings shown are constructed, a new version can be remade using photo representations of the buildings. Note that this does NOT apply to the fine text on the drawing which cannot be replicated in full, but the data - heights, years, etc. - are uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Diplo Logo.png

      Image is too simple, thus ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ineligible for copyright in USA, yes. Possibly not in Malta. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Weirton Medical Center Logo.gif

      Too simple so ineligble? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Advanced Format 4Kn logo.png

      Too simple, ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • This image consists of simple geometric shapes and text only, so it shouldn't meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. — Dsimic (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree—this does not meet in the threshold for originality needed for copyright. It might still have trademark issues but I have serious reservations about copyrights on such an image. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Odan.jpg

      Trill (Star Trek) is now a redirect, this image no longer qualifies for fair use as its only use is a list article. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Living in the Material World LP side one face label.jpg

      This is an image of an album (the CD/LP, not the cover as such) used in four articles about songs from the album. While it's generally held that a single album cover in the article about the song (or a lone single cover in an article about a song) is acceptable, there's never been any consensus that album covers (or scans of LPs) can/should illustrate articles about songs featured. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      If there is no identification image (a cover of a single) for a notable song, the album cover is not an acceptable replacement. These extra uses must be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Love for Sale (Boney M. album)

      This article has two different covers. I added details about the racy cover. I wrote the details about alt cover as "different", but I can't find sources discussing the alt cover. Does use of both covers meet NFCC? George Ho (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The covers are very different. The U.S. was the biggest music market in the world at the time, and so a hugely important market for any band. So it would seem to fit the criteria. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's probably likely that the US cover was done to reduce the racy-ness of the common cover at the time, so while it is okay to use both, I bet some research can find out why the US cover was done differently if you can already source how the main cover was considered racy. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked through vinyl editions. I realized that the front US cover is also the standard back cover. Therefore, should I use the back cover that contains the tracklist, or should the American/Canadian front cover remain? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd keep the normal US cover, this emphasizes how they dropped the racy cover for the less controversal one. (At least they didn't make it all black....) --MASEM (t) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:2007 stamps of Niger.jpg

      Newly orphaned image replaced by free one. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete: Orphaned; other non-free images available in the original article. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The Otto Show

      I found the poster that promotes this episode. I also found the drawing promo. Should either image be used? George Ho (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      A promotional poster for a specific episode (eg its branding by the copyright holders themselves) is reasonable to include as an identifying image. I know a handful of other Simpsons episodes have these and they are reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Added poster. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This Is Spinal Tap

      Should I use either the VHS release poster or the screenshot to replace the re-release poster? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I would completely avoid VHS release posters over the film poster, as , as this shows, the VHS poster is filled with ad-speak and less visually helpful. The re-release here is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      What about screenshot? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless the film never had a movie poster (some of the really early ones, and today, some more independent ones), we would not use a screenshot over the poster. The movie poster in the standard format will give a lot more information (actors, production company, etc.) than the screenshot. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Picasso and the Ballets Russes

      This is a little messy, most of these should be pd-1923 except for the costume which is probably replaceable Werieth (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      George Woodbridge

      Do we really need 5 non-free files? I think the bio pic and one example should be enough Werieth (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The bio pic is fine. One example of his work in Mad is clearly warranted but I'm surprised we're not using one of his more detailed scenes (which are described in text). I'm on the wall with the historical figure drawing, since that's a radically different style but that's not really discussed. The self-portrait isn't necesssarily and/or duplicative of the photo. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Calculator (Windows)

      Do we really need 9 images? Werieth (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You definitely don't need to show the calculator's look across all iterations of Windows. I think only 2 images are appropriate - the UI in the normal mode, and the UI in the scientific mode. These could be from different Windows versions. Arguably, one image could be sufficient, using a free mock up to show the different layouts of the "keys" between versions. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Walker (Star Wars)

      Cant we trim this down to 1-2 examples? Werieth (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The only two canonical ones are the AT-AT and AT-ST. If you keep the Hoth AT-AT and the AT-ST pictures, that's sufficient. This is not a fan guide. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg

      In the Western Wall entry there's only a passive mention of the picture with only one word “iconic” qualifies as commentary. This most likely does not qualify for free use as the rational "The photograph is perhaps the most famous representation of Israel's participation in the war." implies that there are many photos on the subject so it is unlikely that all pictures about Israel's participation in the war meet NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" in the sense that illustrate Israel's participation - a free picture may be just enough to express the idea that Israel participated the war. The section that mentions "Images with iconic status or historical importance" (NFCI#8) explicitly states that it does not override NFC.

      In the Six-Day War entry there are some commentaries about the picture, however they are in footnotes, not in body text. This probably fails NFCC#8 "Contextual significance".

      The Tank man picture was iconic to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, but the discussion was to only use the picture in Tank man article only - not even allowed in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article.

      --Skyfiler (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      As a procedural note, I could have sworn this photo has come up before either at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You Kent Always Say What You Want

      Should I use the poster of streaking Homer to represent the episode? George Ho (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It would be reasons if you can get a clean version of the poster (digital image ideally). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      At Long Last Leave

      I hope the poster represents this episode. This should be the last request I make about posters of episodes. George Ho (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think that helps in this particular case as the poster simply marks the milestone of 500 episodes and not anything specific about it (compared to other posters). --MASEM (t) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Style 360 (logo).png

      Too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ricky B. Byrd, Jr.jpg

      Uh... is any user allowed to upload their copyright work into Wikipedia services? Blurred Lines 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not under a non-free license (all user-made contributions are expected to be GFDL, CC-BY or the like, including text and images). --MASEM (t) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Kata'ib Hezbollah flag.svg

      Not sure this file is free, and am unsure about the claims made in regards to its license. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the reasoning is right - Iraq is one of the few countries US does not have reciprocal copyright terms with. However, per this, we've been asked to respect copyrights of even countries like Iraq. So while the image technically would not have copyright protection in the US and thus the free SVG version made here (and can only be stored here due to that nature), I would think it be better to treat this as non-free per request of the Foundation. Meaning that this SVG is completely improper (as a user-made non-free SVG), and we should be using a reduced raster image and called out non-free instead. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.svg

      This file's license section says it only allows identification and critical commentary, however it is used in user page info boxes which looks like a violation of WP:NFCCP#9 "only in article namespace".--Skyfiler (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of *blank* Episodes

      Recently, there has been altercation with the removals of the logos from the lists of episodes of Family Guy, American Dad!, and maybe even more to be exact. I posted on PeeJay2k3's talk page about this situation, and his responds was this. Do you agree with the conclusion that non free TV logos that are used in list of episodes should be all removed? Blurred Lines 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      • Delete car photo. I 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Comment I didn't follow this case too closely at the time, but this image discussion brings to mind editors' discussion surrounding the death of Mark Uganda. There, we have File:Mark-duggan.jpg (in the lead/infobox) and File:Kelvin Easton and Mark Duggan.jpg (a little lower down. Two years on, and there appears to be consensus for the retention of both pictures there. At the time of that discussion, WP:NPOV was cited,[30] with the comment ... but this is an encyclopaedia and we're trying to maintain some degree of credibility by not taking sides. (I don't see the subsequent block of that user as invalidating the argument.) So a question we should also perhaps be considering in the case at hand is that of how representative of the subject as a person the hoodie photo is. If the media chose to use this iconic photo, such editorial decisions are generally more to do with selling of newspapers, etc. than of presenting the subject in the neutral fashion which we must always aspire to here on Wikipedia. -- Trevj (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The two photos are for different purposes, both of which are required for a comprehensive encyclopedia article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep both One (the hoodie) is important because of its use as an icon in the protests, the other (the backseat) as a much better photo of Martin. htom (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the hoodie image as it is freely replaceable. The image was used on public displays of outrage, yes, so that is what should be shown, are crowds of people with the sign. Which at least one free (CC-BY) one exists at flickr [31] (ETA that I also see the flickr uploader has also uploaded at least one on commons, so there's going to be no question about getting more from this); one I'm seeing has his parents talking (bonus points), and a nice image of the hoodie used on protest signs in a de minimus fashion; a portion already used in Trayvon's article. The main profile one is okay and is the non-free that should be used on both pages. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete car photo. On the Travyon Martin article, both images are being used solely for identification purposes - the car photo in the "Digital footprint" section egregiously so and should both be removed. The Shooting of Travyon Martin article uses the car photo for identification only, while the hoodie photo is discussed in the text and so its inclusion does meet the NFC criteria. Masem's comment above is interesting, but looking at that flickr stream I don't see any photographs that, when used as a thumbnail in the article, are suitable for identifying the image in question that don't fail the de minimus requirements. A free image of the protests would be useable as well as the non-free image but could not be a replacement for it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the one with Trayvons parents with signs with the hoodie photo around them (of which a crop to just the parents is used in the shooting article) would definitely be de minimus of the hoodie photo and show its use in protest while showcasing his parents. Hence why the car photo should be kept for clean NFC identification, and the hoodie deleted in favor of it being shown on protest signs as described in text. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: I agree that having two photos is unnecessary, but why is everyone here saying that the car photo should be the one that is deleted? I would prefer a natural photographic image over one that is digitally enhanced and altered with instagram effects. The addition of special effects to photographs adds a psychological disbalance POV-wise for the reader (official imagery of North Korean president Kim Il-sung are enhanced to make him appear majestic compared to natural photographs of him, compare this with this). I believe that the hoodie image is too unnatural, displays the subject in an artificial light, and that the car photograph is more suitable for an encyclopedia. The airbrushing in the hoodie image is very obvious: we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a glamour magazine. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for my personal opinion, Keep car photo, delete hoodie photo, reason being that having two images violates WP:NFCC#8, and using an enhanced image violates WP:NPOV. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep both I looked and it seems we can have sourced commentary regarding both images so that would make both acceptable per the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      Note: I've left another note Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Unilever_Brands hoping for someone with more experience than I to give clarification, especially since we would have to license these images under the same licenses as those above (as derivatives) and potentially link to the OTRS ticket. Hopefully there will be response this time. I am inclined to agree with Masem, but if any Admin or OTRS member has concrete evidence, I would support this discussion being closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. I'm an OTRS member. We did in fact receive what appears to be a valid permission & release for the following files:
      The license specified in the tickets were all Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike v1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0. The email came from a legitimate source and there is no reason to doubt its validity. Feel free to wait for a third opinion. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As the 2 logos mentioned at the top (Dove, Knorr) are hosted on Commons then, (if the vector versions are concluded to be derivatives under the same free licence) it'd make sense to move them to Commons in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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 [32] 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. [33] USchick (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      From the image caption at [34]: "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Uploader here. I saw four alternative files in commons, Ghouta_Massacre1 through Ghouta_Massacre4. I removed the Ghouta_Massacre1 from the article (see here [35]) 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      I have to agree with Masem on this and USchick also. Blade-of-the-South talk 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete/Remove image. This image could be replaced by a non-free image, and as such fails WP:NFCC#1. As there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it can be replaced. The frothing that is depicted in the image can occur for more than just chemical attacks, including being the result of disease or exhaustion. Because of this, a free image of a person or child frothing could replace this image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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 [36], 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      But are they not under license PD-old also? --Odysses (○) 00:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      The article presents and discusses changes in the typography (presentation of the text on the page) in these books. To do so, it uses non-free images that are pertinent, non-replaceable, and minuscule in extent. So the images satisfy Wikipedia's non-free-content policies. Masem's comment immediately above mine seems to get it absolutely right--alongside the PD images, the non-PD images give non-replaceable illustration of the "explanations...necessary/present." Wareh (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I lean to the side of thinking that these are PD-text and/or PD-old (for the older versions). I do not think there is anything creative enough in the layout of the text to make the images eligible for copyright. If these are determined to be free, I do not see any reason they cannot stay as they are the subject of commentary, and would therefore, in my opinion, pass WP:NFCC#8 (and the others). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg

      Isn't this {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Frankly, I do not know. Copyright can be claimed by organization which, however, is unofficial in terms of any domestic law as was never registered and neither was the logo. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it is PD-ineligible, but the image is originally created in Syria. I cannot find anything about COM:TOO having to do with Syria, so to be on the safe side, I would mark it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Syria}}. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm wondering if it's too simple to be eligible for copyright. Afterall, it's just a star and three letters - basic geometry and text? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I dont know if Im saying something stupid, but cant it be recreated as a free SVG file?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if recreated as an SVG, there remains if the design is copyrightable or not. If this was an image from a US organization, it would clearly be ineligible, but if was created in a country like UK, it would not be, and since we have no clear line of what Syria's copyright law is, we need to play it save. It's still okay to use as a logo for the organization in a non-free manner, but that's probably its only allowed use. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Thomas Heming shop interior and trade card c.1765.jpg

      The file name suggests that this is ancient (making it PD) but there is no source. Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I see very little reason to even believe these remain under any type of copyright, given the looks and purposed age. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be careful about this one. In the rationale it is stated that this is from Company archives, so while this makes it appear as if this leads to compliance with WP:NFCC#4, I'd argue the opposite is the case. Material from private collections or archives has a high chance of being unpublished, so this image might violate NFCC4. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The material is certainly published now, as a google image search pointed me back to the Heming jewelry page with these images. When they were published, that's different. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I see. They are both displayed here, which means they comply with NFCC#4. So now it would be interesting to know whether that was the first publication or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If it was created in 1765 and not published before 2003, then it would satisfy {{PD-US-unpublished}}. If 1765 is the creation date, then I don't think that it would be copyrighted. There could potentially be problems if it was first published between 1923 and 2002, but if it was made in 1765, this seems unlikely. The only question is whether it indeed is from 1765. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is no good evidence that the image satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or that it was made in 1765, we should leave it as non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is left as non-free, then the image should be removed from Heming (company) for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Daktronics logo.PNG

      PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I have no idea how the United States copyright office would treat this one, but note that the blue figure could be created by merging and/or overlapping some simple geometric shapes (a blue square, a blue semi-circle, a white circle and a white semi-circle), so this might lack the amount of creativity required for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the image is PD-textlogo as the image can be easily recreated with simple shapes. I do not think the logo passes TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg

      Also File:Ursula Andress in bikini.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

      Which one is better for white bikini of Ursula Andress: the file in heading, or the other image below the heading? By the way, one of the image is used in more than one article George Ho (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I meant, do such uses meet WP:NFCC, especially the criterion 3 (minimal use) and criterion 8 (contextual significance)? Rationale or no rationale won't matter much, as long as rationale is created, easily resolving "no rationale" issue. George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Raquel Welch in deer-skin bikini.jpg

      Also File:Raquel welch 1millionyearsbc.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

      This image is the black-and-white copy of the famous Raquel Welch bikini poster. One of them is used in more than one article. We are trying to minimize the use of non-free images here, so which of these images must be kept: color or greyscale? And to which page does the fur bikini image belong? George Ho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As long as a fair-use rationale is properly completed for each article each image is used in, there shouldn't be a problem. One is used for the film, the other is used for the BLP, because it was a very widely published cultural artifact of a notable person, and is even notable WP:N in its own right. The black-and-white version appears a bit clearer, but the color version of her pinup poster is certainly more true-to-life. Tough call. Worth discussing. If there are any defects in the NFUR, let's get that fixed up. --Lexein (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The black and white version is not necessary in any article. The color version should be kept. It can be used in Raquel Welch where there is critical commentary. It should not be used in Bikini in popular culture at all. and I am not sure about the other use in One Million Years B.C. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Rationale for excluding the black&white version? It was certainly published in both forms. The black&white poster was cheaper. Just curious. --Lexein (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lexein:, good question. It is part personal preference and part policy mixed with common sense. We do not need both. Actually, policy prohibits both being on Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC#3a). And if we cannot have both, the color version does a better job of actually showcasing the bikini. This is an online encyclopedia, and cost of color is not an issue, therefore the color image is more relevant to the mission of Wikipedia. Also, one could argue that the color version plays more into the accompanying text therefore helping to better satisfy WP:NFCC#8. But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg

      Is this logo copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The interesting question for EN Wikipedia is whether this is eligible for copyright protection in the United States (see the third part of the introduction paragraph at Wikipedia:Public domain). I don't think this meets the threshold for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Tagged as USonly-ineligible. What about copyright in Philippines? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The copyright law of the Philippines is largely a duplicate of the copyright law of the United States, apart from FOP, copyright term, copyright formalities and some other minor things. The threshold of originality of the Philippines is therefore likely identical to that of the United States. Are the brush strokes in the circle eligible for copyright in the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know. I think one would have to compare this with other works in a similar style where it is known whether they are eligible for protection or not. I am not sure where to start, though, and won't have the time to do the necessary research before next weekend. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe this image is on the borderline for whether or not it passes TOO, and therefore I believe we should have it tagged as non-free unless more concrete evidence is given one way or another. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg

      Is this logo copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I am unsure about the red word. If the red word were eligible for copyright protection on its own, it might form a more than de minimis part of the whole logo and thus push the whole logo above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the red word is just a font. Its not really too unique and therefore I believe the image does not pass TOO and is therefore not copyrightable in the US or in the Philippines (as most of their copyright law is identical to the US). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the red word is part of a complete font. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Emblem of the National Coalition of Afghanistan.svg

      Image appears to fail WP:NFCC#3b: unreasonably detailed for a non-free file. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't know if this affects that at all, but the detailed interior image itself is the National Emblem of Afghanistan. The only real difference is in the addition of the blue band with the party name. I don't know if maybe that then means that the party logo isn't creative enough to merit copyright? MrPenguin20 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The interior image isn't exactly File:National Emblem of Afghanistan 02.png, but is clearly a derivative of it. Might there be copyright inherent in the imperfect derivation of that image? If not, I agree, the blue band is not creative enough to cross the TOO. Though, I would also say, someone should look at the licensing of the files in Emblem of Afghanistan, which are mostly/all marked as own works, despite certainly being based on some official emblem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove/Delete image as it fails WP:NFCC#3b. There is far too much detail in the SVG file. The image should be smaller where all of the detail is not necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Star Wars music

      I cant see justification for 18 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The music notation is absolutely unneeded (reading through shows no discussion of the musical composition, and the average reader is not going to be able to appreciate those for what they are) so that's half the non-frees gone. But I would think that the iconic nature of the Star Wars films and its music can justify a larger number of music samples, but I think there's maybe 2 or 3 that are too many (Princess Leia, Han Solo + Leia, and Yoda seem less icon than the other themes given). I'm also confused by the use of MIDI over .ogg for this - it wouldn't affect NFC outside of removing any possible creativity on the MIDI version from a soundtrack-ripped .ogg, and the .ogg would clearly be a better representation (even at the low quality we ask) for understanding the orchestration of the music. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The musical notation is absolutely needed if an article is going to discuss thematic material. It doesn't matter what "the average reader" is going to appreciate - apart from this being a highly subjective measure, Wikiepdia is meant to impart knowledge, not limit its content to what the reader already understands. There's always the option of replacing the notation with a text description - something along the lines of "the tune that goes dum-dum--dum dah-dahhhh dadada daaah da" - but failing that, there's no more effective way of illustrating a theme than with a couple of bars of notation. These fall completely within Fair Use and I don't know why anyone would want to go to the trouble of deleting them when their presence is perfectly justified. Take these out and the whole article is diminished - like a seventh.Wikidwitch (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need that many musical notation files, however. "Yoda's Theme", "Parade of the Ewoks", "Han Solo and the Princess", and similar don't seem nearly as significant as some of the others. We also should evaluate the need of these files strictly in terms of what sourced textual content is present in the article. In other words, if there's less than one or two sourced paragraphs dedicated to the material depicted in the fair use files, we should remove the fair use file as not necessary to coverage of the material. The project considers fair use files to be harmful, and only acceptable when necessary. Unless the editors involved in the article can demonstrate the significance and complexity of the material by adequately supporting it with sourced text in the article, the file doesn't belong. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with Mendaliv. "Princess Leia's Theme" is probably also non-essential. The main theme, the Imperial March, and the Force theme are the most important pieces of music in the series by far. Whether or not the Rebel Fanfare needs to stay is up for debate IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no description of the musical themes, however, to require the notation. Nothing about chords, notes, rests, etc. that show an appreciation of the music composition that otherwise can't be heard. Spot checking other articles on musical works, I don't see a lot of musical notations being used even when the thematic contribution is discussed in depth, opting to describe what the reader will hear aurally as opposed to the score. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I don't see a need for the notations either. They are not discussed at all in prose as far as I can see, with the exception of one sentence in the Rebel Fanfare bullet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are way too many non-free music samples. We definitely need to get rid of many of them. I do not, however, have a good opinion of which should stay and which should go. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg

