Wikipedia:Non-free content review

File:PBS idents

The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.

If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.

Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.

I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.

I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Wikipedia:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.

      (ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.

      (iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

      • • • NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times [1]), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.

            Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.

            The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

            • But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)

The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.

Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.

But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather humorous

Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Wikipedia has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.

The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. [2][3]. Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.

The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.

So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it [4]. Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.

As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.

VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Women's World Squash 2008.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2008 Men's World Open Squash Championship. Might not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Geelong2008Logo.svg

Rationale for Geelong Football Club lacks components necessary per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and is insufficient in its current form. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "The image is only a small portion of the commercial product." Really? Looks like the whole logo which is present in the top left corner at http://www.geelongcats.com.au/. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I can get a perfect rendition of the image with a width of $2^{20}$ pixels. This seems to be against WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events.

Not sure if it additionally violates WP:NFCC#1 because of the somewhat complex art on the helmet. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The logo might be sufficiently complex for copyright protection. Not sure whether the use of the logo in this image would be considered de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:BBC News titles.png

This has a fair use rationale for one article but is used in three articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The image is of the generic titles to BBC News summary's, weekend news, and the BBC News channel. BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, and BBC News at Ten use a version with the number in the titles. Hope this help. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original comment, rationales could have been added quite quickly for each of the articles. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter

This concerns the following three images:

• File:Ultima2 CompVsRGB.png
• File:KQ CompVsRGB.png
• File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png

All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "[t]o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like. Diego (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Wikipedia first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Wikipedia. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide",[5] that Microsoft released with the Beta [6] "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Rangers.svg

If non-free, this violates WP:NFCC#9, but maybe it is below the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free (copyrightable) due to the shield shape. Even so, since it is tagged non-free, it is unallowable except in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is not below the threshold of originality. An example that Stefan once showed me on Commons was a crown shape on a logo which copyright review office had rejected as being too simple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to commons. If it is below threshold it should be moved to commons and discussed there. I don't see why we should host images here that are PD with a fair use rationale. If it passes there then delete here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we are absolutely assured outselves it is below the threshold, we start with the assumption of non-free. If we do say it is below the threshold, then yes, we can push it to commons, but we have to figure that out first. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons has more experts than us on TOO. I will upload it there, tag it for deletion review, and if it passes we can delete it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New_York_Rangers.svg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This one can be closed. It passed deletion review at commons not as below TOO but published before 1977 without proper notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see [7] and [8] for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we should seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with WP:NFCC#1 (we have free images that show who is is) and WP:NFCC#3a (already numerous non-frees on that page, though arguably on her more famous and critically acclaimed awards). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is zero discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Wikipedia. Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does not require illustration without commentary. That's the failure of NFCC#8 here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks nude which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources. Diego (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's zero discussion critically about how she looked nude. NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it. Diego (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No, that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Every time someone says "but this can be explained with text", Jimbo kills a kitten. So please don't. Diego (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Bullshit. This is exactly a case where, as there's zero discussion (sourced or otherwise) about how she looks without clothes on, the existence of nude photos (which is documented) can be explained in text. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Too bad then that WP:NFCI#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. Diego (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced commentary, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is PD, that's fine. As I've made clear, it's not the fact its a nude, just that its a piece of non-free (presently) that is not needed. As PD, there's no question that it could be included. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg. I uploaded it to commons and put it up for deletion review if anyone wants to join over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It can't be on commons. It can be used 1 time in 1 article per WP:NFCI 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance. Theworm777 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Changed vote to delete cause I now feel this gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fact she posed in the nude and I am not sure it is needed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.Diego (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will should be deleted then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• DeleteNon free fair use images should only be used when an image is absolutely essential to the article, this image is not.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of NFCC#8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Totally amazed. We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I give up. Now the prudes have changed it to the fair use cover of the 1953 Playboy where she is dressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that up. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame. The 7 Year Itch, Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The River of No Return helped as well of course. She was very talented and the Playboy, calender picture opened the door...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM," which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period. This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #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. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, [blockquote], or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:GG Allin sshot.jpg

