Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 20

Non-free screenshots of Killing All the Right People

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


This file fails WP:NFCC#10c in the article Naughty Boys. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Yellow Magic Orchestra - Kimi ni Mune Kyun.ogg#Rationale of fair use for Kimi ni Mune Kyun sample looks like a rationale for Naughty Boys. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 10:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes. The rationale is confusing: it looks as if it is a rationale for a non-existing article called Kimi ni Mune Kyun, but then the fine print says that it is instead a rationale for the article Naughty Boys. I wish that people would make rationales more clear... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{resolved}} Dealt with at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The Wikipeda Non-free content criteria, include the following:

...

2. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

- there is, however, one item that can convey equivalent information - the new logo.

...

6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

- Wikipedia's specific policy on logos state that generally, only the CURRENT logo should be used. - Wikipedia's policy on logos also states that "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies". In the current case, poster is attempting to use the previous Tower logo in the body of the article, rather than for identification purposes - the rationale for using logos is described by the logo policy to be similar to using portraits, being that "most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text." In the case of Western's "Tower" logo, it was used for 14 years out of Western's 125+ years as a school. It does not provide valuable information and is easily replaceable with the current logo.

...

8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

- No argument provided on how the presence of the Tower logo significantly increases readers' understanding of Western.

The Tower Logo, however, does not help identify the university in the article on Western. It's not in the infobox (where identifying logos are included) and instead is found in the body of the article for solely historical purposes. Unlike a corporate logo (such as Coca-Cola), which people use to distinguish between brands on a daily basis, the Tower Logo was only used for 14 years, and was NOT widely known by the public (how many people outside the Western community would be able to identify the Tower Logo?).

Thus, the Tower Logo can be distinguished with the logos of well-known brands. Whereas including Coca-Cola's logo may help people identify with the company (since most people know what Coke's logo looks like), the Tower Logo is much less recognizable. As such, the Tower Logo is distinguishable from well-known brands, where use of their logos adds to the SIGNIFICANT understanding of the brand. The Tower Logo in the article on Western does not add to the significant understanding of Western (which is required by Wikipedia's policies), because most people outside the Western community are unfamiliar with the Tower Logo, used for a short part of Western's history, and only on certain materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talkcontribs) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved and wihdrawn by nom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Didgy sourcing here, it lists WP as the source of the work. (though i cant imagine its not free, probs the source needs to change)Lihaas (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The original image was uploaded with a {{PD-self}} tag, which is completely possible in this scenario. The uploader hasn't been active for several years so its likely impossible to check, but the fact that that original image was moved to commons probably means its ok. Irregardless, because the image is at commons, it's not under en.wiki's NFC issues to deal with. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
{{resolved}} Okey, seems sorted.Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free screenshot of Hill Street Station