      This seems to be sourced to a book from 1701. If so, then it is PD-old, not unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I tried to verify the source through my academic databases. Unfortunately there are a great deal of entries called Armorial général de France, but none seem to (based on a search) include an entry for Goetz. I can't find a specific Alsatian volume, nor one from the 18th century. But, assuming the correctness of the stated source, I agree that this would probably be {{PD-art|PD-old}}. However, if it's a redrawing rather than a photograph, the uploader (or whomever drew it) probably has some copyright interest, in which case this may be an original publication, and therefore failing NFCC #4. I somewhat suspect this may be the case because, looking at the versions of Armorial général de France to which I do have access, have only been digitized in black and white, and do not appear to contain any figures as opposed to heraldic descriptions. That is, I believe the uploader, or someone else, may have created the image based off a description in one of these books, rather than something printed in one. User:Sulbud or User:Prince of Sulbod (the former's userpage redirects to the latter's) needs to respond to this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason to not WP:AGF. After much searching, I can see the book does exist, but I cannot find any evidence of the content of it. I am more than happy with the uploader's source and I believe the file should be marked as PD-old. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      An Unearthly Child

      I was going to nominate the infobox image for deletion, but then I saw there were two others in the article. What do you guys think of this article's use of non-free content? It does not appear that any of them satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The infobox image shows one of the defining moments from the whole 50-year history of that programme - it is the first time that we see that the police box is bigger on the inside. Just watch the episode - if you've never seen it before, it really does come as a shock, and the look on the face of Barbara demonstrates Jacqueline Hill's acting superbly. The other photo is from the untransmitted pilot, and is used to discuss differences between that and the episode as broadcast, such as the clothing. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've no opinion on the use of the screenshots, but the book cover, surely, is adding nothing. J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There's reasonable allowance for both screenshots (this is definitely a case that a episode could support a screenshot for identification), but yes, the book cover is absolutely unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But that section of the article is about the novel An Unearthly Child, and surely usage there satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Both the images are useful to the reader - there is no problem at all. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Covers of published works are only used when either the cover art is discussed in detail, or if it is the single identifying image for the published work in a standalone article about the published work. A cover of a novelization of a TV episode/series does not meet those requirements and thus is not appropriate per NFC. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or, one can have a cover image relevant to a substantial subsection that is important to the main topic of the article...
      But there is a more fundamental reason here. The original Doctor Who stories were typically broadcast once, and then never shown again -- at least not in their original country of origin. For a long time the books were the only forms in which stories the were accessible, and so the covers of the books became defining images associated with those stories.
      That is exactly the criterion -- a defining image for the work, for a significant period of time, in a significant market for it -- that is used to test whether alternate record album covers are justified; and the same logic applies here.
      The question we are asked to determine is whether the cover is something that adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. The status of the cover as the single image most associated with the work during that period means that it is significant to the topic, and our coverage of the topic would be significantly weakened without it. Jheald (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong, period; this is the same wrong logic that people apply to historical logos. If this was 1982 (a year after the publication of the book), sure. Today, the most identifiable parts of this episode are the intro sequence, title card, and first walk into the TARDIS, because of the restoration of that episode. So unless the recognizably or other factors of importance of the book's cover are describe, it is no longer the most identifying image for the episode. The alternate art aspect for albums is different because that is when there are two simultaneous covers that provide roughly equivalent identification. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete File:Unearthly Child pilot.jpg and File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg as they both fail WP:NFCC#8. I have no issue leaving the infobox image, I believe there is just enough context around the discussion of what is going on in the image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Comments - Pilot episode section deals with some of the changes, including the costume change. The picture there is a good illustration of that, so I'd say keep that. On the book cover - practically all Doctor Who articles have a cover of the novelisation, so if consensus IS no book cover, then the others need to be deleted as well. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep All files should be kept as each related to things-in-themselves, namely, realizations of the story. The broadcast is not the pilot is not the novelization. All are included in the article as related to the story, yet could potentially be articles unto themselves. So this is a multi-topic article, and each topic deserves a separate representation through image. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep I agree with ClaudeReigns, the broadcast pilot, the unaired pilot and the novelisation are all related but separate and thus each deserving of a separate image. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Taskbar

      I cant see justification for 8 non-free files when we have free examples (Unix based OSes) Werieth (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep. They're very usable as images of Windows of which a large part of the article. So I don't see any problems with them. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Non-free images is a subset of non-free content. Just because a large part of the article is biased towards Windows doesn't mean that it is correct. Werieth (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What bias? Windows was the one that originated and shaped the concept of the taskbar, as well as the most well-known implementation, so it's only natural for the article to be largely centered on it. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Needs to be trimmed down drastically. The changes in the task bar for windows, for example, should be tracked in the article about Windows (along with all the other major UI changes). Really, all this article need is one image that can even be a free mockup to show what the typical features of a task bar is, and then leave the individual OS pages to go into any appropriate details there. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 8.1 and 8 taskbars can easily be "free" if its only loaded up with open source programs (8's logo is definitely pd-ineligible). ViperSnake151  Talk  04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To Masem: I fail to see the problem with showing the taskbar's history. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. The Windows taskbar and its pictures are an important part of the article, as they show the concept's origins, its evolution, and its most well-known implementation, which is the one most versions are based on. Removing them would hurt the article. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep. I have nominated File:Windows 8.1 Taskbar.png for deletion but other than that, I categorically disagree with Masem. Keeping a low number of non-free contents in an article is good but we must not contract a psychological condition in which we are averse to seeing more then two non-free images in close proximity or more than four images in an article, not matter what. Replacing non-free images with mockups is against the spirit of WP:NFCC. Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How does the replacement of nonfree with a freely created mockup go against the spirit of NFCC?? That's exactly what NFCC says should be done. --MASEM (t) 09:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is a very dangerous argument. "Freely created mockup" is very close to falsification/misrepresentation. This is where NFC over-policing is clearly harming Wikipedia. I'm really sure I don't want to see "freely created mockup footage" of current news, for example. This page is an overview and historical timeline of taskbars. This warrants as many non-free illustrations as the article wants to discuss. Keep.Nettings (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A mockup of what the general concept of a OS taskbar (showing common elements like a launcher button, running tasks, etc.) is not misrepresentation and completely appropriate. A mockup of a specific OS version of a taskbar would be ( and also likely a derivative work and thus not free as well). The article is only about the concept of the taskbar so we don't need examples from every version of every OS. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What "we" need or don't need is really an editorial discussion that should be held on the article's talk page, by people willing to contribute to the article. There is no blatant NFC violation here that requires intervention or forced deletion of any of the NFC content. People who would like to suggest ways to reduce the use of NFC in a constructive way should really take that discussion to Talk:Taskbar. Until then, talk about what an article needs or doesn't need, is cheap. Nettings (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong. NFC is a global concern, and cannot be discussed in the vacuum of the article's talk page where retention of images will be desired. This NFCR process is specifically designed to discuss problematic issues and solutions in a global board since NFC is a core policy required by the Foundation, no different from handling BLP issues at a global noticeboard.--MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      FleetCommand, you didn't nominated it for deletion, you've just marked it as copyvio, that's difference. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Clara Bow

      Blatant violation of NFCC, given the number of free files we have depicting the person. Werieth (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Bow's life and career passes across the 1923 copyright divide, so we have a large number of free files in connection with her life and career prior to 1923. The fact the pre-1923 images are free and abundant shouldn't have anything to do with the usage of post-1923 images, which, in general (with a few exceptions), will be non-free. These should be evaluate in that post-1923 context, and not in the context of her life as a whole, or, for that matter, for the article as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      /headdesk. NFCC is evaluated at both a per image and article as a whole. Lets take a random example of the non-free files, File:Plasticagemp.jpg there is nothing visually unique or necessary depicted in that image that is critical to understanding who Bow was. It is a movie poster in which the actress starred in, We don't include those in the biography articles, See WP:NFC#UUI#6,9. Especially given that the file is also being used in the article about the film (which we can just link to, which would violate WP:NFCC#1) Werieth (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (hmm, "/headdesk". Now there's a rational, logical and persuasive argument!! What a minute.... ah -- /slapforehead. That'll show you, buddy!!!)

      Werieth, you don't write articles or improve articles or create articles, you do basically nothing but delete images, that's your chosen Wiki-shtick. So it's wrong of me, or anyone else for that matter, to expect that you would understand how the use of images in an article helps the reader in understanding the subject of the article. Given that, I think you had best restrict yourself to straight-forward and objectively obvious violations of the NFCC policy, and leave any subjective evaluations which require a nuanced understanding of context and purpose to other, more empathetic editors. That's because, as shown numerous times recently, when you start doing that kinda stuff, you really don't know what the fuck you're doing, and when people object to your badly thought out decisions, you get all upset and edit-war over them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There are too many non-free files in this article, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. File:Gritstrip bow hunter 1923.png could possibly be in the public domain, or if it is not currently, it would be soon, I would suspect. Until that date as it is proven to be in the public domain, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no contextual significance within the article about the cartoon/comic. File:FMorgan JHarlow 1933.png fails WP:NFCC#1 as this image is replaced by any of the free images around that time. There is nothing that the image shows that could not be replaced by text within the article (it could be replaced by its own caption). File:Plasticagemp.jpg and File:It1927clarabow.jpg (the film posters) should only be used on the film's article. There is consensus that posters should only be used on the actual article about the poster's subject and not on actor's or director's (etc) articles. File:Bow1933c.PNG might potentially be useful in the Hoop-La article, if there was not already a poster. As it stands, this image is purely decoration. All of the remaining images on the page are acceptable in their use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ian Scott (artist)

      I had four images on this article which have been deleted. I believe the use of those four images meets critera 1-10 on WP:NFCC. In particular I think their presence "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and (their) omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It is an article about a visual artist and to me greatly lacking without those pictures of his work which were previously there.Chriscs26 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given, like I said 1-2 examples are valid, not the 4-5 you where using, I think that the Ian Scott (artist)#Controversies section would be a great place to both provide an example and use the sourced commentary about the images (the controversy ) as a good compromise. We don't just sprinkle an artist article with their works to make the article look better. Our policy on non-free media is very strict, and it may mean that an article cant be illustrated to your preferences, but policy is fairly strict. Werieth (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The two images of works from the "Girlie Series" (Leapaway Girl) & (Track), were both illustrating not only commentary (by the curator of the national gallery, and an important historian respectively) in that section of the article, but they also best represent the 'controversies' section, as they are from the same series, but those two works are far more widely known & representative. (For instance, Leapaway Girl is one the few New Zealand paintings on the Goggle Art Project.). There is commentary throughout the article (35 cited art history publications/journals) so I can't for the life of me see any reason why the only image warranted would be in the controversies section? The other two images there (Quiver) & (Lattice No.58) are totally important to understanding the two different modes of Scott's work, realism and abstraction, local & international influence, which is really the core/theme of the entire article.

      I really think using 4 images to illustrate 12+ series of work over a 55 year period of work is 'minimal' as per the regulations & would appreciate the input of a few other impartial people here. Chriscs26 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Mathematically, you are wanting to put nearly 25% of the artist's work on their article. I think two pieces is a fair compromise, but personally I think two pieces that show the styles of the artist's work would be the most beneficial. I believe with critical commentary about the style, including reliable sources about the style and the specific paintings chosen would be the best path. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you suggesting that Scott only produced 16 works? The work titled Lattice No. 58 suggests otherwise. Four images over 55 years is minimal. I'd much rather defer to the subject expert who wrote the article - than those going by mathematical principals. Note that the author already compromised in allowing File:Ian Scott Air Disaster Over Mt Sefton 1967.jpg, an image of his early work to be deleted. - hahnchen 04:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Arguably, it's not how many works of his he made (and published/displayed publically) or how many we used. Since each were published individually, that means that we are using 4 separately copyrighted items in full (albeit low resolution to respect commericial opportunity). If it was the case that the first and original publication of these works were in a single collected book, then the argument of what %age of the original work would apply. The only number that is important here is that there is more than zero non-free, so we have to just the inclusion of any non-free based on the need to understand the topic. And for examples of an artist's work on the artist's page, we consider a minimal number of examples that have been quoted as strong representative examples of the artist's work, otherwise relying on either standalone pages for the specific pieces of art that are notable, or external links that may be in a much better shape under Fair Use to showcase the artist's entire body. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The decision shouldn't be based on a bartering system of "good compromise" but based on what is needed to illustrate Scott's key output. Scott's obviously a NZ artist of note who produced work over many decades (though I'm surprised there's no sign of a newspaper obituary). The Leapaway Girl is an obvious "keep", being described by the Museum of NZ as probably his most important work of that period. Lattice No.58 is probably a "keep" too, being a representative example of his 'lattice' paintings. As for the other two paintings illustrated, well, I can't see any reference to their importance in the article. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      In general, editorial discretion should have bearing on the inclusion of images in articles pertaining to visual art. I concur with the comment above by Hahnchen that we should be deferring to Chriscs26. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      His user name suggests he is the son of the artist. We generally go on what reliable independent sources say. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there's enough coverage of all four works in the article to justify their inclusion. - hahnchen 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png

      It was initially removed from the Arena Football League and restored by the uploader. I'm bringing it here as it appears to fail WP:NFCC#8, since there's no sourced discussion of the logo in the text. Mosmof (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The uploader appeared to just copy/paste the rataionale from the current logo, as it mentioned the sponsorship aspect which is in the new logo but not this old logo. And since the old logo is never discussed in text, it would fail NFC.
      I do offer the possibility of this being a uncopyrightable image in the US. If the logo were just the text and goalposts, it would clearly pass as an uncopyrightable image. The football shape is what is tickling creativitiy and I would think that this might fail the TOO test, but I would get more opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, now that I see your response, the best thing might be to move the file to Commons as a free (but trademarked) logo. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I just recommend waiting to get one or two additional opinions if its free/uncopyrightable in the US. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur with Masem that the image without the football is PD-textlogo as it fails TOO. But I believe that the football just barely pushes it over. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know, I don't see the football being any more complex than the "W" in the Best Western logo that's sort of the benchmark for TOO. Mosmof (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Duke Ellington at Fargo, 1940 Live

      We have 5 non-free covers with zero critical commentary of the covers, 4 of them should be removed. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep the main image, plus the two alternative historical covers, as it shows the evolution of the recording. The anniversary reissue covers are not necessary unless there's something significant about them. Three images in this context is acceptable, and the release history is discussed. The actual covers can be mentioned in the text if that's desired in order to increase an understanding of the release history. freshacconci talk to me 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't keep secondary/remaster/reprinted covers for sake of showing the evolution of the album's printing, unless there is discussion about the new cover art. You get one cover image for identification and require commentary on others to include them, if the covers are otherwise non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Commentary can be added. Clearly there is a significance to the two historical covers -- I was clearly not referring to the reissues on CD. Deleting all images is overkill and ignores visually-oriented readers. And I remind you that "you get one cover image" is based on interpretation of policy as the non-free policy is very fluid (I'm not sure who the "you" is as I didn't add these files to the article). I will do some research on the album and see if I can find some discussion on the cover changes. freshacconci talk to me 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • NFC is not fluid when it comes to cover art. It's well established that there are very limited exceptions to allow for additional cover art for published works outside the one for identification which can be used without commentary on the cover art itself. This generally is only for alternative cover art that is marketed at the same time as the other release but in a different region or market. The ones used here for historical reprintings don't fall into those typical exemptions, and given that it is just text + photographs of Duke's band, I'm not seeing how this is going to have critical commentary, or help the reader understand the article. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. In the case of this album, the original phonograph version is rare and the album has been re-released in other formats with other titles and track configurations. The album was even awarded a Grammy under one of these alternative titles with a different cover. Allmusic has reviewed two of the releases separately and all of these permutations are discussed in the article. Based on this, multiple image usage for this article clearly passes both the affirmative and negative of WP:NFC#8's contextual significance test. Because a cover is the primary visual identifier of a music work, the images both "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and their "omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Each version of the album has a different title and cover design in addition to content variations. I have added this commentary explicitly to the article. Having the article dependent on any one or two images would seriously mislead readers as to the sum of the article's content and (as User:Freshacconci notes above) erect a barrier to visually-oriented users. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The material you have added is completely unsourced, and has zero commentary on the pictorial contents of the covers. Just because an album has multiple covers doesn't mean that the visual covers are remarkable in any way. (Quite a few albums have had many many covers over their lifetime, and none of them where remarkable in any way). However cases like Virgin Killer are a prime example of the critical commentary that the policy is looking for. Visual elements of the cover are discussed in depth using third party reliable sourcing. Werieth (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien

      Zero sourced critical commentary on the extra emblems. They where originally in a gallery format and witched to right alignment when I removed them for NFG Werieth (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I concur the images fail WP:NFCC#8 as they are not necessary to the article. There is now a section on emblems that describes what the emblems look like, therefore causing the images to fail WP:NFCC#1. I personally do not feel that the emblem section is at all notable nor encyclopedic and the whole bit should be removed, starting with the images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that there is no commentary. There is commentary. Please review the article again. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is zero critical commentary. The only text about the images is describing the emblems and none of that is sourced. In fact, with full descriptions of the emblems (although not encyclopedic) we do not need the emblems themselves per WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arthur Dove

      Given we have 5 free files to provide examples of is work do we really need 5 more non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the fact that Arthur Dove is one of the most important 20th century American modernist painters - yes we need these images. And to make matters worse the above editor who was recently blocked for edit-warring and was warned for his attitude towards these somewhat debatable guidelines - Werieth attempted to DELETE nearly ALL of Dove's images - a few days ago. I'm removing the ugly banner he just placed on the Dove article, it's on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My original and subsequent edits where removing 5-7 non-free files used in a gallery. Which is totally unacceptable under policy. None of your reverts provide any kind of rationality for their inclusion except WP:ILIKEIT. If the works are notable they should warrant individual articles, otherwise we dont need that many non-free examples of his work when we have such a large number of free images to use. Werieth (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While the article does need more text; that is your erroneous opinion. Reminds me too much of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage isn't my opinion, its policy. We cannot justify 5 additional non-free examples of his work when we have 5 free examples. WP:NOTDIR we don't need to provide samples for each of his works. Take the 5 free and possibly 1-2 non-free examples and use that. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Great paintings and other works of visual art speak for themselves. Clearly you are clueless regarding the merit of visual art - perhaps you might find a new line of editing and leave the visual arts alone...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Kindly stop your personal attacks now, or I will take you straight to ANI. We are not a directory of art, we dont provide examples of every artists every work. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is actually worse than I thought, taking a look at the 5 files:

      Not a one of them are referenced in the text except for the listing of his works at Arthur Dove#Selected list of works not sure how much more of a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC we can get. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Stop issuing threats...Modernist (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no discussion at all about his painting style or identifying any particular work of his as a core example of his style. We have 5 free images that show a good range of his style, and while there are obvious style differences in the non-frees, without any discussion about this, they are not permissible. (As a note, barring change to copyright law, I believe 3 of theme will fall into the PD within the next two years). --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added plenty of discussion, re- the paintings; more to come...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You've got justication sufficient to keep "Tanks" and one of either "the Critic" or "The Intellectual", but the other two are still unnecessary per the given text. Also, you will need a non-free of the person for the infobox (which I see there are some though I'm having a difficult problem tracing publication at the immediate time.) Remember: you can use ELs to point to websites which feature the artist's work too; you do need need to show every bit of work the person has done for an encyclopedia article. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Debra Morgan.jpg