Image is a still from a film, and is not being used for "critical commentary" on the film, but for a headshot on the artist's article. If this use is inappropriate, it will fail NFC7. czar · · 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be probably be deleted. There's already a non-free image in the article (further down). While Allin has been dead for 20 years, and thus there is very little likelyhood of a free image appearing, there's no compelling reason for the use of two non-free images, and thus one of the images should go. No real preference for which, but one non-free image is enough to illustrate any biographical article. --Jayron32 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all five articles where it is currently being used. Possibly below WP:TOO (essentially a textlogo next to a red square with a white figure trying to hit a tennis ball). Don't know how much of a difference that reflection effect on the square makes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure of the woman puts this well above the TOO. (Same with the logo on Women's Squash Association). Bu agreed that on the individual tourney pages, the logo is not appropriate. There's no overall article on the general tourney, but all those details are in the above Women's Squash Association, where a logo that is close enough (same graphic and block letters, just different subtitle) is used. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Watson's avatar.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Watson (computer) and 2011 in science. The first violation was created through this page move. I don't know whether that use might be appropriate under one of the points at WP:NFCI. The second use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Watson (computer) is fine with regards to 10c; the rationale is referring to that article back when it had a different name. But I agree it should be removed from 2011 in science. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the rationale for Watson (computer) is valid, the current rationale links to Watson (artificial intelligence software) which redirects to [Watson (computer)]] making the rationale completely valid still. as for 2011 it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No, 10c is not met. While a wikilink to the article is not required, 10c explicitly requires the name of the article. The image is not being used on Watson (artificial intelligence software) and a rationale for Watson (computer) is lacking. Yes, I could simply correct the name and wikilink in the rationale, but as long as WP:NFCC still means something it is the duty of those wanting to use this image on that page. The current rationale for Watson (computer) is invalid. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I dont have a link handy but a redirect still meets the requirement for 10c, if you want to debate that, raise the discussion at WT:NFC. You will find very little support for your position. A redirect name is equivalent to the article name. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Redirects as article names in non-free use rationales. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in 2011 in science. That article shouldn't have any non-free images at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Adaptations of Les Misérables

A user keeps adding lots of non-free images which so blatantly violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6. They all need to be deleted from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, thanks for starting this discussion about the images in Adaptations of Les Misérables.

Les Misérables has been adapted so many times, by so many different people.

So it's great to have these images there, because they serve the purpose of illustrating the point that there have been so many different adaptations by so many different people with different ideas and across various media.

All the images are low resolution and each of them has a rationale addressing the inclusion in this article.

I sincerely hope we can find consensus to keep them there, as I feel the article would not look as good as it does now without them, and also readers wouldn't get the instant level of understanding of the main point the article makes.

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The ones that are non-free have their own articles, and thus users can see the images there. We don't allow non-free content in lists (which this is) because like this it tends to be decorative. Here, your argument that the images help the reader to see how many times the work has been adapted is unnecessary as you have dozens and dozens of text entries showing the same thing. Unless the non-free images are discussed in the article and not just the fact that the remake is on the list, they can't be used. Free images are fine and it looks like you have a few there. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and explanation. I know what you mean, there are lots and lots of text entries. But images make articles more much more powerful and also there's the good old "an image says more than a thousand words".

As regards leaving only the free images, the problem is that there is only one afaik.

Do you think if we discuss the images in the article we could justify keeping them?

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Burn it with fire; none of them provide adequate contextual significance for use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between discussing a copyright issue, and having a "burn it with fire" attitude. List of book-burning incidents , Death by burning Azylber (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is also a difference between reading the policies and guidelines and using non-free images willy-nilly, which appears to be what happened here. "Delete/remove the non-free images with extreme prejudice" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why? Masem and Hullaballoo have made this perfectly clear; no contextual significance which requires non-free images. One mentions Jaws in a list, one need not see the poster to have an idea of what it is about, or that it exists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious NFCC violations -- gallery of nonfree images illustrating list entries Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• The images should be removed and stay removed. They are decor. They are not discussed, nor should they be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, consensus seems to be very clear here, so I agree that we should delete the images. I reckon we should give it a couple more days in case someone else has anything else to say, and then delete them.

If anyone thinks we can justify keeping the images by discussing them in the article, please let me know, and I'm happy to write the necessary text. Azylber (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The posters from the 1934 and 1935 films should be more thoroughly investigated before deleting them, since it's highly probable that they're out of copyright and in the public domain now, just like the 1943 comic cover is. Diego (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The easiest way would be to find a high resolution scan and check for a copyright notice. I've used Doctor Macro for that before. Not sure if this film is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If some of the posters from that age are from the United States, then yes, they should be checked for copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The ones I checked had notices (1935). No word on renewal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I have to agree with Stefan's concerns. It was a concern I myself had back around the time the article was created, though I forgot to follow up on it. I think we could justify inclusion of some of these pictures if we turned the article from a list (as it now, essentially, is) into a full-fledged article that summarises the history of Les Mis adaptations, including summary-style synopses of the adaptations' respective articles. I agree with Azylber that images are good for an article, make it more powerful, etc., but in this case we have policies that are strict with regard to our utilisation of fair-use images, and that unfortunately trumps consideration of the impact of the article. We will have a featured article on the main page within the next few weeks that will not be able to have an image of its subject run alongside it, because the only photo available is non-free. As in that case, I wish there were a better way of doing things, but the policy is what it is. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 in 2008–09 Indonesia Super League or 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. Also, the image violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The image satisfies 10c now, as it is now only being used in Indonesia Super League and 2008–09 Indonesia Super League. Both of those uses are for identification purposes. The use in Indonesia Super League seems to be acceptable. Unless we have a point at WP:NFCI explicitly stating logo uses in articles about specific sports events are acceptable, the image should be removed from 2008–09 Indonesia Super League for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:OasisTowerRender.jpg