      File could be replaced by the free alternative File:Jennifer Carpenter 2010.jpg, which shows the actress in costume as the fictional character. Kelly hi! 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably true, but it has been argued before (and particularly in this case as a notable character) that a promo non-free shot of the actor in the poise and manner of the character has some intrinsic weight it carries compared to a free shot of a character outside of the role, even if the actor is wearing the same clothes, etc. Having just binged on Dexter, for example, I can tell that the poise the promo shot here is an element of her character that the free image doesn't capture. This is acceptable only in the case of a standalone character. If we were talking a list of characters and the character wasn't notable in any way, I would otherwise agree that the free image trumps the non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      FYI, a similar example can be found in Trip Tucker. Kelly hi! 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Again, personally, I'm on board with that, but the consensus from the last discussion (proabably 3-4 years ago, and likely at WT:NFC) was that for notable characters, even for how close the character looks to the actor, a promo image of the character (the actor, in the role), is more encyclopedic than a photo of the actor in the same/similar outfit but not in character. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with everything Masem wrote. The file shouldn't be deleted.  InfamousPrince  21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The image should be deleted. It is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) by the actress in costume. There is not any specific difference in the actress in the free image and in the non-free image that could not be discussed by text in the article or in the caption. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif

      The use of File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif does not meet the NFC criteria: the photograph is replaceable. --Eleassar my talk 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a 14th century coin so definitely the design is free, and the copyright is the photographer's with respect to lighting and angle. The question becomes if that coin is readibly available to the public to take photography of in some museum or the like (the free replacement), and that's not clear enough to know. I will say that if it cannot be replaced, its unclear if the file can be used as NFCC (to illustrate the figure minted on coins, as opposed to the coin itself) --MASEM (t) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      BBC Television Shakespeare

      Can this really support 9 non-free images? Werieth (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably yes : there is attempts to source discussion about the set or costume design of the particular works. It probably could be argued that each of the play productions could have its own notable article and there would be no issue at all about a singular image on each of those pages with that discussion; to "penalize" the choice of keeping these in one cohesive article by limited non-free would be a problem. There may be a couple (like the overhead map one, and the image from Tidus) that are less discussed and could be removed, but I do think that how the information is presented, this article can support a larger-than-usual number of non-free. (no more than what is present, of course) --MASEM (t) 16:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:MAG osmani.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Also seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a: only source is a deleted Commons file. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The original photo, before the darkening, does appear to be a book, newspaper, or magazine scan, but we'd definitely need that source to affirm its prior publication. What hits I get from GIS seem to all pull from the WP version, but its hard to tell given the number of foreign language hits. The uses on two pages not about him are improper uses even if 10c is met. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The original source listed as http://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/lal-sabuj/31326094/36687505. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg

      Is this file really needed on 9 different articles? Werieth (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, it's an important painting by an important artist and has it's own article. It's use as an example is useful in most of if not all those articles. freshacconci talk to me 15:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg

      Pre 1972 sound sample, per Stefan 2 Fair use cannot be relied on. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment This refers to WT:NFC#Pre-1972 sound recordings. I think that we should finish that discussion before starting to nominate files for deletion citing the discussion. Also, didn't the servers move? In that case, we might need to use the laws of some other state instead.
      In either case: This theme song has probably been recorded multiple times, since it has been included in lots of TV series episodes since the 1960s. We would just have to use a more recent recording if it turns out that we can't use pre-1972 ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of the issues of the pre-1972 sound recordings, fair use provides the appropriate defense to use the recordings if they are copyrighted, and if they are out of copyright, then we're free to use them under the fair use defense. The issue affects their licensing, but as long as we presume non-free and that they meet non-free requirements (which seems to be the case here), then the image will be fine whether the license is free or non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that pre-1972 sound recordings are protected at state level, not federal levels. State law does not have to use the same fair use criteria as the federal law. There is no chance that this is in the public domain. Independently of this, the musical composition is protected by federal copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this recording was first published outside the US, doesn't it have federal copyright protection? Hirtle footnote 1 leads me to here where in section 7 it says "Furthermore, pre-1972 foreign sound recordings are accorded federal copyright protection — something U.S. sound recordings lack, as explained above". So, it is reasonable to assume the work is covered under federal copyright and fair use provisions apply. Thincat (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There is an ongoing discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record where Carl Lindberg says URAA specifically restored copyright (i.e.federal copyright) to non-US records. Even if state copyright applies as well, presumably federal preemption would mean fair use would be held to be applicable. In any case copyright on sound recordings is not relevant in this case since this was a soundtrack. not a record, and film/TV copyright applies in UK and US law. This is a snippet and so fair use law applies (in UK law as well). A fair use claim is a priori tenable. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:CNNAirport.network.logo.gif

      If File:CNNAirport.svg is correctly marked as a PD-textlogo, then this should be one, too. Otherwise, as a former logo not discussed in the text, it fails WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably no, as the way the plane shape is drawn is different from the commons version, though I'd even argue the commons version is not simple enough to be there. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      CNN

      This concerns the following images found in the CNN article:

      Since four non-free images is a bit excessive, some should be removed (WP:NFCC#3). Additionally, each image probably also fails WP:NFCC#8:

      • File:CNN Launch June 1, 1980.jpg: appears to only show that CNN existed. This is unacceptable. Nowhere is the early on-air presentation of CNN discussed, which might justify the usage of the image.
      • File:CNN Gulf War nightscope January 1991.jpg: the image (a blurry night-vision screenshot with a chyron overlaid) adds little to the discussion of CNN's coverage of the First Gulf War.
      • File:CNN Breaking News 911.jpg: this is a closer case, but the screenshot adds little to what is already discussed in the text about CNN's breaking coverage of 9/11. The screenshot could be used to discuss how CNN presented the breaking news about 9/11 to the public, but this is not discussed in the article.
      • File:CNN HD-American Morning 1080.png: this is used next to a discussion of CNN's HD programming. A screenshot really isn't necessary to illustrate that CNN had HD coverage, unless specific changes for HD are discussed in the article (which they are not).

      RJaguar3 | u | t 19:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree with all, save on the gulf war one, though this is a case of where the image may be better used. "Night vision" shots of Iraq during that time is part of the legacy of coverage of the war, though not necessarily unique to CNN. I don't know if there's a special article discussing the reporting of the war but that's where this image could easily be justified under NFCC#8 (with a bit of sourcing work) --MASEM (t) 20:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg

      Like File:Emblem of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg this should be a fair use image and not {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and requires FUR for usage. LGA talkedits 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files instead of here as the file isn't currently tagged as non-free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Windows 7 Hearts Shooting the moon with perfect score.jpg

      Is the scorecard PD-ineligible? If not, this is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1 (free scoresheet could be uploaded or screenshot from a free hearts game) and WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely unneeded. Since the compoutert version of Hearts is the same as the physical One, we don't need to see what a successful shooting the moon is. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Logo henry holt.PNG

      PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 04:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I believe the logo is no more complex than File:Jeff Ho logo.png which had its copyright refused. Agree that it is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:KPTLlogo2013.png

      Is this image simple enough to be PD-textlogo? my concern is the two partial circles (red and white). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg

      Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 except in Campbell's Soup Cans. Also fails WP:NFG in multiple articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove all but from article in work itself. The fact most of the uses share the exactly same rationale shows little effort to selectively puck the images use. It certainly fails on the product article about Campbell's soup. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      So modify the rationales and remove from the product article...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That won't fix the issue. The image simply doesn't need to be seen in so many articles when a link will do. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all. The article about the artwork itself is a very obvious exception, where it is the main subject. Sionk (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Except that no policy suggests that an artwork be singled out for..critique as a prerequisite to its image being included in an article. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a vendetta against works of contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Bus stop - Try Point 7. I don't see a vendetta, but these are non-free images and they shouldn't be used ...erm ...freely. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sionk—I think you are linking to the following: "7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Yet you said: "Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." The policy language that you are now pointing to does not support your original assertion. In the future I think that you and Masem and Stefan should stop linking to policy codes and instead quote policy language. You are not a machine and I am not a machine. We should be speaking in plain English, quoting policy language where necessary. The language in policy that you are quoting makes an allowance for the inclusion of "images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Therefore this image belongs in articles where it serves to illustrate "a particular technique or school." Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Per your quoted bit, to be used in articles on particular schools, there needs to be critical commentary in that art as a representative sample of that school. Without commentary it can't be used. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Masem—the policy language does not say that the work of art has to be "singled out for…critique". Sionk's complaint is that "the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." But the policy language days nothing about any artwork being "singled out for…critique". Policy language allows for the use of "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Editors can debate if an artwork illustrates a particular technique or school. But if editorial WP:consensus concludes that an image is illustrative of a particular technique or school—that should probably be sufficient for inclusion. Policy language says nothing about concocting wording in article space relating to an artwork, as a justification for inclusion of its image. The Warhol "Campbells Soup Cans" are included in articles where they illustrate a school, namely Pop art. For instance, under "Pop art", at the 20th-century Western painting, the "Campbells Soup Cans" illustrate this movement. Our policy language is supportive of this use. And the language already in the article relates to the "Campbells Soup Cans": "Earlier in the fall of 1962 a historically important and ground-breaking New Painting of Common Objects exhibition of Pop art, curated by Walter Hopps at the Pasadena Art Museum sent shock waves across the Western United States. Campbell's Soup Cans (sometimes referred to as 32 Campbell's Soup Cans) is the title of an Andy Warhol work of art (see gallery) that was produced in 1962. It consists of thirty-two canvases, each measuring 20 inches in height x 16 inches in width (50.8 x 40.6 cm) and each consisting of a painting of a Campbell's Soup can—one of each canned soup variety the company offered at the time. The individual paintings were produced with a semi-mechanised silkscreen process, using a non-painterly style. They helped usher in Pop art as a major art movement that relied on themes from popular culture. These works by Andy Warhol are repetitive and they are made in a non-painterly commercial manner." The relevance of the text goes on and on. Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

      You just quoted policy that requires critical commentary to include an image, so to say it doesn't exist is bogus. Consensus of editors cannot include an image of nonfree claimed as an important work without sourcing, otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art. Okay, yesd Warhol is mentioned as a leader in the school so one example is appropriate, but already exists a Warhol painting in the body so the one in the gallery is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello? They all have Fair Use Rationales and are allowed and encouraged to be used by the WMF. The foundation has rules and all of these images are in perfect sync with those guidelines. Maybe you Sionk should read them...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The extra uses fail the goal of minimal nonfree use set by the Foundation. One use of a famous painting on an article about the painting or the artist, if the work is not that notable, is in line. Plastering the same image on other articles without critical discussion is not, which is the case here, though a link is just fine. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "…otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art."[37] What would its "relevance [be] to Pop art"? It is Pop art. It is an example of Pop art. Bus stop (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There seems to be some curious elements to the history of this file. It went into use in 2011, but the current description page show that the file was uploaded on April 2013. I am curious if any of the pages that were using the prior file got lost in the switchover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

      In 2011, after the image was changed from File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA reduced 80%.jpg to File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg the first was deleted as orphaned. So unless someone deleted the use of the prior one without adding the current one (which was probably uploaded around 2011, but resized in April 2013), there should not be any issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is what I am saying. Why does the file history only show April 2013?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Old versions of nonfree images where a newer version has been uploaded are routinely revdeleted, hence why this version is only showing the last uploaded version. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem What does revdeleted mean?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Revision deletion - Removing specific changes from a file's history. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand why that was necessary to merely shrink a file. Why not just save over it so the revision history exists. The file that was likely created in 2011 was probably only different than the current in terms of resolution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That is what was done. A smaller version of the filed was uploaded at the same location, and later the old larger version - still stored in the file history - was revdeled. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Does it make sense and is it possible for me to request an unrevdelete. It is something that does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really. Here's what I can tell:
      • Original image uploaded in 2007 but at huge size.
      • You, Tony, uploaded an 80% reduction of this image to a separate file in 2008.
      • Despite this, the only change in either file as indicative of use was additional rationales oin this file by Modernist about 2011.
      • Shortly after this, your version was deleted as an orphan, I suspect Modernist did the rerplacement.
      • Somewhere about then, this original was reduced to a smaller size.
      • In 2013, the sizse was determined to be too large and was reduced.
      • After that, the two old versions of this file were deleted, --MASEM (t) 07:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, more for any previous version of a file that is considered redundant when a newer version of the same image is in place. Earlier versions at larger sizes are the most common, but other things like uncropped images or color corrections may be revdeleted too. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've made a suggestion here for something like a "visual arts mediator" to be chosen, someone familiar with the image policies who will help to seek consensus positions when these issues arise. Any comments would be welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

      Having read quite a few of the discussions here in order to make sense of a few deletion nominations and NFCRs in my own contributions, I'd say this is a great idea. I find this NFC bickering about seminal modern art paintings very discouraging (not to say ignorant), and there definitely needs to be someone to stand up for the editorial side of things.Nettings (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:'Still Life -20', mixed media work by --Tom Wesselmann--, 1962, --Albright-Knox Gallery--.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFG and other criteria in numerous articles. Only seems to be needed in the article Tom Wesselmann. Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Remove from all but artists article as example of work. The reuse of the same rationale on all uses shows no selective concerns with regards too NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Stefan2, it's an appropriate illustration for Tom Wesselmann but elsewhere it is overused. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep the contextual significance is obvious in each of its usages. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Contextual significance cannot be obvious, include requires sourced discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—what policy language would call for discussion—sourced or otherwise—in the article? I'm going to ask you to please quote that policy language here. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, (in context of the article text), and if that significance is challenged as OR (as here), sourcing must be provided to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in fact WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "article text"[38]. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're wikilaywering. Contextual significance implies discussion in the text. There is no other way for this to be met, otherwise its a decorative image and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—there is nothing remotely "decorative"[39] about the use of this image, anywhere that it is used. Anyone can read WP:NFCC#8. "Contextual significance" means that in the context of one thing, another thing has significance. In the context of "Pop art" that image has significance by dint of its being an example of Pop art. No particular wording has to be found in the text of the article to justify the inclusion of that image. Can you please tell me what purpose any such wording would serve? If there was something to be added, such wording would serve a purpose. But are we just going to concoct meaningless wording serving no purpose? If policy said we had to do this, I would argue to have policy changed. But policy doesn't even say we have to have "discussion in the text"[40]. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In every article save for Wesselmann, and perhaps Collage, the image is decorative as either there are plenty of other examples of works that are free, or it is being used without sourced discussion of the work, the normal requirement for contextual significance to be shown. The use in all but those few articles do not given any significance except that which you claim and to that end I call out "citation needed" because I understand the articles perfectly fine without all those examples, hence failing NFCC#8. We are required to minimize the use of non-free images by the Foundation. Not eliminate their usage, surely, but simply be more judicious in their use, and that means to understand where contextual significant really is best done. If you don't like that we have to minimize non-free, you're free to start another wiki encyclopedia that doesn't have a free content mission, because that is a requirement here for us. --MASEM (t) 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The image is not "decorative". It is of course an example of a particular artwork. It is made in a certain way and it has a particular appearance. It is of course made by a particular individual. It is also made at a particular time and in a particular place. You are arguing against its inclusion in certain articles. Well-respected commentators refer to this artwork. You are even suggesting that other artworks can replace this artwork. You say for instance "there are plenty of other examples of works that are free". When you substitute other works for the ideal work for a given use, you run the risk of introducing WP:original research into the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the work is not described as the or a well established example of the type of school (such as Pop Art), and there are free images that are examples for that school, then the non-free is extraneous and decorative. It might represent that school, but we can do that with other free art. On "Collage" the work is actually described in such a manner hence why I think it's fair to keep there, but no where else (outside the artist' page). --MASEM (t) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Masem The Wesselmann is a well established example of Pop Art; however please show me some examples of free and usable Pop Art. The entire problem with art work after 1923 is that we must be able to show the visual art and fair use seems to be the best solution...Modernist (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that for Pop Art, you cannot illustrate it without non-free examples at the present time since the movement is entirely post-1923 where copyright will come into play. But you don't need 11 examples. The 4 presently inline are reasonable to include as they showcase the various styles that Pop Art encompasses - I would even include the Typewriter Eraser sculpture to show that Pop Art included 3D works. But all other images included in that gallery are presented without comment besides the names of the artists, and thus not appropriate nor needed to include per NFCC#8. A section to provide links to other pop art examples and notable artists falls in line with NFC and provides more useful links for the reader to follow to learn more. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can always add more discussion; the reason it's laid out as it is - is that years ago we agreed that the imagery would simply represent the various aspects of the oeuvre - hence I labeled the Warhol (repetition); which was a distinct aspect of his paintings and prints. With the Wesselmann I tagged it (collage). That was the agreement reached around seven years ago. I agree that the Oldenburg is important as an example of pop art - sculpture...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably important to note that the formalization of NFC and the Foundation Resolution is about a year younger than the age of these articles then, hence why there probably wasn't any issues raised at that time. That might be why there is a large disconnect here. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that begins to clarify our disparate points of view...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keepin the Tom Wesselmann article - this is being charitable because I can't see this painting mentioned, but it seems to represent a later example of his work. The image should be removed from the general articles about art, because there are non-copyrighted images which can be used for general illustration. Sionk (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sionk—how could there be a need to mention the Tom Wesselmann painting in the Tom Wesselmann article? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:MagrittePipe.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFC#UUI §6 on numerous pages. Only seems to pass WP:NFCC in The Treachery of Images. Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree it is an iconic Surrealist painting but, because there is a dedicated article about it, there should be no problem linking to this article rather than reproducing the non-free image. I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the Surrealism article! Sionk (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an important image that should remain in the Surrealism article; as should the Dali...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not in an encyclopedia with a free content mission, even with free art. We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On the contrary - they are not plastered all over the place - they are used selectively in a few articles; as important examples of the oeuvre each represents. The Warhol is one of the most iconic of his paintings; as is the Magritte and the Dali; as well as others that are targeted here...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Being used in more than one article with practically the same nonfree rationale and no significant discussion in said articles is plastering the image about. Link them instead. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On articles where the work of art is the subject of critical, significant discussion, sure to gain an appreciation of the work in association with the sourced discussion. But not anywhere else to avoid harm to the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out."[41] I don't think we are indoctrinating readers as to what to appreciate in art. We are familiarizing readers with commonly cited examples of twentieth century art. You call for articles to be "direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance…" This is not always clear. This is often debatable. We can't always tell the reader concisely and definitively why a work of art is considered "important" in twentieth century art. You are making unrealistic and I would argue counterproductive demands. The visual component matters. The reader needs to see the art. The commentary is not necessarily more important than the art. I don't think we should upend the article to provide the reader with an excess of pointless commentary. You are underestimating the importance of seeing the images of the works of art. I'm not an evangelist for any of these works of art. I think the primary aim we have as an encyclopedia providing coverage of the visual arts is simply to apprise the reader of noteworthy examples of the most talked-about art. The commentary itself is not more important than the art. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can't say why a piece of nonfree art ius important to a school or category of art, the including that piece of art fails NFCC#8, and WP:OR. The reader does not need to see an excessive number of examples to understand broad concepts of art; a few well-selected inline examples cited as well recognized aspects of a school are fine, with links to specific artists and works and external sites to provide the rest. Any other approach violates NFCC and size/accessibility problems. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, get some perspective, please. Above all, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Every policy here is subject to interpretation, and not everything is as simple and clear-cut as you make it sound (which, being new to all this template wrestling, took me a while to realize). There are legal constraints, there is a policy, but nowhere does it say that our free content mission trumps everything else (and it would a very stupid idea to do that in an encyclopaedia). It it totally unacceptable that every policy is ruthlessly enforced in its harshest possible interpretation just because some people here are on a private mission. You (and others here) are wasting everyone'e time, and worse, you are harming Wikipedia with your attitude. Judicious use of NFC (which is what our NFC policy is here to facilitate) means that NFC rationales are written by editors who are knowledgeable in that particular subject, not shot down at random by hobby cops who are totally disinterested in the articles in question. Nettings (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Being a free content encyclopedia is the first primary mission of the Foundation. The Foundation has required non free to be used exceptionally. This does trump anything that made be said in en.wiki. The arguments you and others give for why you should be able to use more violates this, and is more akin to the concepts described in VEGAN.
      Again I stress the point - notable works of art, or a few nonnotable works of an otherwise notable artist are reasonable non free to include on artist or artwork pages. Every other use is otherwise gratitious without sourced information to justify the reason for inclusion. Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach in using better summary style and moving away from visual galleries towards fewer but more helpful inline images. You dont lose images, you meet the NFC, and meet size and accessibility issues. It just requires rethinking how to break apart information into better bite sized chunks rather than monolithic articles that approach art gallery books. Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles in question are of exceptional quality. The visuals are absolutely necessary to illustrate the wealth of information presented there. You cannot compare an article about 40 years of video gaming to one about 3000 years of painting by counting images, and doing so is just ignorant. I am not questioning our mission to create a free encyclopaedia with as much free content as possible. In fact, I'm working towards this goal, like you are. But what some people here are trying to do is to censor important aspects of cultural heritage just because they are non-free. If we do that, we end up with something that might be sort of interesting, but it will not be an encyclopaedia any more. What you need to understand is that nobody here is trying to undermine the free content mission. What I and others strongly object to is to put image policing above all other goals of Wikipedia, to use WP:NFC to censor articles, and to circumvent editorial consensus by abusingly invocating policies which clearly leave some room for interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Part of the problem is that NFC supervision is dominated by people who just follow the recent changes and then come down like a steamhammer on articles which they haven't even read, much less taken an editorial interest in. I agree that we need NFC supervision to maintain the quality and legality of Wikipedia, and I really hate to invoke this "us and them" bullshit between editors and patrollers when we really are all working on the same thing, but you cannot imagine how frustrating it is to deal with random edit-warring and deletion nominations by drive-by users who don't even bother to leave a note on the talk page and frankly don't give a shit about the article they are hacking and slashing at. Besides, I find this attitude of anticipatory obedience really weird. We make free content because we think copyright is not the hottest idea in the world, particularly not for the dissemination of knowledge. That does not mean we do not respect copyright law (doing that would be suicide for WP), so yes to copyright supervision. But to constantly censor ourselves to not show things that we legally could show by fair use - why? I read the spirit of the NFCC, you read the letters (and very selectively). Nettings (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I should add that I appreciate your arguments how to re-structure the articles, and your ideas may even lead to an improvement of the NFC situation as you see it. But such things are editorial decisions, and they need to be discussed among the editorial community of the article in question. So the procedure should be to notify them, guys, I think you have an NFC issue there, can you do something about that, and discuss it and follow editorial consensus. Not single out random images for deletion. There is no blatant NFC violation there that requires immediate action to keep Wikipedia legal. So there is no necessity to disregard or circumvent editorial consensus and use the steamhammer instead, other than an unhealthy fondness for said instrument. Nettings (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No the articles are not of good quality of text alone because they are written with considering that 3000 years of painting can't be covered in one or two articles. If the text alone was written in a proper summary style like everywhere else, there would be no need to have 300+ images "needed" to illustrate it. 40 or so images to inline to help guide the reader, sure. Illustrations of paintings ate important but these should happen on specific sub pages to avoid unwieldy galleries and excessive nonfree use. Those working on these painting articles are not writing towards the free content mission and website accessibility, and hence why this is a major issue. These articles cannot be written as if this was ASN art textbook where prolific galleries wouilkd be of no question. They have to be written to meet the Foundations goal and making them as accessible as possible. Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points." You are making several errors in reasoning, the primary one being the overlooking of the value of editorial discretion. You would be making a more consequential argument if you were saying that Modernist was pushing a point of view. It is not so much that painting is a "special" topic but that there is latitude for editorial discretion that might not be found at other topics in which the propriety of non-free image-use was under evaluation. Editorial discretion is not something vague, undefined, and of questionable value. When User:Modernist chooses an image to represent some aspect of the visual arts, he is doing so for its ability to apprise the reader of something they need to know. One often repeated refrain is to replace with a free image. The free image may not be the ideal image. The article suffers when we devalue editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And when others are fairly questioning if that image needs to be shown, that does bring into question editorial discretion, which is not infallable nor immune from policy requirements. I fully respect that some non-free images need to be shown on articles about schools and periods of art history, but NFC requires these to be minimal and with more purposeful selection than just editorial discretion. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nettings makes some strong arguments above, about placing an extreme interpretation of the non-free mission above every other priority (including education and editor retention, bearing in mind that the latter is a Foundation priority). He also argues that it is odd to self-censor in order not to provide an image when there is no legal, ethical or editorial problem with it; Nettings calls this "anticipatory obedience." This is a key point that others have raised too. It would be good if you could address it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      First, no one is saying that non-free works of art cannot be used outside of the page about that work of art; as long as the work of art is notable, its image will be in WP somewhere, and can be linked to, and thus the impact on education is negliable. Similarly, there are editors that simply do no understand that we are a free content work first and foremost, and thus if they leave because they can't use non-free (which they will call out as fair use), that's not really any loss we can worry about. We're also not censoring, and that's not a pathway to walk down to try to argue against this. The point that I keep making is that I am not against a limited number of clear examples of non-free works in these various schools; I cannot imagine how one can have an article on surrealism without even included a handful of works like Persistence of Memory , for example. We just don't need dozens as these articles all currently sport. Overwhelming the reader with images on these pages without explaining the progression is less educational than removing all the images in the first place, in terms of being an encyclopedia. And all of this is towards maintaining the non-free requirement. Non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, and we've carved out places for these exceptions, but if we start making exceptions for these exceptions for one area, we will end up in the same aspect that WP:VEGAN talks about, and more and more non-free will be used when it was previously determined to be inappropriate. It is to some degree an exercise in ego-stroking - how free can we make en.wiki - but it is one that we are challenged to always explore by the Foundation. Everything else about en.wiki has been large experiments in groupthink development of a encyclopedic work, this is just an extension of that. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in the visual arts there is connoisseurship. There is also the attack on connoisseurship. But this is more recent. You say "Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach..."[42] You also say "Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't."[43] The visual arts are unlike most areas in which visual images are used. Specificity of image is related to connoisseurship and the legacy of connoisseurship in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And again, I stress - as an tertiary educational work, we are not here to help readers appreciate art (as per your connoisseurship idea), but to tell them why this art was appreciated by others in a direct manner. We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field, from which they themselves might come to also appreciate the art. But to show images with the expectation that the reader will come to appreciate it but without stating why it was appreciated goes against our core principles of not being a textbook. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—images of works of visual art are different from images of most other things as concerns their inclusion in our articles. The notion of substituting non-free images for free images is not always workable concerning visual art. A particular image may be ideal for a purpose in an article. Another image may be a very poor substitute. Editorial discretion should be allowed the latitude to construct a logical article. If there is nothing specifically problematic about material in an article we should not be reverting it. From where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"? And you say "We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field". Are you setting up rules for writing about art? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I am saying, on an encyclopedia, we don't leave things to the reader's interpretation, we are explicit about what they should know or where they can look to find more. And that's for every field, not just visual art. Take films - I'm sure that people in the Film project would vouch that there are films that must be watched to be appreciated, but they don't floor their articles with images or videos, they simply go to reviewers to say why and how the film should be appreciated instead of leaving that vague for the reader. The same can apply to visual art without question. You cannot claim that visual art is "different" because we have plenty of other visual arts fields that work without excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[44]? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, we are not an art appreciate book. We are not hear to explain to a reader how to appreciate something, but to be direct as to why the work has been appreciated. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—again, from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[45]? If you are deriving it from nowhere you can just say that it is a strongly held feeling. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're wikilawyering to try to find the exact text; I'm applying the intent of the language of what WP:NOT is and applied to non-free policy. Between those two policies, it is clear you can't just through up an image without discussion and say "here, appreciate this art". Non-free images must have strong reason to be used than just a vague hand-wave "oh, the reader will appreciate this image on its own." That's a function other websites and references can do for us, we need to be direct and explicit. And no, I can't point you to any exact langauge but again, remember, policy is not written as law but how it should be interpreted, and this approach to any form of visual art with non-free policy has long been in place. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you suggest substitutes for images you are objecting to in the visual arts? Perhaps you should try to. There is limited substitutability of images in the visuals arts. Well-known paintings tend not to lend themselves to being replaced by other well-known paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not talking about replacement of images, I'm talking about reducing the number of images on the top-level articles in the painting area. In this case, for example, the pipe painting clearly needs to remain on WP for discussion of The Treachery of Images and likely Surrealism. What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article. All elements of Surrealism are covered in Surrealism, so we can obviously have small number (10 or so, as it presently has) there. But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there to represent the school and use the {{main}} link for Surrealism to learn more. None of these images being highlighted here are asked to be deleted, just using them in the places they make the most sense, and reduce the number that are being used in these high level articles based on the understanding there are other places where the school or painting is discussed in more detail and where a few more images can be afforded. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You say "What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article." We are not trying to "cover every detail". "History of Painting" and "Western Painting" are important articles. There is plenty of leeway for editorial discretion. You say "But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there." How did you decide that we "only need one or two examples"? Such specifics should be decided by editors involved in writing the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      As Modernist has said, the history of painting covers 3000 years of works. There is no way that that can be covered in detail in one single article per WP:SIZE and accessibility limitations, much less a half a dozen. You need, as already exists, the individual articles on the various schools and geographic aspects so that you can actually give a fair amount of detail about that area in each one. Per Summary Style, the higher-level articles like History of Painting should just then be there to touch on each school, establishing each place in the history of the art, so the reader has an outline to follow and to know where to go for more details. As such, these top-level article should not be heavily illustrated since the details to support those illustrations will be in the lower articles. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

      Arb break

      Rather than getting bogged down in a meta-discussion about free content encyclopedias and art, could we see a list of the articles it's used on and evaluate them individually? Each use is a separate case, it's quite possible that some are warranted and others not. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • As of a few seconds ago it was used on 4 pages:
      • History of painting
      • Surrealism
      • The Treachery of Images
      • Western painting
      • Werieth (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly okay on Treachery. Most likely okay on Surrealism. Everywhere else is not needed (as in the higher level articles you only need one/two examples of surrealism as a precursor to the main article in light of the larger topic, and there are much better examples like that work there). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—why do we "only need one/two examples of surrealism" in articles such as Western painting, History of painting, and 1929 in art? Is Surrealism important? Is "The Persistence of Memory" particularly similar to "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? They are both "Surrealism" but they very different paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Because we have a separate article on Surrealism with several fitting examples already and further links to more. In the context of the outline articles of History of Painting and Western Painting, you only need a paragraph of text to explain how surrealism fits into these larger scopes, and just one or two examples to visually show that, since you have an article that goes into much greater detail on the school. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alex Katz's 1970 painting of his son 'Vincent with Open Mouth'.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 except in Alex Katz. Fails WP:NFG in numerous articles. Potentially fails WP:NFCC in Alex Katz: this is somewhat similar to WP:NFC#UUI §8 & §9. Stefan2 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      An image such as this is easily justifiable for inclusion in the articles in which it is presently found. Strong keep Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Only appropriate use in Alex Katz (as a representative work of his of discussion). Not needed in the broader Painting articles as a undiscussed example. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—wouldn't this painting be justified for inclusion in the article Pop art? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The painting, much less Alex Katz, is not even discussed in Pop Art save for the image caption; if the work could be described as a preeminent example of pop art (like the Warhol image), then there may be reason to use as an inline example, but right now, that as well as the other images in the Pop art gallery fail NFCC. The current set of images used inline - with the addition of the rubber stamp sculpture as an inline to demonstrated 3D pop art as I've previous argued for, is sufficient to set what the examples of pop are are, while the links to the various pop art artists are there for the reader to learn more and find more images. You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art, but we definitely should be providing ways for readers to find more examples via the artist links. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you have not suggested a free image for substitution, and you say "You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art". In my opinion the other images in the article are fairly dissimilar to the one under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why do I need to suggest a free replacement? My argument standands that 5 images (the 4 presently in inline locations, and the 5th of the rubber stamp sculpture moved into an inline) is a sufficient number of images to represent the otherwise diverse nature of Pop Art while respecting non-free content. Since it is nearly universally the case that all examples of Pop Art are going to be post-1923 and thus likely under copyright, there's no possible free examples, but what I'm saying is that removing this and the other gallery images do no require a free replacement, as "no image" is considered an acceptable replacement for non-free in such cases. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—our aim at this article is to educate the reader about Pop art. How are you helping that aim by arguing for the removal of this image? We are including images that exemplify Pop art and yet you are arguing for the removal of one of those images. Editorial discretion should play a role in determining what images are found in an article such as this. Other editors feel that the image should be in the article. Are you an editor involved in writing this article? Do you feel that the remaining images in the article serve the same purpose that the image under discussion serves? I think they are quite different from the image you are proposing for removal. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing in the article discusses Katz or that work as representative example of pop art, ergo, you can't use it in that article as an example of pop art. Pop art is a hugely diverse school of art, so there is no way you can represent the entire school in one article without severely violating NFC. Instead, you go by how the article points out the modern, bold styles and reuse of everyday objects that formed the basis of pop art, show the handful of examples (5, as I've pointed, which is a fair representation) and provide links for artists for the reader to learn more. That meets NFC policy without taking way from the given text. Editorial discretion does not override NFC policy when it is challenged by others. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—I believe that we are permitted to use non-free images under certain circumstances, and you have not quoted any language from policy showing otherwise. As this is an article about a movement in the visual arts, it follows that representative examples of that "style" (using the word loosely) should be included in the article. This is well within our purpose as creators of educational material. The images in the article are partially the product of editorial discretion. Have you been involved in writing the "Pop art" article? Or are you simply demanding that an image be removed? Please quote language from policy if you feel that you would be justified in removing the image under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are wikilaywering again asking for exact policy language, when policy does not work on apply exact language but how it is applied. I have pointed out many many many times how NFC is practically enforced and how it applies here; critically commentary is nearly required in all cases. It doesn't matter if I was involved in writing the article - if I read it and see that it uses too many non-free to get its point across, that is a problem. The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this." Please quote from the "Pop art" article: where does it say that "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement"? Do you see "elements of popular culture" in this image? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, nor do I see text explaining why this style is considered pop art, still making it an invalid example to be used. If this is an example of a different style of pop art, there is no text on this page to explain why this is considered pop art so the image would be improper to use. Now, just doing a curosity check, I can easily find a few sources (eg [46]) that explain that Katz' "deadpan evocation of flat, bright figures had an everyday quality that linked them to commercial art and popular culture"; adding this text and additional to explain that pop art is not just incorporating pop culture but containing that commerical art "quality" would be justification to include the Katz as an additional exactly and to contrast with the other current inline pop art examples that are clearly showing elements of the popular culture. This is why contextual significance is important, so that there's no doubt for the inclusion of a picture. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Images on History of Doctor Who

      File:First Doctor colour.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Second Doctor b.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Third Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fourth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fifth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Sixth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Seventh Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who and Sylvester McCoy. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Lungbarrow.jpg

      Violates WP:NFCC in the history articles. Cover art is normally only appropriate in the article about the item itself; see the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in those two articles as there isn't an individual FUR for each of the articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eighth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ninth Doctor.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tenth Doctor b.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eleventhdoctornew.jpg

      Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments

      The use of the images are fine on the individual pages, but their use on the broadcast history is inappropriate; as that page is out of universe, images of the new Doctors can be shown via free imagery of the actors that played them with links to the Doctor pages for the in-character poses. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      And the Lungborrow cover is only appropriate on the book's article, not the other two. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who)

      There are currently seven non-free images being used in this article, which depict the various regenerations of the Doctor and others in Doctor Who. This is most likely a violation of WP:NFCC#3a, since one image or animation of a regeneration is likely enough for the reader to understand the concept. Some of these images do not even seem to convey useful information about regeneration, and fail WP:NFCC#8 as well (for example, File:Zero_room.jpg which depicts little more than the Fifth Doctor floating suspended in a room soon after regenerating). FunPika 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I would safely argue two images are appropriate, given the change in SFX between the old and revived series. The animated gif of Fourth-to-Fifth is reasonable here since it shows how they used camera overlays to simulate this back then, while the one of Tenth regerating with the burst of regeneration energy is fair to use for the new series. All the others are simply duplicate of these two themes. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Black Widow (Claire Voyant)

      We dont need 14 non-free images of this character Werieth (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There's nearly no discussion of any of the images, and they are used primarily decoratively. We don't need to have comic panels to describe a characters superpowers if they are mostly by through and speech intimidation. Delete all but the infobox image for character identification. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The images relate directly to topics discussed within the article, and serve to illustrate those particular areas. Is it more effective to simply mention the "frequently reprinted panel where Satan resurrects Claire Voyant as the Black Widow" but not actually show that panel, or to actually show that panel? Is it more effective to discuss the fact that in the character's brief five appearances in the Golden Age she had four different costumes, and describe the differences but not show them, or to show them? Is it more effective to just discuss the "black widow mark" but never show what it looked like, or to show what it looked like? And so forth. Imagery and words can work together - and should.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      Non-free images and text have to work together, but we require more than just saying several different outfits exist or the like. We need critical commentary about the subject of the non-free image to use such. Perhaps this means the panel of her resurrection and of her black widow mark can be kept, but if no one discusses that she had had 5 different outfits during the Golden Age, we cannot use non-free imagary of each outfit. Most of these images fail WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps I'm not understanding here, but there is, for instance, an entire section on the Black Widow's various Golden Age costumes, that deals in-depth with their differing appearances, what changes were made from outfit to outfit, that is much more comprehensible with the images actually showing readers those points, than without. There are several mentions of her regenerating Pepito's leg, thus the inclusion of the actual panel where that happens. Instances like this meet the standard of illustrating a topic that is discussed within the article, right? Not trying to do anything wrong here - and yes, I'm the person who added these images - they just seemed to make it a more comprehensible article, and meet the "If it's discussed, it can be illustrated" rule.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      We need sourced discussion from third-party sources - not your (or any WP editor's) words, and not just from the primary source, but from third-party sources that have noted the costume change. Otherwise, it is a rather trivial detail that we don't go into detail per WP:UNDUE, and certainly don't use excessive non-free to illustrate. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I'm not saying that third part sources aren't out there, I don't really know, but all most people are aware of, re the Black Widow's Golden Age costume, is that one, frequently reprinted panel of her resurrection. Most people have never read the original stories, which I have, nor do they have digital scans of them, which I do. Therefore most people don't know that what they think of as "the Black Widow's costume" only ever appeared in one brief story. That's a pretty interesting fact that would appeal to serious Golden Age comic book fans, the sorts of people who would predictably be reading an article on the original Black Widow, and certainly the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the character. I can send you scans of those stories, if you like, to verify the truth of those costume changes. Or would reading the original stories count as "going to the primary source" or somesuch and therefore be verboten for some reason?