This image is used in five articles, but it only has one fair use rationale, and the fair use rationale doesn't say to which article the fair use rationale applies, so the image currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of those articles. Additionally, the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in most of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does - it points to Oasis Tower, so there's clearly a rationale for it there (its not a template, but the paragraph there does try to hit on the salient points of NFC) (this is not to comment on how valid that rationale is). But separate rationals would be need for each of the other four uses. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It says that it is an "Image of Oasis Tower in Mumbai", not that it is a fair use rationale for the article Oasis Tower or for the article Mumbai. WP:NFCC#10c doesn't only require you to include the title to which the FUR refers; you should also tell that the FUR describes the use of the image in that article. The FUR includes many article titles (Oasis Tower and Mumbai with links, building, information etc. without links), and it isn't clear which article the FUR is meant to refer to. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't require rationale to be that exact - common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower. Yes, it can be more clear, but if, for example, that was the only use of that image on that page, a #10c complaint would be petty. Now, yes, with 4 other images unaccounted for, those need to be very clear for their rationales, and likely the one for Oasis made more explicit. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually this rationale is insufficient in its current form. I disagree that "common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower", as that is not clear from the rationale at all. WP:NFCC#10c explicitly requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". This rationale is not specific and the use of this file does not satisfy 10c as it is currently written. If people think such a rationale is sufficient, then 10c should be adjusted to reflect that, but until that happens the file should either be removed or the rationale improved to meet the requirements of the current version of 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale could be written better, but this is a case where it would be silly to be hard-nosed about #10c enforcement in the use on Oasis Tower since it is the article about the building in the image - an allowable case. All other 4 cases beg the question "why" and thus the rationale needs to be added or the image removed. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should just be left as is. While the rationale could indeed be better, it seems to be kind of silly to try to get it improved, as in this case it is implicitly clear why the image is in the article about that building. The other uses have been removed, so this should just be closed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am just ignoring the fact that this image might violate NFCC#1, since I guess it would be possible to get a free image of the building under construction. I mean, I am not aware of a guideline which says articles about buildings need to include an image of the building in its finished state before the building is even finished. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

India has building FOP, so when it is completed, a free image can be made. That said, it's 3 years away from completion, and even a photograph of the building under construction at this time won't be much. This is a case where a free image can't be had at the present but can in a sufficiently long time in the future that, assuming all other conditions are met, NFC could be used as long as it is subsequently replaced with a free image when that becomes possible. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how much you can see of the building at this time. If three years remain, maybe it is still too incomplete. Once the building is almost complete, a photo of the incomplete building might be sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that once the building is in a state where it is indistinguishably close to the planned rendering, then we need a free image. Three years is likely still a good ways off for it , but maybe in a year or two that will be different. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck⁸⁹ (what's up?) 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)]

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png

Might violate WP:NFCC#8 in a number of articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Only acceptable at the main ACC article. The use in the ACC-related articles is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Botola vf.PNG

Used in three articles but only has one rationale. Rationale is a group rationale explicitly contianing only one article name. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:División de Honor.PNG

Having reviewed the examples at Commons:Threshold of originality I guess that this doesn't meet the threshold. Essentially consists of some curves and typefaces. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ivy League logo.svg

I guess the ivy icon places this above the threshold. In that case, the use in Ivy League Men's Basketball Player of the Year violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LourdesGrayWolves.png

Used in four articles but only has a rationale for one. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• If this were Germany, then it's definitely below TOO; but given that this is the US, we might want to be more cautious since TOO mainly applies to text and geometric shapes. If it's copyrighted, then I can only see justification for it in Lourdes Gray Wolves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the logo is indeed essentially text, except the paw, which I guess isn't sufficiently complex to be copyrightable on it's own and so I guess it doesn't place the logo above TOO. I don't expect that the mere combination of those two basic ideas would be regarded as creative enough by the US copyright office to grant registration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, combining the two won't push it above TOO. But it would be good to get some more opinions on the paw. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The pawprint would be considered artistic enough to push past TOO in the US. US's is basic shapes and geometry, that's not it. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... [editors] who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik ^(talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
              • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel _Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people made up their minds from the moment this was listed here. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try and reformat the article, but it was reverted by another editor. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik ^(talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik ^(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I've added sources. --evrik ^(talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • You can't use the Pine Tree Web one as it is clearly citing Wikipedia, making it WP:CIRCULAR. The other (reading Google's translate) has little to speak directly about the logos and also being a blog raising questions of reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, you're right. I found another source and will look for others. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

File:PaladinsLogo.svg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Furman Paladins. Seems to be below WP:TOO, as consisting essentially of basic geometric shapes (the rhombs) and typefaces (the F). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2012iccworldt20.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20. I am unsure whether this consists just of simple geometric shapes and typefaces. The lower part is indeed just typefaces. I don't know whether the blue circle is a simple geometric shape or not. The red-yellow part might push the logo beyond WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the "upper half" drawing in the logo would be beyond WP:TOO, so it needs valid rationale(s) for each use. Begoon ^talk 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png

And yet another non-free sports uniform image, this time violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Las Vegas Locomotives season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg

Used in 2012 Men's World Junior Squash Championships and 2012 Women's World Junior Squash Championships, but only has a rationale for the former and lacks one for the latter. Both uses appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 8 articles. Might be below WP:TOO (essentially typefaces and simple geometric shapes). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:NFL(Australia).png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Northern Football League Season. Does this count as basic geometric shapes and typefaces? If yes, then it's below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png

Non-free sports uniform image. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Omaha Nighthawks season. The logo probably pushes the image past TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

KOFY-TV

I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG

I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:

1. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
2. 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
3. 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
4. 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
5. 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
6. 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
7. 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
8. 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
9. 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
10. 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
11. 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
12. 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
13. 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment

• Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
            • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete from Waterboarding: This isn't even a photo of the act, it is a painting of it! Anyone can make a painting of it. A painting by someone else would give exactly the same understanding. A clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif

From the image:

Windows Server (TM) Code Name "Longhorn"

Evaluation copy. Build 6001

From its copyright statement:

If you wish to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, you may not use [...] screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released.

Can someone swap it out for a shot from a 2008 RTM? That would convey the same information and be legally safer. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First thing is we don't need Microsoft's permission to use the screenshot under a fair use claim (if the use of this image constitutes fair use). This use is probably okay under fair use as its nature seems to be largely transformative. That said, the use in Windows Server 2008 appears to be a violation of WP:NFCC#8, as a removal of the image wouldn't harm a readers overall understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to question whether it violates fair use, but it does violate the licence it claims it's under. Swapping the licence out for {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be a possible solution, but Non-free Microsoft is more liberal than Non-free software and therefore better.

As for removing it, I agree that we don't need two images of Server Core, but I'd rather remove File:Windows 2008 Server Core.png than this one, since this one demonstrates the removed features more clearly. I believe having at least one increases the understanding of what exactly is different in a way text can't convey. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

This violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the BSA Brand Identity Guide, I misidentified this emblem: File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg is the 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'. I will fix this.
• The emblem is currently used at:
  • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America): should use the proper 'Boy Scouts of America universal emblem' (Second Class Scout emblem)
  • Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • February 1910: not needed
  • History of the Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): I am fairly certain there is a training emblem; else the Trained emblem can be used.
    • File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg moved to File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • Proper version of File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg uploaded
    • Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • History of the Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • February 1910: image removed
    • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): image removed; will replace with proper emblem once I find it
    • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now uses proper File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
    • --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and in particular WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, wait, it's an American painting. Maybe that makes it PD due to failure to comply with copyright formalities, although I have no idea how to prove that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have had to be registered (falling into the 1950-1963 period where registration was required in the 28 yr term), but there's no easy way to search for this. It would make sense to consider it non-free until it can be found. As for its use, it's clearly fine on Milton Avery's page (an artist's work) but the other uses are suspect - there's not much establishing this as a major work that needs to be seen to understand those topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Avery is an important artist from the mid-20th century and this is a fine example of his mature work...Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a point made on the various "History" articles or the Landscape Artwork articles. It's included and Avery's name-dropped but there's no rational why this piece is more important than any other piece in the same family (contemporary western landscape artists) that we could probably find free replacements for if we're trying to demonstrate this period. Again, same probably with painting articles before - I know that the traditional way to present this in textbooks outside of WP is to show many many examples and let the work speak for itself, but we have a stronger requirement here and that method simply doesn't work. This is not to say that we need to remove those images "now" but just that the language can be improved to make them fit better to describe the importance of AVery's work. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do a copyright renewal search use: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I read somewhere that less than 5% were ever renewed in the 28 year window. Look at 27, 28, and 29 years after first publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in the 78-on copyright office search but I didn't look at the pre-records. I also note that Avery appears to be covered by the ARS ([9]) though that doesn't necessarily mean every work he did is covered. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem: If it was first published in a book or a newspaper, then I believe that you usually need to search for the book title or the name of the newspaper instead of searching for the name of the painitng. This is one thing which makes it difficult to search for renewals of paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding additional text as time permits...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Huge category

Category:Doctor Who character images has over 300 images in it. The few I checked are fair use and not movable to commons. Should we go through all of them or has it been done already? A trusted admin may wish to go through and delete the obvious ones on sight. We may wish to look at other cats, ie. Star Trek, Star Gate, Buffy, Zombies, Werewolves, Vampires, and Casper (cat) etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think all those images need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone should go through the category and list the suspicious cases here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Several of these appear to be used in the infobox of episode articles and seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. However, this needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis as there presumably are other images which satisfy all points of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of them do appear to be images of characters used on fictional character articles, and there's a weak consensus that this is always appropriate - that is, if the character's notable enough for a standalone article, the character image is a reasonable thing to include to show implicitly how the character was portrayed (but again, that's weak consensus). Episode articles have to be reviewed, though. I know that the newer reincanation of the show, the editors have been good, but I suspect a lot of the older series have problems with unnecessary episode images. A case-by-case is needed, but I recommended asking the Doctor Who project to assist here. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012–13 NBL season and National Basketball League (Australasia). The uses in 2009–10 NBL season and 2012–13 NBL season appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As a logo, it's only allowable use w/o additional discussion is on the league page, the two season pages are unacceptable even if there were 10c rationales for them. Recommend removal from those pages and using the standards FUR for logos for the NBL page. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TV Patrol