      This just seems to me, as a lifelong comic book fan in general and a serious Black Widow fan in particular, a really interesting fact, and the imagery presented really serves to bring it home.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)

      File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg

      Is this file really needed on all 6 articles? especially when it has its own article? Werieth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It is needed in the various historical articles in which it appears. It illustrates educational articles about the history of western painting as an example of the birth of British expressionism. It visually illustrates the European connection with abstract expressionism as well as the state of important contemporary painting in the UK after WW II...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again this shows the problem with how the Painting article hierarchy is written not using appropriate summary style to avoid reuse of the same works multiple times. With proper summary style, the painting as an example of 20th century western art would be fine but it wouldn't need repeated uses in the higher outline levels. The number of uses can be trimmed to three (work, artists, and one period example). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again we disagree - you say 3 I say 5...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Because you haven't shown understanding oif how to write articles on a visual subject with regards to NFC policy properly. The goal is minimize non free use and this is a clear case of overuse. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images are needed; the few times it's used are well within the policy guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No they are if these articles were written in proper summary style. You have nearly the same paragraph text about one painting (this one) in History of Painting, Western Painting, and 20th Century Western Painting, violating both writing style guidelines and showing little discretion for using NFC in only the most limited locations. Particularly considering there is a full article on the work itself. You've written the articles in a poor manner to force and require the use, but the articles structures can be changed to avoid that and minimize nonfree and better present information to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Personally, I would limit it to one, but two (painter and work) would be acceptable too. Using this image in five articles is just playing too loose with the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As it is an important work by an important artist, its placement in articles spanning long periods of art history is justified. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Rankin-bass-1969.jpg

      Could this logo be considered pd-textlogo? It seems extremely simple, just text, a rectangle 2 circles and a rounded rectangle. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      In the US , yes (and I think Rankin-Bass were such). --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That is correct, both of the founders Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass were American. It is was an American production company and both conglomerate former owners Warner Bros. and DreamWorks Classics are American companies. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:WLFM-LP logo.png

      PD-TEXT? Please note that file has definite non-free orphaned revision. Levdr1lp / talk 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      New logo definitely is in PD-text. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Update non-free orphaned revision has been deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 09:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:The Biography Channel 2000.svg

      Looks like a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yup, should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:OSCmeetings.jpg

      Use outside of First Meetings seems to have little contextual significance (NFCC#8).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Except for the Ender's Game short, the other articles that the image is used in have nearly no notability, and it would better to merge all those into a single article about the collection, reducing the non-free to one. The Ender's Game short could be merged here, or could be expanded on the main Ender's Game book page. Either way, the usage can be cut down completely to one proper use. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or simply removing the files, which would invite a bit less drama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:FaithOfMyFathers.jpg

      Needed in the articles where it's used? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It's appropriate on the book article but completely inappropriate on the John McCain article. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's definitely needed in the article on the book, as the cover image viscerally illustrates the three generation of military McCains, which is the central subject and theme of the work. Regarding the use in the McCain biographical article, the discussion at the time may be found at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_11#Removal_of_book_cover. The editor arguing for it to be in, Ferrylodge, is now User:Anythingyouwant, so this mention will ping him. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi WTR, Happy New Year. Regardless of whether the fair use rationale is adequate, it is doubtful that this image of the cover of Faith of My Fathers is even protectable by copyright. In other words, it may be eligible for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. The image of McCain, as well as the image of his relatives, are both public domain. See here and here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

      Arguably it could be considered nonfree because the arrangement of images can be considered creative enough. But this is not a sure thing. I agree that ignoring the placement, the rest of the elements are pd or uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Image removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Eva Julia Neer.jpg

      copyrighted image located at http://archives.focus.hms.harvard.edu/1995/Dec1_1995/On_the_Quad.html reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Don't see a problem with its usage under NFC/fair use. Neer is deceases so NFCC#1 can't apply, and the photo from the Harvard publication isn't a press photo, so NFCC#2 is fine. This is an allowed use. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Bucky

      Do we really need 5 non-free files for this article? Werieth (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I would say so, the character has had several drastic notable transformations in its history and there isn't one that would accurately represent the character as a whole.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Hang around comic book articles much? Doesn't make it right I know and I know of the other ones exist guideline that I have mixed feelings on...but I do feel this is better than some of that particular media. My two cents is that the article wants to depict him as the sidekick Bucky, along with him being the Winder Soldier and Captain America. Also wants to depicts the depiction of Stan as both Bucky and Winter Soldier. Perhaps a merging like here and this will work for the images that aren't leads. (Separating the comic book aliases from the IOM aliases of course). Jhenderson 777 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Merging images in a user-created montage does not work to reduce non-free. The one in Eddie Brock will be considered as 3 separate non-free images even though its all in one file. Only a montage created by the copyright owner can be used and considered as a single non-free. (Note that user-created montages are not never allowed to be used, as sometimes can be appropriate like in the case of the Doctor Who character image) but they simply don't reduce non-free usage). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for explaining that. I am glad you got that out of your chest. Although what you said is right. I still think it can help with fair use on a article...and help benefit the article too. Just like Wikipedia guidelines want little images on a list article as possible. Jhenderson 777 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, but replacing X images with a single image that is user-built from those X images (assuming all non-free) does not change how NFC is enforced - that will be considered X non-free images. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I am aware of that...my only problem with these lectures is that they aren't asking the OP's question. It's about a article just as much as it's about images. Thanks for clarifying that that isn't a solution but it is slowly becoming a different topic entirely. Jhenderson 777 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So yeah to sum it up I agree with what TriiipleThreat then. Unless there is strong opinions otherwise. Forget my own merge image idea that still helps improve articles sometimes (like the Doctor article you mentioned) but doesn't change how many fair use images there is. Which I better understood the first time you said it. ;) Jhenderson 777 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:RadioShack Logo 2013.png

      This seems to be a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, PD-logo for a US company. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Lecter, Hannibal.png

      Image collage seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a as three of the actors in this collage are duplicated in other non-free photos in the same article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed, either that article can use that collage and ditch the other 3 non-frees on the Hannibal Lecter page, or drop this montage, keep the 4th image that isn't duplicated by the other three, for four images total. (and even then it is arguable if you need non-free for each given that there's little makeup involved from the actual actors). --MASEM (t) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I personally think that four non-free images of the different actors is too much. I think they could be replaced with free images of the actors. If we do keep some, which is better to keep, the collage, or the individuals? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh I completely agree only one non-free is really necessary and that's of Hopkins version of the character which is the most recognizable - the others can all be done by free images of the actors involved. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png

      Starting to think this is pd-ineligible; it is just a sphere with basic gloss effects in it (even more basic than the previous) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Gloss effects likely make it copyrightable - they are similar to the idea of photographers having copyright on 3D works for lighting and shading even if they are photographing a PD work. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Masem: I don't know about that. There is an image on Commons with the same exact look, and it hasn't any attention from anybody to think that it's copyrightable. Blurred Lines 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The most recent example that has been reviewed is the Oreo logo File:Oreocookielogo.jpg which had been on Commons but review there pointed out that the 3D/glow effect was too complex to be uncopyrightable and moved here. That ABC logo on commons is probably not appropriate either. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Paul Smart and Hilary Smart.jpg

      Did I upload this unfree image correct? It is used in two articles. Are both uses OK in this case? Wirenote (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You need a second rationale for the Hilary Smart page use, but the usage in both is otherwise okay since both men are deceased. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Le Pont de l'Europe

      File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg is being used in violation of WP:NFG with zero supporting critical commentary Werieth (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes, this is improper. On the other hand, the now-PD painting can be used on the JEff Wall article to show how "Mimic" borrows that arrangement. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Civil Affairs Branch Insignia.gif

      I'm pretty sure that this is actually PD-USGov, but I'd like another pair of eyes before I make the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It looks like it to me. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

      I'm wondering if this would qualify for {{PD-simple}}. Apart from the shiny gold foil effect, this album cover is just made up of a simple typeface and a monocolour background. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Technically it would be, but because of the "shine" effect of the letters (which depending on lighting can be copyrighted by the photographer), the best way to assure a free image is to have someone provide us a free photograph of the cover. (the present image does not appear to be). --MASEM (t) 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that would effectively make the current image a replaceable fair use item. I wish I had bought a physical copy of this album a few years ago and not just the download version... De728631 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, but that's my read of how the concepts interact - without the foil effect, the cover is clearly PD-text, but the way one positions the light can influence the final result thus making the photograph's copyright come into play. A question is how this cover is presented (if presented) at places like Amazon and iTunes? --MASEM (t) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The one on Amazon looks like it has a little shine, but I could be wrong. It is closer to PD-simple. The one at iTunes is not reflective, but adds the words "ebay queen" and some odd dots that make it pass TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The iTunes cover seems to be some double album re-release of Peekaboo and E-Bay Queen, so that's not what we need here. But as a side-effect of this review I've now found out that the sleeve is actually an award-winning design [47]. De728631 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Very interesting fact and the whole package is rather nifty. If there were another reliable source maybe saying why it won silver, you could almost justify a non-free image of the whole package (since there would be contextual significance that the cover alone would not suffice). But that's just my opinion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Jimi Hendrix

      How many unfree files does this article need? There appears to be a dispute over the arrest photo in the Drug use and violence section. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't really see a problem with - excluding the arrest photo - the 4 photos and the 3 sound samples for how notable an artist Hendrix is; that's a completely fair number and if anything there's only one (the smaller one of him playing solo). I don't think the arrest photo is necessary to discuss the fact he was arrested. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Gone with the Wind cover.jpg

      In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state) and Arts in Atlanta, the image fails WP:NFCC#8, as the book cover is not the subject of discussion in the article, but rather the image is being used decoratively. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed completely. File:Crescent Apartments, Atlanta, Georgia.jpg can be used instead (a free image where margeret mitchell lived while writing it) to showcase this. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Smokey And The Bandit Poster.jpg

      In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state), the image is being used entirely decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely agreed. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:CoalChamber.jpg

      Replaceable - a currently active group, free image could be obtained. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely. I looked to see if maybe there was a major band lineup change that would make an older shot appropriate but these four seem to be the same current four in the band and they are still active. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are free images of all four members of the band (whilst playing the same gig) at Commons which could easily be made into a single image for the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The Byrds

      Can this article really justify 16 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Images: Of those given, I don't think File:Roger McGuinn-glasses.jpg is needed (you can see these glasses in the lead image), File:The Byrds Raga Rock.png (the band is similar to the lead image at this point, and there's nothing interesting by the adding of a sitar that isn't described in text). The rest of the images do seem appropriate.
      Audio: Too many samples when the songs that are being sampled are all notable (where the sound sample can be located) I would say one per section is appropriate to show how their sound changed over the years.
      That should reduce the image use to about 9-10 files which seems reasonable compared to other major notable bands. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Microsoft Visual Studio

      I am not seeing justification for 8 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Three non-frees seem reasonable - showing the normal text-editing mode, the visual class version, and the winforms interface (all major modes of editing discussed in the article). All other screenshots are excessive or duplicative. The old logo is not discussed and thus should be removed as well. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Battle of Britain (film)

      I cant see justification for all 7 files for this article. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I can see justificatoin for 2, maybe 3. The film poster (obviously), the one of the planes in flight to show that real aircraft were used for production, and perhaps the show of the RAF base "under attack" to again discuss authenticity. The other images in production are just excessive, and there's no need to see actors in character. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Charlotte Salomon

      I cant see justification for all 7 files on this article Werieth (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This one is a bit harder to see where to cut down. The three images that are used to make up the "Signature images" appear to have to be discussed as a whole together based on the sourcing, and while it would be nice if we could do that with one file containing all three images, I don't immediatley see this type of image out there (And a user montage of course would be improper). So these three need to stay. Of the others, then, I would likely consider replacing the self portrait with the photograph as the lead image and remove that self-portait (it isn't a particularly good example of her style). The other images all appear appropriate so, six images should be fine given the nature of 3 of them. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      User Werieth didn't notify me,the uploader of these images, that he had made this request for a review. Rather he began by nominating the article for an AfD, then edited that to indicate it should have been an NFCR without either deleting the AfD nor notifying properly the NFCR.
      Masem's analyis is a good one I think, and he's right to say the self-portrait is not characteristic of her work. I don't have any objection to replacing the portrait by the photograph (though the portrait is referenced in the note about Griselda Pollock's criticism of the 1981 edition of Salomon's work). It's also rather iconic. Worth stressing I think that Salomon's work came into PD in EU this year and there's no question of lack of respect for commercial opportunities here. Just an attempt to get work illustrated in an encyclopedia mounted on US servers. In the past the Charlotte Salomon foundation has been very protective of her. I wrote a blog a few years back on her for Holocaust Day, illustrating it with a single image (sitting alone in an hotel room after leaving Berlin, not one of the images I elected for the article), and was astonished to receive an email from the Foundation reminding me that her works were still in copyright! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I used to leave a {{non-free review}} on the article, but a recent RfC determined that such a notice should not be left on an article. I am not an administer and I cannot delete AfD's, However I did tag the AfD for deletion and it was later deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Salomon. Werieth (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, cheers. Understood. Thanks for that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Coat of Many Colours—I haven't seen any source suggesting that this is "not characteristic of her work"[48]. Also I don't think we are restricted to including images that are "characteristic". Notability for this individual is not limited to activity in the visual arts but also for being a victim of the holocaust. The dual notability of artist and victim of the holocaust is, in my opinion, addressed by the self portrait. In it she presents a subjective though (in my opinion) seemingly accurate image of herself which might compare favorably with a similar photographic portrait. I don't think the self portrait should be removed from the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust, then that's reason to keep as well. I would, however, still switch the photo and that, since the photo is appropriate for identification but otherwise not the subject of commentary and thus fine in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that there would be a need to "source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust"[49]? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You've been told several times what NFCC#8 "contextual significance" requires, particularly in the case where there are multiple appropriate non-frees that do the same job. If this picture is different from those, we need to know why to justify their inclusion, and that means backing up the claim "it's influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience" with sources to include. Which sounds like it can be done, but that does need to be done. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—from where are you deriving that the self-portraint is "influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience"[50]? Who said that? Did somebody say or imply that? I certainly did not. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Coat seemed to imply that the dullness of her self-portrait is based on Holocaust-related experiences. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And a simple search reveals at least a few such sources exist [51] to support that after learning many of her relatives were killed, her self-portrait reflected the bleakness of her situation in the early 1942. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The "uncharacteristic" remark comes from Griselda Pollock noted at note [1] in the article. But Pollock was at pains to open new spaces for a critical appreciation of Salomon's work other than merely autobiographical ones (starting her piece with a quote from Walter Benjamin , another holocaust victim - he committed suicide rather than face a concentration camp, "Reminiscences, even extensive ones, do not always amount to an autobiography ..."), and those spaces would certainly include viewing her work as a holocaust document, which is where we should all find common ground (and which indeed I had lost sight of), so I do support Bus and would really prefer to see the self-portrait kept. It is her only self-portrait. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, now that I've looked up to verify, I think the self-portrait can be kept (along with the rest), but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described to explain the situation she was facing when she painted it so that we assure no further issues with NFCC#8 are there (this possibly can be more in a biographic context). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—in this post you linked to this source. You are saying in this post: "…but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described…". Can you please tell me what material from that source you find applicable to the image of the Charlotte Salomon self-portrait? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't copy and paste from Google Books but it the point where it says "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggled of uprooted people everywhere"... and where it ends "her self-potrait magnified a life that was expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless, and Jewish." This is not the only valid text but representative of making a strong case for keeping the image without question. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you refer to "making a strong case for keeping the image without question". Who are we "making" this "case" for? Can you please tell me who we are trying to convince that justification can be found for the inclusion of that image in this article? The image is of a painting made by the subject of this biography. I believe this is the language in your source that you are referring to: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." Maybe I'm overlooking the applicable text. What do you find in that excerpt that is applicable to our article? I am not sure I really find language in that excerpt that is applicable to our article. Nevertheless I think there is justification for adding the image to our article because it is an image of artwork made by the artist who is the subject of our biography. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Because as everything is currently presented on the page, the image would otherwise violated NFCC#8 (there's no contextual significance give for the self portrait), and NFCC#3 (it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo, and other more significant examples of her artwork); thus to avoid any of these images coming up in question again in the future for different people, these must be addressed. Yes, this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article but that means that a different person reviewing non-free use may come across it and reach the same issue, that #8 and #3 are not met if they are unaware of this discussion.
      The importance of that source (and others like it) point to the fact she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that. That's not an inference we as Wikipedia editors can make but we have secondary expert sources that do that for us so that allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life, making its inclusion crystal clear in meeting NFCC#8 and being a unique style that the other non-frees don't capture, allowing NFCC#3 to be met. We don't just include artwork painted by a person on that's person's page just because they painted it. It has to have contextual context to assure that it is an appropriate exception of non-free allowance as required by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I'll leave it to others to make an edit here. I don't really feel confident about making one myself. I simply don't know her work well enough and there's been rather a lot written about her in the last 30 years or so, much of it very closely argued. Regarding the self-portrait I doubt there's much known about it. All I was really at pains to do was to try finally to get her article illustrated. I don't think there's an unreasonable number of images there, but I'm content to let the community judge that. Perhaps some brave soul will split Life? or Theater? into a separate article (I couldn't possibly myself, but I should be happy to assist: I'll keep the page watched). That should help. Thank you all for your time and input here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Incidentally I thought to try to upload some of these images to the French page, expecting I could do so on a local upload. But when I tried I found myself at a Commons upload (where of course these images aren't allowed because they're not PD in the US until at least 2059). Is that right, or is it just because I wasn't trying on a French server? It strikes me as slightly odd that we can see these images (or at least some of them) on the English pages hosted on the US servers on a Fair Use rationale, but not on EU pages where in fact Salomon's work is now PD. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure of the technical problems, but unfortunately as en.wiki and commons are on US soil so we have to treat them with US copyright laws, which have longer terms. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—the photo is not an artwork by the artist that is the subject of this biography. You are saying that "it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo"[52]. The self-portrait clearly has "contextual significance" because it is an artwork of the subject of this biography. I understand that you disagree on this point. You have expressed that before. But we must look at the language in our policy. You are implying that we should include language conveying that "she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that."[53] The inclusion of any language approximating that in our article is entirely optional. Policy does not require the inclusion of language as a justification for the inclusion of a Non-Free image. You say that your source "allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life"[54]. That is probably original research. I don't think your source draws a connection between the appearance of the self-portrait painting and the "trauma" in her life. We are doing more than just justifying Non-Free images. We are writing an article. Any language in the article should contribute to the overall article. We should not contrive to include unlikely or dubious commentary as a justification for the inclusion of Non-Free images. Policy does not call for this. We should almost always opt for the inclusion of text in the article if it advances the quality of the article. But when text is problematic in some way, its inclusion should be avoided. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You are clearly being tenacious and wikilaywering and there's no point in continuing to repeat policy at you. The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so." You should not degrade the quality of the article to "justify" the inclusion of a Non-Free image especially as no language in policy is compelling you to do anything at all. As you have said, "this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article"[55]. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Now you are twisting my words. Please stop now. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—WP:NFCC#8 calls for: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This says absolutely nothing about the presence of text in an article providing justification for the inclusion of a non-free image. The language in policy could very easily say that text was required if this were the case. It does not. If you wish to change policy then that is what you should be endeavoring to do. You should not be endeavoring to enforce nonexistent policy to the detriment of an article. Sources are used to advance the interests of quality in an article. We should not be contriving to concoct language perhaps tenuously supported by sources if that language does not add to the overall quality of the article. In this case it is perfectly clear that the artwork is contextually significant. The subject of the biography is an artist and the the artwork is her self-portrait. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't meet "contextual significance" without discussing it in the text" - that's the meaning of that phrase which has been made clear to you many times. And to say that adding the fact that her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing as a result of her experiences and the loss of her relatives in the Holocaust is going to make the article worse, how? That seems like extremely compelling information to add to the article not only for helping non-free but to explain what influenced her style. And that all can be sourced without original research. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem—you say "You can't meet 'contextual significance' without discussing it in the text"[56]. But this is not found in policy, and in many instances incorrect. Policy language is perfectly capable of alerting us to a requirement for text in an article relating to a non-free image, as a justification for the inclusion of that non-free image. You repeatedly point to WP:NFCC#8 as a source for such instruction in policy. It is not found there. WP:NFCC#8 reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "discussing it in the text"[57]. Bus stop (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Masem—here again is the quote from your source: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." What would you add to the article about the self-portrait, based on that excerpt from a source? You say "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing"[58]. The source, an excerpt from which I quote above, does not support your assertion that "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing". As concerns "contextual significance", would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Gouache? Why not? The self-portrait is executed in gouache. But is the self-portrait significant in that context? Probably not. There are many examples of artworks executed in gouache, some of which would be free images. Would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Charlotte Salomon? Probably we would. In the context of an article on the artist, Charlotte Salomon, a self portrait by that artist would have "contextual significance". In that context, a self-portrait of Charlotte Salomon is very significant, and it is not likely that any free images would be available to substitute for it. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

      You continue to wikilaywer and refuse to get the point, especially when the discussion to be added would improve the article and the non-free justification. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)

      Given that the work is PD-1923 all the non-free files are replaceable Werieth (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes - the recordings will still be copyrighted but we can now use a MIDI version created by a user put to the CC or PD to replace those now that the original score is no longer copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have tagged the sound recordings as replaceable non-free files. The images should in my opinion just be retagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} as there is nothing there which is copyrightable apart from the lyrics and musical compositions which are in the public domain because of age. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Gallery of country coats of arms

      Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which may have articles about everything which has notability. Every independent country in the world is notable enough to write about. I think everyone would agree on that statement.