• TV Patrol (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article uses 9 non-free files, I can really only see justification for 1 (WP:NFCC#3 and #8 ). Werieth (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, with the logos they are all derivatives of each other (not even considering past arguments of historical logos), so only one is needed. And we don't need screenshots of the show to understand its a news program. Free images can be had of the hosts (they all appear to be living) so we don't need non-free to show them. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, maybe the screenshots and the images of the host can be removed but the logos and the images pertaining to the "augmented reality" are not to be removed as this best depicts how it evolved as each logo shows the evolution of the show. I am from the Philippines and I know the show very well as I watch it so I have a better say on the article. And besides unlike other shows which only changes title cards, this show, when they do, they're has to be a major change in it. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The changes in the logo are extremely small and trivial. Unless there's detailed discussion from sources that explain each change, it's unlikely to cause the reader confusion. I can understand the use of augmented reality as a highlight of discussing the show but that's probably the only other image besides the current logo I'd keep. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the writers of the page, including me already have an existing plan of massively fixing the article way before this issue came in. In fact it would adhere to your concern about each logo change being small and trivial into putting why the logo change is also a major change in the program. Its just that our schedules do not permit us to do this in a full blown single time edit because as we all know its better if all the writers would first agree on the content that would be placed.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Isobel (song)

I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last cover, the one that is a simple label, may be free - its text + simple shape and fails TOO. But 4 is still too many. One of the covers is clearly duplicative (there's a small change in the photo), not enough enough to justify it. The alt. art is reasonably fair to include per past discussions on regional variations. The music video image needs a lot better justification to keep. It's a Gondry video who is known to be visually abstract but the image doesn't correlate this to the article. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Book articles don't get multiple cover images. The article The Quest for Kalevala only has one cover image, not seven. Why are music products different? The main difference with music products is that cover images of music products provide less identification than cover images of printed publications since music more commonly is distributed without illustrations (for example on radio). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion within the last two years where the album project said that one additional cover if it is in major retail region and significantly different from the main release (eg: differences between EU and US versions) is appropriate but that's about all the allowance allowed if there's no further discussion on the cover images. So there's still a problem in this article, but we'd otherwise have to re-address that alt art consenssus. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@masem - it does 'correlate' - its from the video -look on youtube 2:23Sayerslle (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it appears in the video doesn't make it appropriate to include as non-free media here on WP. We need better correlation - specifically sourced discussion - in the text of the WP article that explains about the concept, creation, or the critical reception of the video in a manner that provides contextual significance. As I noted, since directed by Gondry who is known to be a master of the visual element, I am sure there is something that can be found for this, but that has to be found and included, otherwise, the image is just presented "here's a snap of the video, enjoy" and that flat out fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the whole song is explained by Bjork in the long quote there from 'eurotrash' - so in the still you can see what she is talking about She was born in a forest,- there it is behind her, the trees - between the land and the sky , as Basil Fawlty says, and the plane was a moth - She decided to send to the world all these moths that she trained to go and fly all over the world- so the text has explained the concept - so something has been found for this Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just explaining what's in the video isn't sufficient; the understanding of the video is not improved by having the image there over the existing text. We need something that expands more than just that that would make the image essential to add. I will also note, as a separate, that while there is quoted material in the article and the likely source is there, there must be an inline citation to that source material to keep that quote, otherwise, it can be considered a copyright violation; this is a separate issue from the non-free aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

well. its clearly not 'essential' - none of the images surely are 'essential' - just makes the articles more interesting to look at imo - what do you mean there must be an inline citation - it is sourced as it says at the start of the quote -to the eurotrash programme - do you mean it needs ref tags somewhere in the midst of the quote - what difference does that make? - i'm out of my depth here - I don't know all the rules clearly. btw- this is off-topic but can you tell me quickly if linking to youtube videos is frowned on at all at song/album articles? or inadvisable in any way, or is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

First, let me give you some help: Reference this article from Salon: [10], which specifically has the following quote (among others): "Certainly the fragile quality of light in “Isobel” recalls silent films.". There's enough in that article that can now be used to explain the visual nature of the video, thus making the inclusion of the image appropriate, and meeting NFCC#8. (There also may be other articles, but I hit on this one first) But that has to be included. As for quotes and citations, see WP:QUOTE on why we need to cite quotes, and WP:CITE for basic citation needs. On using YouTube videos, you need to be careful to make sure the video is actually copyright-allowable on youtube (normally: uploaded by the person that owns the copyright). That's more described over at External Link guidance. But to get to the point, the music video image certainly can be kept, since the Slate article, at minimum, supports the reason to see the video image. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - the quote was cited though, to the eurotrash programme - but I think I get the idea more with the text discussing, not just the narrative, but the 'art' of the video , - though the salon quote is pretty pseuds corner-ish imo - the light seems to dim and swell from moment to moment, almost as if the film stock itself possessed a beating heart (!) - i'll read the guidelines. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the cite, we'd want something more explicit (if its a program, the program season/episode information, so that it can be verifieid). As for the Salon quote, while a lot of the comments it makes are fluffy, it does establish - for purposes of NFC and Wikipedia - that the video gives off an old-school silent-era film quality which is something that is not easily described by text, and thus why I suggest using that to support the image. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Alagoas.jpg