      The most prominent symbol of an independent country is its coat of arms. It may not be the most well-known symbol (that is normally the flag), but it is arguably the most prominent, as it stands for the government and its power, is displayed at central government buildings, at embassies, at border crossings, on official stamps and on the cover of passports etc. So I think the coat of arms of an independent country is notable enough to be displayed on Wikipedia. To display these coats of arms together and with links to the articles about each one of them is what an encyclopedia should be about, in my opinion. This is encyclopedic, fair and well within the limits of what is allowed for the images we have. I believe that the use of these works, to illustrate the object in question together with its corresponding symbols for other countries, where no freer equivalent is available on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

      Some people think that some (but not all) coats of arms should not be allowed to be displayed on that page. This is not consistent. Either we have an encyclopedic gallery of the coats of arms of all independent nations, or we delete the gallery all together. To treat some of the coats of arms as not free enough for this gallery is not rational.

      The way they want the gallery to be displayed, seems to indicate they wouldn't even think it proper if the images they find to be non-free would be replace by other, acctually free images. They want these coats of arms not to be present at all in the gallery, as far as I understand. Arms Jones (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      No, first we are not to have articles about everything notable. Being notable means you can have a stand alone article, but we do not require it, nor is it practical.
      Second, indexes based just on visual image identification, even if they were all free, is against how we work we images, per WP:IG. We link to Commons for galleries of free images, and we don't allow non-free in pure picture galleries, which this article presently is. Add to the fact that most people will not recognize their own country's coat of arms, less that of other countries - the better way for a reader to find this is to go to the country article where the coat of arms will be present in the infobox - whether free or not. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote may, not must, have articles about what is notable.
      Commons is for plain image galleries, not for galleries with links to the apporpriate articles on each symbol. If people do not recognize the arms of their own country, then there's even more reason to have this. The gallery is for comparing coats of arms with eachother, which you can't do if you have to go in and out of articles all the time. What if more comparative text was added to the article? Should we delete the gallery of national flags too? But that's not the question here, the question is the rationale for displaying the arms. Arms Jones (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no text to guide the reader for comparing the various costs, so there's no reason to include all the images for that purpose. And yes, the gallery of national flags should be deleted too even though most of those are free images. It still fails WP:IG. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd put it slightly more softly than Masem, but the point is correct - from WP:IG, "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." Note that it doesn't say "prohibited," just discouraged. However, replacing any fair-use imagery with free versions would certainly overcome one of the concerns raised. Repeated AfD's going back to 2008 have shown there is consensus to keep this page, but genuinely comparative text would also seem an important requirement. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that each one of these coats has its own article it looks like this is a WP:NFC#UUI#6 violation too. I cannot see justification for non-free media in this gallery, especially when most of these coats have their own article which goes into fairly detailed information. Werieth (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consider what you'll find in a print encyclopedia. Galleries are extremely rare in such a context, but the few exceptions I can remember seeing include flags and coats of arms — if we ignore the copyright issue, there's no good reason to prohibit such a page, since we shouldn't presume to tell the professional encyclopedias that they've included sections that aren't encyclopedic. Now back to the copyright issue: the whole reason for the existence of this page is to highlight the coats of arms themselves. You can't have a proper depiction of coats of arms, a proper kind of page to facilitate identification, with a thoroughly unprofessional Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies notice. Professional encyclopedias can include such sections because of fair use; if such a use be fair for dual educational/commercial purposes, it will definitely be fair for our purposes because we're nonprofit, and again it's absurd to think that omitting constituent parts of the gallery makes ours better than ones that the professional encyclopedias provide. The only good reason to exclude an image on copyright grounds is the issue of replaceability, since fair use provisions mandate that we use a PD or freely-licensed depiction of a blazon in place of a nonfree depiction of the same blazon. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you've completely omitted the fact that we're trying to minimize non-free use. Replacability is not the only reason to not use non-free images; if the non-free image is more appropriate in the academic context on one page, we should be limiting its use to that page, and reusing elsewhere where the context is much weaker is not appropriate. In this case, just to have a gallery of coat of arms with country names doesn't provide any context, when the individual COAs are used on the various country pages and probably with explaination of why the COA is like that, is way against the free content mission/non-free content resolution. Yes, it would be fine by fair use, but its not appropriate per non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • What we are discussing here is wether this is fair use or not for Wikipedia. Nyttend has clearly understood the implications of the questions, Masem has not. Still, Masem says "it would be fine by fair use" but then doesn't reach the logical conclussion to agree to allow this. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep removed Non-free content must meet every requirement of NFCC, not just some of them partially. A gallery should not display copyrighted images considering the lack of significant content (criterion #8) required to explain why non-free content is needed on the article. We can certainly including content on the gallery page that 'due to some coats of arms being held in copyright, that <insert countries here>'s coats of arms could not be displayed on the article directly', and link to the article's coat of arms. This would be the clear alternative, not to violate NFCC. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text already existing on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") It is quite possible to meet criterion #8 with the right explaining text, so there is no reason deleting the images just because such text does not exist there at present. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete all Non-free coat of arms images almost always violate WP:NFCC#1 as a free replacement can be created from the blazon. See for example Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17#File:Arzachena-Stemma.png (and the following sections on the FFD page). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text which already is there on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have not placed words in your mouth that you never said. You are the one who have wanted the text "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies". I even asked you if you could accept free images but you didn't reply to the question even if you commented on it.. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Im going to have to place a {{fact}} tag on that statement. I have said that wikipedia policies forbid the use of copyrighted CoA's in galleries. To my knowledge if a CoA is still under copyright there is nothing we can do but except that fact and treat the image as we would any other under WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • The copyrighted image is one thing, the coat of arms is another. What if there was a free image of the same coat of arms? You have to understand, the same coat of arms can be rendered in many different images. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Not necessarily, If the underlying CoA's is copyrighted anything based off of it is covered by the same copyright. (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). Copyright is a fairly large can of worms. If you can get an image that is under a free license and that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is under a free license there is no issue. However in many cases that may be difficult or impossible to do, due to the nature of copyright. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You mean if the blazon is copyrighted? Well, normally it isn't, because it is protected legally by other means. The grant of arms is what protects the arms. Just like an invention is not copyrighted either but rather protected by a patent and a trademark is not copyrighted but protected by trademark registration. The coat of arms as such is never copyrighted, because it is another kind of intellectual property as compared to works of art or literary texts. So yes, there is a good chance there could be a free image of the arms, in a copyright sense, which possibly could be used. Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Never use the term never, If you can provide solid evidence that the image/blazon is not under copyright that changes the media from non-free to free. However that evidence must be solid. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As I said, the coat of arms as such is never protected by copyright but by other laws and regulations, and an image of the arms can be copyrighted while another image of the same arms can be free for use. You must understand this difference between the arms as such and one image of it before we go any further in this discussion. I have the feeling you don't understand it. Arms Jones (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove non-free images this article is about a clear a failure of NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 as you could see for any image that is not free, and it could be argued strongly that the whole thing should be deleted due to its obvious failure of WP:IG as well. Howerver, for the time being the most important thing is to remove the non-free images and at least get it in line with our policies. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please elaborate. Why is this a "clear" failure of NFCC #3a and #8? I don't read them as you seem to do, I don't see any violation of those guidelines, so I don't understand your reasoning just because you say it is a "clear" failure. Also, consider the nature of this gallery - that's part of the question. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      A place-holder image by Arms Jones
      I think most people here do not fathom the nature of coats of arms or national coats of arms. They seem to see this as a gallery of just any kind of images, without thinking about how this is intended to be displayed to the user, that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia giving information to people and that national coats of arms do not follow the same copyright rules as most images do. They also don't seem to have any intention of trying to solve the problem they see, they just want to delete instead of trying to find a solution that could benefit Wikipedia. I have created a place-holder image which I think could be used for those arms where Wikipedia does not have a free image (even if I still think the use of the images is fair use in this gallery) but perhaps you don't like that either? As I understand the suggstions from some of the deleters, it wouldn't even be possible to use this, because I understand they think, if a country has had a coat of arms image up to now which was non-free, it should stay out of the gallery even if a totally free image were to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Have I understood this correctly? Arms Jones (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was about to replace the non-free CoA's with File:No shield available.svg on 10 January before I noticed there was a revert war going on. A placeholder image does look better than notices that say "some coats of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies" (which also seems to violate WP:SELFREF). What about creating an image that says "See article" (or something else that makes clear that the CoA can be seen by clicking the link beneath the image)? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So why didn't you? You didn't want to interfer with the war? I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I think what you are saying sounds like a retrospective rationalisation. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't because multiple users editing the same article simultaneously results in edit conflicts or unwitting reversions of each other's edits. Also, the text "No image available" shown by File:No shield available.svg doesn't actually apply in this case (there is an image available, though it can't be shown in the article since it's non-free). Do you agree with the rest of my comment? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The rest of your comment actually seems like a good idea. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you haven't understood a number of things. Firstly, as far as this article is concerned, any free image is fine. Secondly, you're clearly missing the point with "I still think the use of the images is fair use". Wikipedia does not operate under the fair use laws of the US, our stance (and policies) on copyright are far stricter than that and are listed at WP:NFCC. The non-free images here fail NFCC3a (because they are excessive, being used elswhere), and NFCC8 (because there is no critical commentary, because this article is merely a list). Galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are loads of images used on Wikipedia with fair use rationale, and you say fair use is not used on Wikipedia; I don't follow. Using some of the commonly explained fair use rationale, Wikipedia should be able to use the images in a gallery like this. I can't see the problem with them being used elsewhere too: Of course they are used elsewhere too, since this is a list directing the reader to more extensive information on each coat of arms - just like the list on countries direct people to more extensive articles on the countries as such. As for critical commentary, what about it? I could write some, but so far most of what I have tried to do to make this gallery better has just been reverted. Then you say yourself that galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Almost always. That means you can accept that his gallery could perhaps be developed into something which everyone would accept? Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are lots of lists on Wikipedia with images illustrating the list. Look at all the lists of prime ministers and presidents, where there are portraits of the people who have held the positions. Should all the images in these lists be deleted too? Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ill make several points, the use rationales are not fair use rationales, they are non-free use rationales. Those lists you are talking about? guess what they use free images. usage of free media has almost no restrictions, where usage of non-free media is on the other end of the spectrum. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The rationale is about the use of non-free media, but the rationale is usually that the use of it in spite of it being non-free is that the use is fair and reasonable in the context where it is used. That is what I mean. That is what we are discussing here, not wether the individual files are non-free or not. Arms Jones (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Even if this debate is not over (far from it, it seems), I have made another suggestion at Talk:Gallery of country coats of arms#Suggested change to this page. If you would be so kind to give an opinion there? Arms Jones (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Placeholder images

      Do the other users support replacing the non-free coats of arms with a placeholder image (the image created by Arms Jones, my suggestion, or something else)? SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      If an "image block" is needed for formatting, placeholder images would be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what you mean by an "image block", though IMO a placeholder is better than text underneath the gallery pointing to a project page to explain why some coats of arms are missing. Removing the non-free coats of arms entirely, without the current text, results in many talk page comments pointing out several countries are missing (as can already be seen on the article's talk page). SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Official-Logo.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Even if a raionale was added for that second article (about the founder) it would be inapproprite given the organization has its own article where the logo is otherwise appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So, just to be clear, the point of debate is whether or not this logo can be used in this article? If that is the case, then why not simply remove it from the offending article and only allow it to be used on the organisation's own page? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Jimmy two-shoes titlecard.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Violates WP:NFCC#8 in Jimmy Two-Shoes (season 1). The image is not essential for a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. Doesn't seem to fall into one of the categories listed at WP:NFCI, unless the use is considered similar to a titlecard and as such covered by WP:NFCI#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the season 1 titlecard is different from the season 2 titlecard, it would appear to perform the quite useful service of helping watchers of an unknown episode identify which season the episode is from. But the basic rationale would seem to be exactly that explained in WP:NFCI#1 -- for identification, and to show how the show was presented/marketed. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:On Earth's Furrowed Brow.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that the use in Timothy Lee Barnwell violates NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:The Face of Appalachia.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed, should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Hands in Harmony.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Russian Football Union.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ABS-CBN logo 2014.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • This doesn't look original enough for copyright. I'd rather change it to PD-textlogo or at least {{PD-USonly}}. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, too, expect that the United States copyright office would refuse to register it on the grounds of lacking sufficient graphical authorship. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:East Wind Over Weehawken, Edward Hopper 1934.tiff

      Violates WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c in List of works by Edward Hopper. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This may be free. Hopper's big work, "Nighthawks" in '42 lapsed into the public domain, so the same might be the same here. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would think this is PD...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Checking around like I did for Nighthawks, I think we need assurance that the work was not renewed 28 years after its first display (presumably 1962 for renewal), which is why Nighthawks is in the PD. We can't assume Hopper or his estate failed to do that on this as they did for Nighthawks, but the possibility is there. (Note that if it is non-free, the use is improper there. And a suggestion would be to avoid using inline images - even if they are free - and select 5 or 6 good representative free paintings - including Nighthawks - to illustrate that list on the right side, as then it can easily go Featured) --MASEM (t) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There are no entries for this image in the copyright catalogues of 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966. So if it ever became effective in the 1930s, the copyright has not been renewed. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the first publication was in a book, newspaper, exhibition catalogue or something, then don't you also have to look for the book, newspaper or catalogue by searching for the title of that publication? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No. The copyright for books, newspapers, catalogues etc. first of all applies to the text and the general arrangement of text and images. But images by individual artists published in a book are always copyrighted separately. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, we don't know exactly when it was first publicly displayed - the point considered "published" for artwork. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fewclick home1.png

      This violates WP:NFCC#10c as the article isn't, despite the claim in the FUR, specifically dedicated to a discussion about this screenshot. Maybe it is {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Arguably, this is a candidate for CSD/AFD (the only external source is Alexa page rankings, and that's not helping). The screenshot, if made by a WP user, however, should be PD-text. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Exploration Flight Test 1 Delta IV Heavy.jpg

      If the NASA claim is correct, then it is {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Insufficiently sourced. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      TinEye gives no results for this image. Hard to tell where exactly this comes from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If it can't be verified that it is from NASA, then WP:NFCC#10a isn't satisfied, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And peeking around nasa.gov, there's clearly plenty of PD-NASA free imagery there to replace this. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It might come from here, found via Google. Also found it here, but that appears to be a cropped version of the original. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:LCN TV logo.png

      Used twice in the same article, but only the infobox use is policy-compliant. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The non-free images should be removed from the table per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Sun Shenlu PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      There's several images on that page that also fail NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      See also File:Li Han PLAAF.jpg, File:Fan Wanzhang PLAAF.jpg, File:Zhao Baotong PLAAF.jpg‎, File:Wang Hai PLAAF.jpg‎
      Now wait a minute, WP:NFLISTS also apply to unique historical photos as well? Even when the photo is only thing that readers can use to identify historically notable persons that the list discuses? Jim101 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We have individual articles on the fliers represented by these photos (according to that table), so the identification is fine on the respective pages dedicated to the individual pilots. But not on the list page. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Li Han PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This appears to fail the first main test at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and as such to be in the public domain in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The first main test at Commons:Commons:URAA-restored copyrights requires that it was published in an eligible country. The country of first publication was presumably China, which is an eligible country. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the first test requires that this had been published in China (or another eligible country) in order for URAA to restore US copyright in this work. I see no evidence that this image had been published in China (or another eligible country) prior to the publication at the site specified as the source of this image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The image looks like a scan of a paper publication, so it was definitely published somewhere. Unfortunately, the only source is "图片来源：新华网", i.e. "Photo source: Xinhuanet", the website where it is hosted. Also note that URAA is irrelevant for unpublished photographs; such photographs instead have to comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}, regardless of their source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Quick question on the definition of published vs unpublished due to China's stupid two tiered publishing system...what about publications, which by law, can only be made available to certain members of a society (in China's case it would be card carrying party members vs. everyone else)? does that count as published or unpublished?
      Also, an extension on the previous question...what about mass media sources (People's Daily, PLA Daily, etc published in the 1950s) which were originally available to public, now were restrict to research achieves controlled by the Chinese government...does that count as published or unpublished?
      Anyway, those are just questions on what to look for and what to upload if I go on my next research trip. Jim101 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In the United States and before 1978, "publication" would typically mean that any member of the public could access the newspaper. If access to certain newspapers was restricted, then this might count as "limited publication" (which doesn't count as publication), but I'm not sure. This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure exactly how a US court would argue here. To make it further complicated, there is also the possibility that photos like this were published outside China. If the publication in China didn't qualify as "publication", but the publication outside China did, then USA would consider the other country to be the source country, which may result in different URAA considerations.
      It shouldn't matter whether access is restricted for the moment, if they were originally published in the 1950s. Compare with things such as ancient books. There might only be a single copy left of certain 15th century books, and if that copy is held by a private collector, then the book might not be easily accessible for other people, but the book still counts as "published". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Hotchkiss gun team.jpg

      If this is from 1922, then there is a fair chance that it was published before 1923 in which case the non-free copyright tag should be changed into {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Some info about The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine can be found here, but I am not sure whether that's Volume III or not. If the book contained the photograph, it means the image was indeed published in 1922. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg

      Claimed to be copyrighted in the United States, but likely below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed. I too don't see anything in this work that could make it eligible for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:WitchesofEastEndSeason1Poster.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      My personal opinion is that those two uses are unnecessary, but note that both uses "might" be appropriate per WP:NFCI#1 iff the text present in those two articles is considered enough critical commentary about the season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Washington Avenue in the 1940s.jpg

      1940s postcard. It's a bit dubious if things like this were renewed, so likely PD. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alexander Pushkin Foggy Bottom, Washington.jpg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fighting Illini coach Fletcher Lane.png

      Incomplete source, see WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Windows Phone Store.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#8 in one article and WP:NFCC#10c in the other. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not even really needed since the design follow the bare Metro style (save for the backing image here, but that itself is a separate copyright to Sega). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Rhythm Nation

      I really dont think 17 non-free files are needed. Werieth (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, given those montages which appear to be user constructed, I get at least 86 non-frees on this page. Way too many, even if one can document the influence of the video on other videos.
      • Infobox cover is fine.
      • Song sample is fine.
      • Of everything else given, the only other example I would think reasonable is a video clip of the video to demonstrate the choreography, since this is 1) an element of discussion on the video and 2) difficult to show by stills.
      Everything else is inappropriate - we don't need to see the full album cover on the single, and the use of films and TV show shots to show where the video's influence has gone is inappropriate as well. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed some images from this article. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Legends of the Hidden Temple (assembling monkey).jpg

      (Yes, I know this image is only being used on one article, but I'm not sure I want it deleted, so I am listing it here. If the consensus is to remove it, then this image will be garbage collected along with other orphaned images.)