This file is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

• Brazilian monitor Ceará
• Brazilian monitor Pará
• Brazilian monitor Piauí
• Brazilian monitor Rio Grande
• Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
• Pará-class monitor

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It also fails WP:NCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's the complete text of #3:
          • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
          • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
        • How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche

I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for interpreting your post differently. Although I would have liked to keep the anthology-like presentation of songs highlighting a particular period — as copied off Rush (band) — it's true that Queensrÿche hasn't been "relevant" for over 15 years. So I have narrowed it down to their two Grammy-nominated songs, and I think it will be good to keep in the two versions by the currently existing bands, as it helps people identify a distinction between them as long as they're still around. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (song)

I cannot see a justification for 7 covers, I can see 1 cover and then one for the sound sample but a total of 8 non-free items for one song? Werieth (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this is absurd. 1 is enough. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ottawa LPP Stadium Proposal.JPG

Both uses in Lansdowne Park redevelopment and Frank Clair Stadium appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. The paragraph beginning with "On May 27, OSEG revealed an updated design...." in Lansdowne Park redevelopment#Lansdowne Live/Lansdowne Partnership Plan is well understandable without this image. Same goes for the section Future in Frank Clair Stadium. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable in the article about the stadium as long as it is recognized as replacable fair use once the stadium is constructed. It is unallowable on the redevelopment article. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the statuette and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, so we need a free licence from the photographer regardless of the copyright status of the statuette. See {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo part is not necessarily replaceable, depending on where the statuette is located. If it is a non-public place, then it is not easily replaceable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Commons file has a correct copyright tag (for the photo part), then the photo part is replaceable by cropping out the statuette from that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't solve the problem with the trophy, since all that would remain were the poster with the Yahoo logo, which is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the statuette. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Allentown, Pennsylvania

• Allentown, Pennsylvania (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I cant see the justification for the 5 non-free files that are being used on this article. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be some wiggle room, but I do agree least 3, 4 of them need to go.

• File:Berninger eighthstbridge.jpg is non-free while a PD postcard File:Allentown 8thstbridge.jpg showing the same, demolished bring is over at commons. There's certainly no reason given to use the non-free painting since it's being used to illustrate the section on transportation, which the postcard does fine.
• File:One City Center - planned Illustration.jpg and File:Two City Center.jpg are both images of buildings under construction (along with another building File:Allentown Arena - planned illustration.jpg. As there's only some discussion on these buildings, three non-frees can't be used here, and certainly limited it to two as both One and Two City Centers designs are similar. If anything, I would remove all three - they don't help illustrate the article, while the last one is about a notable building coming in and could be used there.

These three images illustrate the redevelopment of the Center City Business District, a major $500 million dollar project that is currently underway. They give the reader of the article illustrations of the goals of the project, and they are an important illustrative part of that section. The images are fully justified in their use with Fair-Use rationales, and until the time when the project is complete, and free photos can be taken of the completed buildings, they simply can not be replaced.

Their removal would significantly degrade the value of that section. Also, one has to ask what will be the benefit to the reader of the article by their summary removal? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While the text explains the significance of the $500M renovation project, there's nothing to describe the importance of the new building renderings, and ergo there is no contextual significance for these images (failing NFCC#8). There would need to be sources discussion to explain some of the background of the buildings' designs or the like to consider their inclusion. Yes, once the buildings are complete a free image can be used with no question but with non-free we have to be more discriminatory. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:AllentownJuly281979.jpg seems completely inappropriate, particularly given that the text says "While Allentown currently has no passenger rail service (the last public rail service, which was part of the Bethlehem-Philadelphia service provided by Conrail under contract with SEPTA, ceased operating in 1979), several of the Allentown-area stations once used for passenger service have been preserved through their current commercial use.", meaning that we can get a free image of one of these still-existing stations to illustrate that point over the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:AAFMAA-Logo-SVG-translucent.svg

This file doesn't comply with WP:NFCC#3b. As explained at Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format, an SVG file shouldn't have more detail than needed for the article, but this isn't the case as the image displays perfectly at huge resolutions. I'm not sure how to reduce SVG files as a reduction would require removing some SVG elements. Maybe it would be easiest to just convert it to PNG. SVG files tend to be tagged with {{non-free reduce}} for months or years with no fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Nzarmy.gif