      I would like a second opinion as to whether this meets WP:NFCC#8 in Legends of the Hidden Temple. I'm not aware of a reliable secondary source discussing the graphical presentation of the final round (which would give this contextual significance). Other elements (the Mayan setting, the obstacles), could be described by text alone, and another free image already illustrates the structure of the Hidden Temple. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Given that it is the only non-title screenshot, and that particular event is one of the signature events, I think the image is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Werieth here. The show is notable for that final round (running through the temple), but unfortunately due to age, a broader shot of the overall set - which would be better - would lose relevancy of the types of tasks they have. So this is a suitable replacement and appropriate NFC use. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      One pound (British coin)

      I cant see justification for 23 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I looked to try to see if there's any discussion of why the given designs were picked across the years but I'm not seeing anything to support that. As such, most of those images in the table need to go. If there was a way to explain why they chose a particular emblem for a specific mint year, that might be something but that doesn't seem to exist. Also, I tried to see if there was a pre-made gallery of these mintings from the Royal Mint, but they don't appear to have one, but if that did exist, the single montage would be sufficient to use. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep It clearly serves the interests of the article to include pictorial depictions of the coins. The Royal Mint has this to say about pictorial reproductions of their coins: "The flat form reproduction of a coin for use in advertisements or other promotional literature is normally permissible, providing the coin is reproduced in a faithful likeness and shown in good taste." Going by that the Royal Mint obviously wouldn't have a problem with their use in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • FAir use has nothing to do with it. They are copyrighted images, and harm the encyclopedia's free content mission. (Within fair use, their use is certainly fine, but we employ a stricter requirement than fair use). --MASEM (t) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If Wikipedia was truly committed to the use of only free content that it would limit usage to just free content. However, Wikipedia's primary mission is to educate and disseminate knowledge and it accepts that the use of non-free materials supports that aim. Our fair use guidelines are in place not to support a "free content mission" but simply to protect the foundation from legal proceedings. They are more restrictive than the legal definition of "fair use" simply because editors are not copyright lawyers so it's safer to err on the side of caution. In this case, the article is certainly better with the images than without, and the Royal Mint's explicit guidelines on the reproduction of the coin designs easily fall within the scope of their use on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia has no "fair use guidelines". We have "non-free policy" which is aimed not for legal protection of WP (though through it, it assures fair use defense for US law is met), but to encourage free content and avoid the excessive use of non-free where it is not fundamentally needed. It is completely wrong to think of NFC as a fair use guideline. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the images in the table for violation of WP:NFTABLE. Several of the images are even used multiple times in the same table. This case also seems similar to WP:NFC#UUI §14, except that we are talking about coins instead of logos. The infobox images look fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't violate NFTABLE which 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. Exceptions should be very well-justified...". The exception invoked here is that the Royal Mint explicitly allows not-for-profit reproductions, provided the usage is not in bad taste. The guideline permits us to judge these things case by case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter what the Royal Mint says or allows (unless they say it is under a compatable free license, which is not the case); the images are non-free, and thus NFTABLE fails here; we're looking to meeting the free content mission and minimizing non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Let's get down to fundamentals:
      (1) The images substantially can't be replaced with other images that are more free. Yes, in some cases photographs by the Royal Mint could be replaced with photographs by Wikipedians -- and that is something that should be done. But that is not what the more fundamental discussion above is about, namely the Royal Mint's copyright in the design of these coins, which is something that we cannot work around, if the coins are to be shown.
      (2) These images are not free; but there is no purely legal problem with us showing these images, on the basis the Mint's stated position above, which amounts to a clear licensing of use, even if not a licensing to create derivative works.
      (3) Given the Mint's position above, use of these images will not in any way inhibit dissemination or reproduction of the Wikipedia page.
      (4) The purpose of the encyclopedia page is to survey all aspects of the coins, including the different designs that have been applied to them -- something of particular interest from a numismatic perspective (even if the coins are not particularly rare), in common with a similar purpose in other numismatic articles across the encyclopedia as a whole. This purpose would be essentially gutted by removing the images, turning the article from being a valuable resource for this purpose, and an integrated part of the wider valuable resource that is WP's articles on numismatics, from that into something essentially informationally useless for the purpose. (In my view, removal of the images would therefore fly in the face of NFCC #8).
      The bottom line, to me, is that if you take a decent comprehensive article on a topic, and essentially gut it in an irreversible way for no good purpose, that doesn't encourage people to upload free images. It makes people frankly less likely to upload any images, or lift a finger for any other article they might otherwise have been tempted to improve.
      These images are not harmful to Wikipedia, and cannot be substituted by free ones. It is not in WP's best interests to remove them, and gut an otherwise decent article -- and it certainly is not in our readers' best interests. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no discussion about the individual designs, so as such they fail contextual significance - one can understand that the Royal Mint has used several different designs in the past w/o images, while showcasing the current circulating design. Inclusion of excess images that do not meet a free license fails the free content mission and non-free resolution, irregardless of how useful the images may be. We can link to the page on the Royal Mint site that have all these designs pictured to avoid using them in a manner that harms the mission in WP. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There doesn't need to be discussion.
      The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Jheald (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Why does the reader need to know what the designs were while reading this article on Wikipedia? The lack of any text to show the importance of these old designs belie this need. We can certainly point the reader that if they are curious to the old designs (there is a single page at the Royal Mint that does this just fine) but as a tertiary source we do not need to document these old designs if it harms our mission. Hence the need for contextual significance, as would be the case for old logos and the like. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't have any text to justify the presence of entries on Timeline of information theory either. The point is that if a reader wants to know the sequence of discoveries in information theory and who made them, we have an article for them, and that is the article. Similarly if the reader is looking at the different one pound coins in their pocket and wonders just how many different designs there have been, when they were made and what they look like, then we have an article for them too, and One pound (British coin) is that article. We're an encyclopedia. That's what we do -- we provide information, and we present it in a systematic organised way that anyone can edit. We bring together information and do it ourselves, rather than just leaving it to pages on external websites that may be here today and gone tomorrow, none of them at all systematised with any of the others in the way that we can be.
      But nobody would seriously suggest gutting timeline of information theory "because people can just look it up at the IEEE". So let's get down to the other half of why you suggest we gut this article, namely your claim that it "harms our mission". To remind ourself, lets look up m:mission to remember exactly what that mission is:
      "... to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."
      Now, this is not free content. But nor is it threatening or harming or diminishing in any way our ability "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Instead, it seems to me, that our ability to provide articles that give a decent comprehensive treatment of a topic specifically does engage people to come and develop free content here (of which, for example, the (free) article text is a not insignificant 1/4,000,000th of what just en.wiki provides), whereas gutting such an article is specifically likely to make people feel dis-empowered, and less likely to come here and collect and develop any more educational content under a free license for us.
      So it seems to me your citation of m:mission is entirely spurious here. This material is not supplanting any free content; and it is by encouraging and empowering people to build articles, including articles like this, that the free encyclopedia is most likely to thrive. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't use non-free images because there happens to be no free images for replacement, as no images + text is considered a free replacement for a non-free image. Note that we're not talking about stripping away the table, which the second column states the textual description of the mint design, so between that, and the Royal Mint page, the reader that is trying to go the reverse way (they have the coin and want to look up what it was) has enough resources to do that (and of course the number of people that actually might benefit from this use is very small, and violates WP:USEFUL). We don't need to be the end-all be-all of information, that's not even the purpose of the encyclopedia which is meant to summarize information and provide reference to learn more. We are being challenged by the Foundation to minimize non-free and that means we have to think of different ways that information can be grouped and presented that minimizes non-free that would otherwise be acceptable in other works where fair use is the only limitation. This is a very clear case where, as presented, there's no reasoning to include that many images of the old coins. If there was a single image produced by the Royal Mint that showed that so that it would be treated as only one non-free, there might be reason to include that, but I've yet to be able to find one, and to show every single coin via multiple non-frees is not an appropriate approach. The Foundation is very clear our goal is to use non-free exceptionally, and that means being very discriminating and coming up with ways to avoid using non-free images on WP while pointing readers to find non-frees they may be looking for, and here's a prime case. Yes, it is very unlikely we're talking any legal harm to the Foundation, but the point is that if we allow cases like this, that creates the slippery slope of allowing non-free documentation without discussion of any type of historical media that can only be presented through non-free images. That's why NFLISTS exists is to prevent this type of gross misuse. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are trying to recognise and identify the coins in your pocket, those images are going to help you a lot more than the text in the table ever would.
      There are fundamental good reasons to keep strong pressure on the use of non-free content -- to encourage alternate free content; to minimise legal risk, both ours and any for our commercial reusers; to maximise re-usability; to uphold WP's reputation. But none of those are issues in this particular case. So we should not gut a decent, useful article. Jheald (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      "It's Useful" is not a reason to keep an article or an image when there is more harm to the mission in keeping the part that is considered "useful". Again, this thinking presumes that people will come to WP first to look for information when we should not be that high a priority for information like this. We are a tertiary source meant to summarize information, not fully document it. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no harm to the mission by keeping this material. It's wanton removal that's more likely to do harm (as argued above).
      And I'm sorry, but I stand by m:mission. I want to document as much of the world as I can in freely reusable educational content here, in as much detail and comprehensiveness as we can -- because that's actually what m:mission calls on us to do: to build, rather than to destroy. Nobody ever came to a website for the articles it decided not to treat properly, and it doesn't encourage editors and contributors either. Jheald (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If we are using non-free where it is not necessary to document, in a summary tertiary manner, a topic, we are harming the free content mission. That's the reason the Foundation's resolution exists, and why we have NFC, and why this is the problem here. There is "utility" but no readily-apparent educational value - as written - to retain all but images of the current front and back of the present coin. Since we can defer the utility to a easily-linked page, we can keep the rest of the educational value of this page while reducing non-free, avoiding any harm to the mission. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't agree with your analysis. If you look at WP:NFCHIST the fundamental drivers of the NFC policy were practical considerations of the sort I listed above, at 21:59. And as I wrote then, none of those are issues in this particular case.
      And I reject your view that this page is somehow harmful to our m:mission. Our mission is to encourage and empower the development of free content. The presence of the images takes nothing away from the free content on the page. It might have done, if it involved the considerations listed at 21:59. Then we would have had to weigh its presence very carefully. But it doesn't. If you take m:mission seriously, what is most likely to empower and engage people around the world etc to come and build, it is keeping a decent article in the decent shape that it is now. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As soon as the Foundation set the resolution, using NFC as a example, that changed the purpose of NFC from being a means to keep fair use in check to minimizing non-free. The same rules apply in terms of documenting all that but now we have to be more refined about what is kept. And while the goal is to help create free content and draw more editors, we have to be aware that in that potential pool of editors are those that do not even attempt to adhere to what the encyclopedic purpose is; they complain already that we don't use more images or don't spend the few minutes to understand non-free before uploading more. Our mission is clear - to create free content that is freely redistributable - not to draw in more editors, and even if our NFC policy is driving away editors, that's better in the long term because that means a larger percentage of editors that do understand the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, I believe in free content as much as anyone. I've spent much of the last four weeks of my time slogging away trying to create an index in an effort to make over a million PD images the British Library just dumped on Flickr even vaguely accessible or usable. With the result that coverage is now almost 40%, from nothing.
      If these images really did affect the freedom of redistributability of our free content, or represented any kind of legal theat, or in any way prejudiced our reputation, or could be replaced with free content, then fine: that is exactly what the NFC policy is drafted to control. But here none of that is the case. Instead -- as is typical with currency articles -- having the images directly does add to reader understanding (NFCC #8), and the same encyclopedic value would not be achieved with fewer (NFCC #3). So this is the kind of use the NFC policy is drafted to protect -- a policy that it should be noted was fundamentally confirmed by the Foundation licensing resolution, and changed hardly one iota in response to it.
      These images do not harm the m:mission. (Which is to create free content, not to remove non-free content). They were not added by people who "did not understand NFC". There is none of the practical benefits listed above that getting rid of them would serve. Doing so would merely make a valuable article significantly less valuable. (And it is the value that it can give to the world which is what makes the freedom of our content worth fighting for in the first place). So lets keep the value in a valuable article, keep up the motivation of the valuable people who created it, and (per policy) resolve to keep the images. Jheald (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The mission is to promote the generation of free content; that might not seem much different from just creating free content, but it weighs the freeness of material extremely heavily. We should not be using non-free where its use is not clearly aiding in the educational goal. That's why we outline a lot of what Wikipedia is not, and one of those is that we are not a catalog, including ones around numismatics, which this table in this article borders on. There are plenty of other resources for those seeking details on coins to refer to and that we can point them to in the context of an encyclopedia, but a listing of the out-of-mint coins presented without any other comment is pretty much not what should be included, serving a very narrow purpose. If there were reasons why the various symbols were used (as likely can be documented on the US State Quarters series), that moves the table out from being a simple catalog to something of educational value. Otherwise, we're just listing for the purposes of listing and without considering summarizing and highlighting important information for the reader. Again, we have to keep in mind, we're not the only site on the internet that documents this, and it is not WP's goal to document everything. A page (or at least, in this case, the table on this page) does not serve the larger purpose of the encyclopedia as it stands; even if we had free images of the coins, without any discussion of the various iterations, that would not be an appropriate table to keep here.
      What's important here is to understand the slippery slope problem. Everyone things their area of expertise in subject matter is important that we can relax the policy to make these stand out. But that creates the situation which has repeated over and over that "Hey, this article uses non-free images in a table, my subject is just as important so I should get so too." And thus we get people using non-free images completely inappropriately because they saw them being used in a somewhat stronger location, and creates larger problems over time. No area of WP is more important than any other area in terms of NFC allowance, and that's why I point to the fact that the Resolution challenges us to how to present information in the free-est form possible with the necessary exceptions to make a topic understandable as presented on the page. If that means that we have to use novel approaches that other works don't have to employ, or rest on third-party sources and links to delve into information more than we can, we have to take those. I know the table format used in this article is likely common across coin collector books, but it does not work considering that we are 1) an encyclopedia and 2) have a requirement of reducing non-free usage. And this is a point that applies to all fields of WP, not just numismatics. There is a balance of course, which is why I've said if there was a single image from the Royal Mint (the ones that own the copyright I believe) that had all the old coins in them in one shot, that's reasonable to include, but not all dozen-some variants. I've said it before elsewhere, this all may seem like intellectual wankery to minimize non-free but it is the type of thing that if we are not vigilant in identifying where non-free should not be used, it will become a point of abuse and hence the need to close off holes like this. --MASEM (t) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't accept your view that because either sites exist, we shouldn't try ourseves to give as detailed and comprehensive survey as we can of a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest.
      As for your view that we need to remove these images because that is what the Foundation wants, I have asked Jimbo for clarification. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      We're not supposed to be detailed - we're supposed to be summarizing at a reasonably high level with links to sources of more detail. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what policy says. There are limits to what should be included, but level of detail is not one of them - proper weight of coverage is the major criterion for inclusion within a particular article, i.e. you can also summarize "low level" details if those are relevant. And I'd say that the various versions of the coin released throughout its history are very much relevant to the article covering that coin as its only topic. Diego (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]
      NOTPAPER is only directed at topic inclusion, not the level of detail of coverage, which is more detailed by WP:UNDUE, and of course, by the definition of what a encyclopedia is (a tertiary summary of topics). Have there been other third party sources that go into detail about the historical significance of these coins beyond the Royal Mint? If not, that probably points to the inclusion as undue and putting the external link as a reference for readers to learn more. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems a perfect example for WP:EL: "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".—Aquegg (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep for the reasons stated by Betty Logan and Jheald. It's also worth remembering that the call to minimize non-free content has always been conditioned to the possibility to replace their usage with free content of acceptable quality, for the same purpose. I'd also point out that slippery slope arguments should be dealt with at policy pages, not individual image discussions - these are expected to weight the particular aspects of the image under consideration. If the same rules could be used as a general template for all similar cases we wouldn't have NFC review, we would have delegated enforcement to administrators with no need to discuss each image. We don't accept "this other article uses non-free images as a valid reason to keep a non-free file; therefore the opposite shouldn't be valid reason to delete them either. Diego (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Keep. Someone says above that "The purpose is not to show that "there were several different designs". The purpose is to show what the designs were. That is a legitimate encyclopedic purpose."
      I agree that that's legitimate. The problem is that the policy is broken. The policy only permits multiple non-free images if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary. If the text is about one pound coins, you're only permitted to have a single image of a one pound coin. In order to have multiple images of various types of one pound coins, you would have to have text that talks about each kind of one pound coin specifically.
      Furthermore, this situation seems to be clearly covered by "non-free usage in galleries or tables". While some people have tried to justify this above, I don't see how these justifications wouldn't apply to pretty much every case where someone makes a non-free image table; they don't really explain why the coin table is exceptional compared to those other cases.
      I am tempted to say IAR, but this isn't an edge case, it's an intentional decision by the WMF. If we were to IAR this there would be equal justification for IARing every case of "the purpose is to show what the designs were".
      So I'd say delete it, because it's based on a clear policy that you can't IAR away, and maybe put some pressure on the WMF to loosen the policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Where does policy say that multiple non-free images are only permitted if "if each image depicts something that is the subject of separate commentary" ?
      NFCC #8 says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", and NFCC #3a says that "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Arguably both of those are the case here. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Each piece of NFCC is evaluated on its own as well as in context of the article. So each individual image has to meet NFCC#8 (among the other NFCC criteria). Given what is discussed about the historical mintings (read: little to none), what is the harm in replacing the images with the Royal Mint link (a free replacement) where they are pictured in a single place? Why do the images need to be on this page on Wikipedia to understand the rest of the details about the One pound coin? --MASEM (t) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Simply, because our articles ought to be self-contained and self-sufficient -- for one thing, so that people can print them out if they want to; but that's not the only reason. As stated above, what the different designs of the coins look like is directly relevant to the topic of the article. And it has a direct practical relevance as well, because it is what makes the coins that people have in their pockets readily identifiable. Given that Jimbo himself has now said he doesn't have a problem with these images, I'm surprised you haven't dropped the stick. Jheald (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How is it important? If you took that section out, the article is still "complete". If you took the table out and replaced it with text to point out that different back designs and sayings have been used over time, it would still be a complete understanding of the coin. Knowing the history of the coin designs does not aid the reader to understand the history and importance of the one pound coin itself. And saying that its needed to identify the coins in their pocket shows that the only purpose this table serves presently is as a coin guide, which is something we are not. Again the idea of having to be detail-complete is the wrong type of thinking for an encyclopedia. We are not meant to be the only resource people will ever use, by design. We are here to provide the broadest level of coverage so that we get readers familiar with a topic and gain enough understanding, and then when we get to more detailed information that may only be of interest to a small subset of that readership, provide them with the approach references and links for them to learn more, particularly if we can offset non-free use to these areas. And to note, Jimmy's opinion is only one voice with regards to anything on en.wiki, and has no weight compared to anyone else unless he said he was specifically speaking on behalf of the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How can you say that a reader adequately understand the topic when she is not able even to tell whether what's in her pocket is a one pound coin or not? Understanding a coin in common usage passes at the very leat by being able to identify it with some confidence. Diego (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If I have a strange coin in my pocket, I would not be turning to an encyclopedia to identify it, I would be looking for a coin catalog that is specifically designed for this function. This is a common failure - people expect WP it be something it is not, considering the type of feedback I see regularly on pages (eg for fictional works, people want full fledged fan guides; for video games, full strategy guides, etc.) --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's a miserably small perception of what WP is for, a 'failure of ambition' as I put it on Jimbo's talkpage.
      No, we'll never cover everything. But in every article I contribute to, I try to get in as much of the topic as I can. That's the ambition that built WP, and the ambition that it needs to survive and to continue to grow. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a reason we have WP:NOT and why one of the 5 pillars is about indiscriminate information. It's valid information, but its not the type of information that an encyclopedia would necessarily cover as it is better suited to a coin collector's catalog/guide. Add in the non-free issues with presenting that information, and that makes it even more a point to use a reference link than to include. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well it's for the community to decide of course, but I don't see the systematic organisation of relevant information about a topic remotely as indiscriminate information. To me this seems a world away from the examples of indiscriminate information presented at WP:IINFO. Last night when I went to the cornershop, there were five pound coins in my pocket, each with a different design. It seems not at all unreasonable to want -- and to expect -- to be able to be able to find out more about them.
      More generally, I see your definition of an encylopedia as a "tertiary summary of topics" as unduly narrow. Something we excel at -- and which encyclopedias have always excelled at -- is to collate and organise primary verifiable information about the present and the past of the world in a systematic organised accessible way. Just as this article does. Verifiability is non-negotiable, but whether I am writing about Quantum Mechanics or about the London Underground, the ambition is the same: to describe the world, not to describe what others have written about the world. Jheald (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And that would be original research - we are meant to be writing about what others have said about the world, as a tertiary source, not what we feel is important. We are supposed to mirror the coverage of a topic by sources, and not give undue weight to small details that may be verified by not widely covered by sources. From the standpoint of these coins, I have tried to look for other sources that talk about the history of the minting but while certainly not a thorough review, have come up blank save for Royal Mint hits, telling me this is an interesting detail but not the type that would be in an encyclopedia. (I am not saying there is no such information out there, but it's not obvious to locate). It would be undue weight to use the dozen-some non-free images to illustrate something that is basically datum (that varieties of mintings have been done over the years) and not discussed in depth. If this information could be found, that would be something. If a single image from the Royal Mint with all (or most) of the coins pictured (as to keep it to a single non-free use image as opposed to a user-created montage), that would be something. --MASEM (t) 21:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed; we have policies that (for good encyclopedic reason) require us to "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources". This is especially important in the case of NFC—we have to use the works of secondary sources to be able to determine if NFCC#8 is satisfied, without them, we have to assume that it's not.—Aquegg (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Significance for NFCC #8 is something that is assessed by the community using its sense and good judgement. Secondary sources can be helpful in that, but it is not a requirement. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      But without any sources to discuss the matter, and without the use being clearly obvious (eg those identified at WP:NFCI, the need for the images will always remain in question. Providing sourced commentary about non-free images is the most objective measure of meeting NFCC#8 and one that few can dispute towards the NFCC#8 end (there may be other reasons beyond that). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, c'mon, don't give me that. Non-free images are regularly deleted that nevertheless have sources covering the topic described in them, even for cases directly accepted at WP:NFCI, because "the topic is not of visual nature, and can be described with words". That line of reasoning would be much more solid if those arguing for deletion actually changed their opinions, when sources describing the topic identified by the image are provided (you sometimes accept those, but I think you might be the only one; and not consistently). Flip-flopping between "doesn't have references" and "can be described with words" is a common technique used in deletion discussions to win arguments when NFCC#8 is the only contentious subject at hand and every other snippet of policy is met. Diego (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And you completely ignored the caveat I said, that sourced commentary assures NFCC#8 but doesn't assure the other points are met. If an image can be completely described with text even though the concept is described by sources, that meets NFCC#8 but fails NFCC#1. There are 10 requirements that have to be meet for all non-free. This concept is even spelled out at NFCI, that while those cases will generally be appropriate, there are still other NFCC conditions they could fail. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Your idea of a single photo covering as many coins as possible is a good one; though the result would still be non-free, so it won't trigger NFCC#1 (text wouldn't serve the same purpose) nor #3 (all coins should nevertheless appear for identifying them all, which is the point for which they're used) - so it's a "nice to have" if that image can be created, but not a must - and all the other points are covered. My point is that deciding whether any criterion at NFC, and NFCC#8 in particular, are always subject to editorial discretion during the review discussion, as Jheald remarked. Diego (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      There is editorial discretion, but local consensus does not trump global, so when it comes to deletion discussions, what the interested editors feel is correct could be proven wrong by the global involvement. That's why the idea of critical commentary as objective evidence that there is contextual significance is the best way to show that NFCC#8 is at least met, though that doesn't necessarily speak to the rest of the terms. If there was discussion about all or even some of the historical mintings, my arguments that this fails NFCC#8 would be very flimsy. But without discussion, there's very little obvious reason to keep them, since NFCC#8 is not clearly met. This is why even a single montage image with some of the coins as taken by the Royal Mint would at least be more suitable; it may not cleanly meet NFCC#8 as much as we'd like, but now you've met NFCC#3 much better (you'd have 2 + 1 images instead of 2 + dozen images) and still give the reader an idea of what these other designs looked like, since the table includes a verbal describe of the mark. (And as a possiblity that just came to mind, since the latter part of this series has used heraldic marks, is there a possibility the heraldic symbols might be in the PD - not on the coins but as a standalone image?) --MASEM (t) 18:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I only hope that you hold on to that sentiment for the deletion review of Jessica Alba's Playboy cover, which is coming anytime soon. ;-) Diego (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      On that, as previously mentioned, the image of her in Playboy wasn't discussed in a critical manner - that she had an image in Playboy, yes, but you didn't need to see the image to understand the text as nothing directly commented on that image. So both NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 failed. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      So you didn't really mean to base the evaluation of the criterion (significance of the image with respect to the topic) on the availability of sources then? It still depends on how you choose to interpret what the sources say? Diego (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you're missing the point. In the Alba case, the issue with her photo being used by Playboy was certainly covered by sources, but there was no specific critical commentary from sources on the actual image used by Playboy discussing the photo. If there was that, the image would have certainly been kept. So now the question falls to that while there was sourced discussion from secondary sources about the overall incident that happened to involve a photo, is the photo necessary to document that? And the answer was no - it showed Alba, which we had images (free) of already, and the concept that there was a controversy about a photo on Playboy is understood without seeing the specific photo, thus failing NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. This is why we generally ask for sources discussing the actual image or concepts in the image itself, which did not happen here. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that you're moving goal posts. The NFCC#8 criterion requires "contextual significance", which could be decided by editorial judgement, yet you're here claiming that it should have "sourced commentary" of the topic depicted. But when pointing out that you still opposed an image that included sourced commentary (and there were sources commenting on the content of the photo, they can be still found at Jessica Alba#Public image), you change the criterion again to "specific critical commentary of the photo itself", even when this discussion started you didn't consider the content of the image itself to be significant enough to provide understanding to readers. You have to make up your mind - either the content of the image is significant to the understanding or it isn't, but you can't have it both ways. Diego (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes you are missing the point. The first test for the Alba image is if the image itself was the subject of sourced commentary, not the events around the image (there is a difference here). If there was sourced commentary on the image, NFCC#8 would have been met, and in considering all the other NFCC, those all would have been met. But without sourced commentary on the image itself, that considering with NFCC#8 fails. Thus, the next step is to consider if there was sourced commentary about the events around the image as to meet all NFCC. There certainly was sourced commentary about the event, so that helps to meet NFCC#8 but, as pointed out by the FFD, NFCC#1 wasn't met as "a nude picture of Alba used on the cover of Playboy" is easily described by text, and that the other part of NFCC#8, the omission of the image, wasn't deterimental to the reader's understanding of the situation. Thus it failed there. The counter example is the image of OJ Simpson as used in O._J._Simpson_murder_case; the booking photo of OJ isn't what is the subject of commentary but how Newsweek purposely darkened to cover the story, and this is a visual aspect to the overall issue; there is no such thing with the Alba case. Getting back to the coins here, again, there is no sourced commentary to necessitate a need to see the historical versions of the coins or the situation around the coins, and as the reader's understanding of the Pound coin in general is not harmed by their removal due to this lack of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. There is no double metric going on here, it is straightforward application of looking for criticial commentary to give the most support to use images. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      If the topic is visual in nature, to the point of requiring sources to cover the image itself and not just its content, then it cannot be replaced with text. In any case, you've crafted a collection of requirements that you're passing as mandatory; even if you manage to make them coherent, they still are way stricter than the already stricter-than-free-use criteria that were agreed by consensus when the NFC policy was written. Diego (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Not everything that is visual in nature needs to be seen to understand it, if the visual appearance is not discussed and the only manner to show it is NFC. Hence why the Alba cover was not necessary - it is a (ymmv) an artistic visual work but there was no specific discussion of the visual aspects, just that it existed (this was sourced). Ergo, you don't need to see the image to understand it existed. Of course, if the image was free, no one would stop you including it, but non-free policy requires a strong metric to include. Similarly, while we know and validate historical versions of these coins exist, there is no discussion on the importance or visual nature of the design, and given how many NFC images would be needed to show them all, it would be inappropriate to include them. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed my !vote to "Keep" because WP:NFC permits images of "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." It is plausible that "currency" includes coins, so we are permitted to have images of coins to show what they look like, even though the policy does not permit that in general. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To comment on that, each case listed in NFCI (which is a guideline) does note that all other NFCC have to be met still for those conditions to apply. There's no question from NFC that the front/back images of the current minting can be kept per that reasoning from NFCI - the coin is being discussed at length. But all additionaly images weight on minimal use (NFCC#3) and lack of any significant to be kept (NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:George Ferguson manifesto.jpg