The uses in 21st Battalion (New Zealand), 22nd Battalion (New Zealand), 23rd Battalion (New Zealand) and 27th Machine-Gun Battalion (New Zealand) are all icon-like and violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. While I can almost see how section 8 applies in this case, I'm not sure about the sizing comment. If the image were larger in the articles, would your objection to its use go away? Blackfyr (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The uses would still violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I'm still not seeing how the image really violates WP:NFCC#8, especially since, according to the NZDF site, the image 'may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission' AND it is being used in a respectful manner to indicate visually which forces are part of the NZDF. IOW, if the NZDF doesn't object to Wikipedia using the image, why do you? Blackfyr (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Free of charge is not equivalent to free of copyright which is our metric that we need. It is not that we're worried about NZDF objecting to the use, it is the fact that it has copyrights on it that prevent it from being redistributed for any purpose (including reuse and modification). We have to consider it non-free, and can only use such images in a restrictive manner as part of our free content mission. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Swords (TV series)

• File:Mysterious circle2.JPG
• File:QoS2cast.jpg
• File:Queen of Swords Titles 2.jpg
• File:Queen of Swords.JPG
• File:Texas Hollywood.jpg
• File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG

I cant see how these pass WP:NFCC#3&8 Werieth (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Read the rationales, after all that is what they are for. Blanket deletions of all IS excessive. REVUpminster (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ill counter that, blanket usage is excessive. I wasnt removing all the files, I was removing all but the title card. There was only one other file (per Masem) that should be kept. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The title card one is fine ("Titles 2") as the means of ID'ing the show. A cast picture "QoS2cast" with actors in their character roles is reasonable for such a show. The rest are all problems, particularly the Texas Hollywood one as that is an actual, still existing place and thus free imagery can be obtained. The other 3 are all excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG covered by WP:NFLISTS #5 REVUpminster (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• But fails WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• (EC) You have the cast picture for that, a separate one is not necessary. If the lead actress' look in the masked Queen role is really important, there woudl sources that describe her appearance and thus would help to satisfy NFCC#8. But right now, that's just not there, and as I'd consider the cast picture not a question for such a show, this is duplicating that. (You can also sorta get an image of her from the title card too, in a Zorro-like outfit) --MASEM (t) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The cast photo came from promotional wallpaper for computers freely available on the defunct website but does not show the character of the title. The titlecard image does not cover WP:NFLISTS#5 There is another wallpaper image of the character freely available in costume that is available.REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• The mysterious circle image is to explain what in words is a difficult subject. REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The mysterious circle image shows two people swordfighting/fencing in costume. It's not critical to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. Again, on the main character's costume, there's nothing really discussed about it that requires a visual representation - she is one of the actresses in the cast photo, but now doning a black mask and outfit. That really doesn't need a new image to describe it unless that look is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. That is what is lacking to be able to use it. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The costume was one of the reasons sony sued and also one of the reasons it failed. See Legal issues REVUpminster (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I will give you that (but urge to try to improve on that rationale), but I would suggest moving that image down to the Legal section where showing that she looks similar to Zorro is important. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is nobody independent going to comment or comment to what is regarded as excessive as I have now seen featured articles with seven non free images.REVUpminster (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no firm number in how many non-free media an article can allow. Some are such that zero non-frees are appropriate, some may have 10 or more. The matter is more whether each individual non-free use is appropriate which each picture having to meet all 10 points of NFCC. In your case, I think there's 3 reasons non-frees (title card, cast pic, and her outfit in light of the lawsuit), but that's it. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Within the article there is a link to the mysterious circle article. This image explains how it was used in the TV series. It is not about the fencers. REVUpminster (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it has to be seen via non-free imagery. In fact, this is the type of case where while you discuss that they trained using the mysterious circle, an image of an actual "mysterious circle" (which we have on that linked article) may be better representative of the implication here. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The image on the mysterious circle article contains five circles and only serves to confuse how it was used in the TV series.REVUpminster (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then no image is required as long as you have a link to the page on mysterious circles. This is effectively a WP:NFC#UUI issue, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean non-free media is required to show it. You can use free (As suggested) but no image is a possible solution too. The non-free doesn't help here. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Clear violation of WP:NFG where the user refuses listen. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Question: Please explain why WP:LOGO should not be applied. Oh, and I did include commentaries on the images, so WP:NFCI #8 should also apply.
  2. Comment: "user refuses listen" is blatantly wrong and sounds very rude. I asked twice for a discussion before the removal of any content [11], [12] but can't find any contributions of User:Werieth on Talk:Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere. --jergen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No where on WP:LOGO does it say galleries of non-free files are permitted. There is/has been zero sourced commentary about the designs of the logos. WP:NFG is also listed as reasons to not include said images. WP:NFCC#8 hasnt been met. These logos are just used as eye candy. PS When working with NFCC, like copyvio, and BLP, the default is removal until consensus for inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To meet NFCC#8, we generally require sourced commentary, and not just discussion of what the logo looks like, as to establish contextual significance. Any image can be discussed without sourcing, and this sometimes is sufficient, but here as there's nothing else to make the need to show the logo important, it's not sufficient. Something along the lines of documented design choices or reasons to change, for example, would be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is indisputable that the presence of the logo's increases the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The only thing we can discuss is how significant the increase is and how harmful the omission would be. And how to weigh this to the other factors. --Egel _Reaction? 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is in fact easily disputable if omission harms the reader's understanding, as if there is no contextual significance, then the image absence does not harm understanding. Yes, they are related to the topic, therefore they do meet the first part of NFCC#8, but the topic about the scouting organization does rest on knowing the various logos used, in the present version, and thus beyond the main, current logo, are otherwise nice but decorative images and fail the second part. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then we are more in agreement than I thought. The arguments are correct, but the conclusion is not consistent. The logo is a significant part of the identity of a Scouting organization and therefore can tell a lot about the organization in question, if you know where to look. So there is contextual significance, so the image absence does harm understanding. As far as I can see, all the logos are the current versions. --Egel _Reaction? 14:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • One logo is fine for exactly the purposes you state - it is in fact the allowance we give for an stand-alone article on a notable organization. But any additional logos (for historical logos or subsidaries of the organization that do not have stand-alone articles) need justification for their inclusion, such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one. If that information isn't in the article, then the logo image is not necessary to comprehend the article and can be removed appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Where can I find the part "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one."? --Egel _Reaction? 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's what "contextual significance" means. Not just displayed, but discussed to some depth in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "how the design was made or why they moved to a newer one" has a low significance / urgency in the context of the discussion of the organisation as a whole. That are subjects to discus in a sub-section such as "History of the logo" of the section "History of the organisation" when the organisation has its own sizable article, in contrast with only a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. The logo itself has a high significance / urgency in the context of the information about the Scouting organisation as a whole, as explained above, and should therefore be included even if the organisation only has a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. We should use the opportunities that the rules provide us and not go invent ourselves stricter rules, for whatever reason. NFCC # 8 is clear to me: you can only use a logo when it is necessary for a good understanding of the organization, so for bands sometimes, often for companies and for Scouting organizations almost always. An explanation of the elements of a logo is needed because not all readers have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the logo. The explanation is not needed to provide contextual significance, because that is already present. --Egel _Reaction? 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one." is a nice rule of thumb (and nothing more) for some classes of images but not for the current main logo of a Scouting organisations. Review should done on the basis of the official rules, not on the basis of self-invented rules of thumb. --Egel _Reaction? 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I added the images back in, again, to keep the bots from tagging them for deletion. This, in essence, is the same discussion we had earlier (and still open on this page) about the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Savez_izvi.C4.91a.C4.8Da_Bosne_i_Hercegovine. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have sat this one out for a while solely because I didn't want to engage in yet another pointless debate. I want to note that Werieth is engaging in the same bullying tactics on Jergen used against me. Also, the demand that images be not placed in the article until this discussion is over is simply that, a demand. It is not actual policy and is made up. --evrik ^(talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually see the bottom of WP:NFCC the burden Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to ensure that it comply with policy. Unless there is consensus for usage it doesnt meet WP:NFCC and thus needs removed. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I should now also note that in placing the images back in the article to prevent them from being tagged by he bots and then removed prior to the discussion being over (which could take months), I have now triggered edit war with Werieth. Update I have added all the images back in ansd set them up so someone who speaks Danish, or is familiar with the images can write a description which will justify their being used in the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That was just reverted. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You dont include media, and then wait for justification for its usage. You have justification and then include the media. (You have things backwards) Werieth (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Linux gaming images