      The subject, George Ferguson (architect), is alive, kicking, still making public appearances as Mayor of Bristol and still wearing red trousers. There is therefore no true bar to creating a free replacement. William Avery (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This might be justified if it was in a context of "George Ferguson, as he presented himself for his manifesto photograph". Certainly the wearing of what looks like a white poppy and red poppy together is politically significant (that alone would justify the image, if anyone cared to write content discussing it).
      If it's being used as merely a Ferguson mugshot though, it's a clear fail. If you just hold a camera up in the middle of Bristol, Ferguson will materialise in front of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The current rationale says "The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, illustrating a single educational article", so I would say it is being used as a mugshot. The article where it is used contains no discussion of poppies, or how he presented himself, beyond a mention of the standard red trousers. William Avery (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And if he is as public as that, I would not be surprised if one can convince he to dress and pose for such a photo to match the manifesto one, if that appearance is critical. But yes, this image is completely improper. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Maids and Music.jpg

      The use in All-female band violates WP:NFCC#10c. Both, the use in All-female band and the use in The Ingenues might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Allmonsters.jpg

      The use in All Monsters Attack violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:OwlCityGalaxies.ogg

      The use in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) violates WP:NFCC#10c. The uses in All Things Bright and Beautiful (album) and Galaxies (song) both violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Alliancefrancaiselogo.png

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance Française French Film Festival, Alliance Française de Madras and Alliance Française de San Francisco. Might not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ALDE logo.svg

      The yellow stars in my opinion are ineligible for copyright protection in the United States. I am not sure whether the blue brushstrokes alone are eligible or whether the combined work with the strokes and the stars are. As such, this might not meet TOO. Currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:PR image6-crop.png

      This image might violate WP:NFCC#1, though I am not 100 percent sure about that. The uses in Altair, Altair in fiction and Stars and planetary systems in fiction violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. Unsure whether File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg#Fair use rationale is considered to bring the file in compliance with 10c in Chevelle per WP:NFURG or not. Both uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the uses in Alternative metal and Chevelle might both violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alice in Chains, Alternative metal, Facelift (album) and Man in the Box. All uses might also violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Tool - Undertow - Prison Sex - sample.ogg

      Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alternative metal. The uses in Alternative metal, Prison Sex and Tool (band) might all violate WP:NFCC#8. The use in Alternative metal might also violate WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Usm100.PNG

      The use in OZ (Ultimate Marvel) might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Alma Halliwell

      This article contains two non-free images, namely File:Amandabarrie.jpg in the infobox and File:Alma sedgewick.jpg in Alma Halliwell#Casting. The use of both images might violate WP:NFCC#3a. The second image also appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in this article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      One non-free character image on an article about a notable character is generally accepted for identification, so one of these is at least okay. I don't know enough about the show to judge which or if both can be used, though the article text doesn't suggest a lot about needing both images. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Americanchamberofcommercejapanlogo.gif

      I am unsure whether the red stripes on the letters are enough to push this above TOO or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Astley Cooper School (crest).jpg

      Unsure whether this meets WP:TOO or not. Without the small deer emblem, I'd be almost certain it didn't meet TOO, but perhaps the emblem pushes it above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the school's in England, which has a lower originality threshold than the US, I would say it is considered creative enough for copyright. It would be a different case if it was a US school. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case the file should be tagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Could the use of the animal image in this file be considered de minimis then? I guess not, since the animal forms a quite recognizable part of the image. So the image should perhaps just be left 'as is'. Maybe the file redirects should be eliminated, though that is probably not really an issue. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      No way that's de minimus use. Image redirects are fine. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Wang Hai PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This ridiculous situation is a perfect argument to move Wikipedia into a place with a less broken legislation, fast. US disregard foreign copyright, they get publicly slapped in the face for it, they "fix" it in the usual convoluted lawmaking style, and end up disregarding foreign copyright expiration. If it were possibly to buy a nation a cookie, here's a good reason to do it. All the while, the Wikipedia content police have everlasting fun. No, this is not a call for action, just a remark :) Nettings (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to find the same copyright issues anywhere in the world. The laws are not unified to any significant degree, and if we were to move the servers to say, Europe, you'd still find lots of problems with foreign copyrights. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, the same kinds of problems exist in all countries. For example, Japan discovered an interesting bug in the Berne Convention: by simply refusing to recognise the statehood of a country, you can refuse protection to works from that country. See this case between a North Korean film producer and a Japanese TV broadcaster. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Fan Wanzhang PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Zhao Baotong PLAAF.jpg

      Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Album covers on Nyles Lannon

      Following a merge of two articles about albums into the artist's page, Nyles Lannon now has two non-free files on it: File:Astronomy for Children.jpeg and File:Chemical Friends (album).jpg.

      While I think one image is fine, I am not sure that having both meets the minimal use requirements of NFCC 3. I don't have any preference which image is kept if only one is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Kuwait FA.png

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Epica - Design Your Universe.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Nightwish - Nemo.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ridin Dirty.ogg

      Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:FreedomTowerEvolution.gif

      Violates NFCC 1, because an image serving the same purpose could reasonably be created, and NFCC 3, as it uses the same resolution of the original work published in a commercial publication. eh bien mon prince (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      At first impression I thought a free replacement could be created. But then I noticed that the designs themselves are also copyrighted, so an editor-created drawing would still be a derivative work.
      And the image is merely line drawings and text. How could you reduce it more without making it unreadable? The half-size version created automatically makes the text labels too small and blurry to read. Diego (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • USA only has FOP for buildings which have been constructed. Aren't some of these unconstructed variants of a constructed building? Only those variants which actually have been constructed would seem to qualify for FOP. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I would expect that one could remake this drawing as a free image, using highly simplified versions of the five buildings, even if simple rectangles and triangles. At some point in the future when all buildings shown are constructed, a new version can be remade using photo representations of the buildings. Note that this does NOT apply to the fine text on the drawing which cannot be replicated in full, but the data - heights, years, etc. - are uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Diplo Logo.png

      Image is too simple, thus ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Ineligible for copyright in USA, yes. Possibly not in Malta. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Weirton Medical Center Logo.gif

      Too simple so ineligble? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Advanced Format 4Kn logo.png

      Too simple, ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • This image consists of simple geometric shapes and text only, so it shouldn't meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. — Dsimic (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree—this does not meet in the threshold for originality needed for copyright. It might still have trademark issues but I have serious reservations about copyrights on such an image. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Odan.jpg

      Trill (Star Trek) is now a redirect, this image no longer qualifies for fair use as its only use is a list article. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Living in the Material World LP side one face label.jpg

      This is an image of an album (the CD/LP, not the cover as such) used in four articles about songs from the album. While it's generally held that a single album cover in the article about the song (or a lone single cover in an article about a song) is acceptable, there's never been any consensus that album covers (or scans of LPs) can/should illustrate articles about songs featured. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      If there is no identification image (a cover of a single) for a notable song, the album cover is not an acceptable replacement. These extra uses must be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Love for Sale (Boney M. album)

      This article has two different covers. I added details about the racy cover. I wrote the details about alt cover as "different", but I can't find sources discussing the alt cover. Does use of both covers meet NFCC? George Ho (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The covers are very different. The U.S. was the biggest music market in the world at the time, and so a hugely important market for any band. So it would seem to fit the criteria. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's probably likely that the US cover was done to reduce the racy-ness of the common cover at the time, so while it is okay to use both, I bet some research can find out why the US cover was done differently if you can already source how the main cover was considered racy. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked through vinyl editions. I realized that the front US cover is also the standard back cover. Therefore, should I use the back cover that contains the tracklist, or should the American/Canadian front cover remain? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd keep the normal US cover, this emphasizes how they dropped the racy cover for the less controversal one. (At least they didn't make it all black....) --MASEM (t) 18:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:2007 stamps of Niger.jpg

      Newly orphaned image replaced by free one. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete: Orphaned; other non-free images available in the original article. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The Otto Show

      I found the poster that promotes this episode. I also found the drawing promo. Should either image be used? George Ho (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      A promotional poster for a specific episode (eg its branding by the copyright holders themselves) is reasonable to include as an identifying image. I know a handful of other Simpsons episodes have these and they are reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Added poster. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      This Is Spinal Tap

      Should I use either the VHS release poster or the screenshot to replace the re-release poster? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I would completely avoid VHS release posters over the film poster, as , as this shows, the VHS poster is filled with ad-speak and less visually helpful. The re-release here is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      What about screenshot? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless the film never had a movie poster (some of the really early ones, and today, some more independent ones), we would not use a screenshot over the poster. The movie poster in the standard format will give a lot more information (actors, production company, etc.) than the screenshot. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Picasso and the Ballets Russes

      This is a little messy, most of these should be pd-1923 except for the costume which is probably replaceable Werieth (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      George Woodbridge

      Do we really need 5 non-free files? I think the bio pic and one example should be enough Werieth (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The bio pic is fine. One example of his work in Mad is clearly warranted but I'm surprised we're not using one of his more detailed scenes (which are described in text). I'm on the wall with the historical figure drawing, since that's a radically different style but that's not really discussed. The self-portrait isn't necesssarily and/or duplicative of the photo. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Calculator (Windows)

      Do we really need 9 images? Werieth (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You definitely don't need to show the calculator's look across all iterations of Windows. I think only 2 images are appropriate - the UI in the normal mode, and the UI in the scientific mode. These could be from different Windows versions. Arguably, one image could be sufficient, using a free mock up to show the different layouts of the "keys" between versions. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Walker (Star Wars)

      Cant we trim this down to 1-2 examples? Werieth (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      The only two canonical ones are the AT-AT and AT-ST. If you keep the Hoth AT-AT and the AT-ST pictures, that's sufficient. This is not a fan guide. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg

      In the Western Wall entry there's only a passive mention of the picture with only one word “iconic” qualifies as commentary. This most likely does not qualify for free use as the rational "The photograph is perhaps the most famous representation of Israel's participation in the war." implies that there are many photos on the subject so it is unlikely that all pictures about Israel's participation in the war meet NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" in the sense that illustrate Israel's participation - a free picture may be just enough to express the idea that Israel participated the war. The section that mentions "Images with iconic status or historical importance" (NFCI#8) explicitly states that it does not override NFC.

      In the Six-Day War entry there are some commentaries about the picture, however they are in footnotes, not in body text. This probably fails NFCC#8 "Contextual significance".

      The Tank man picture was iconic to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, but the discussion was to only use the picture in Tank man article only - not even allowed in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article.

      --Skyfiler (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      As a procedural note, I could have sworn this photo has come up before either at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      You Kent Always Say What You Want

      Should I use the poster of streaking Homer to represent the episode? George Ho (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It would be reasons if you can get a clean version of the poster (digital image ideally). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      At Long Last Leave

      I hope the poster represents this episode. This should be the last request I make about posters of episodes. George Ho (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think that helps in this particular case as the poster simply marks the milestone of 500 episodes and not anything specific about it (compared to other posters). --MASEM (t) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Style 360 (logo).png

      Too simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Ricky B. Byrd, Jr.jpg

      Uh... is any user allowed to upload their copyright work into Wikipedia services? Blurred Lines 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Not under a non-free license (all user-made contributions are expected to be GFDL, CC-BY or the like, including text and images). --MASEM (t) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:Kata'ib Hezbollah flag.svg

      Not sure this file is free, and am unsure about the claims made in regards to its license. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the reasoning is right - Iraq is one of the few countries US does not have reciprocal copyright terms with. However, per this, we've been asked to respect copyrights of even countries like Iraq. So while the image technically would not have copyright protection in the US and thus the free SVG version made here (and can only be stored here due to that nature), I would think it be better to treat this as non-free per request of the Foundation. Meaning that this SVG is completely improper (as a user-made non-free SVG), and we should be using a reduced raster image and called out non-free instead. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      File:ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.svg

      This file's license section says it only allows identification and critical commentary, however it is used in user page info boxes which looks like a violation of WP:NFCCP#9 "only in article namespace".--Skyfiler (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of *blank* Episodes

      Recently, there has been altercation with the removals of the logos from the lists of episodes of Family Guy, American Dad!, and maybe even more to be exact. I posted on PeeJay2k3's talk page about this situation, and his responds was this. Do you agree with the conclusion that non free TV logos that are used in list of episodes should be all removed? Blurred Lines 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review&oldid=592433372"