This concerns the following images:

• File:WorldOfGooBuilding.jpg
• File:Penumbra-Overture-2007.png
• File:Civivilization-Call-To-Power.jpg
• File:Reverent (Doom).jpg

According to the substantially identical rationales, the purpose is "to demonstrate a popular commercial game that was released for the Linux platform." These images appear to fail WP:NFCC#8. The text of the article already tells us that these games were ported to or made for Linux, and nothing about the appearance of the Linux ports is discussed. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, in fact, I know we actually have free screenshots of Linux-ported games (There's at least three that you can find through Humble Bundle), so there's zero allowance for these examples. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Stamp UK 1983 28p Xmas.jpg

No need for an unfree file. Stamp not essential to the article, it is one of thousands of Christmas stamps and could easily be replaced with a free file. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

With how it is written presently, there's perhaps a possible non-free UK stamp image to be used to explain how the UK approaches issuing the stamps w/o a direct religious theme but still alluding to the religious nature of the holiday. But that is not sourced one bit that we would need to have at minimum to include. Ideally, it would be a specific stamp design that is discussed in this fashion to show how this is done. Remove otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Colonist (The X-Files)

There is no need for 6 non-free files, especially when a lot of them are used on other articles. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Gallery of Images" has been removed. I missed that the first time, so I'm sorry about that. However, the remaining four images are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, [rather than] simply provide visual identification of the elements" (WP:NFLISTS). The images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like. For instance, the black oil's application and the mechanism to make it look right are discussed in "production", and without the image, its not exactly clear what it looks like in the series. The same goes for Alien Rebels, whose faces have been sowed shut and the production process is described therein. I would concede that the Alien Bounty Hunter's image, however, doesn't really add much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the three current images (the "grey" image, the black oil, and the rebels) have sufficient discussion in text to pass a basic NFCC#8 check. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• However File:Vienen TXF.jpg is already being used in Vienen and File:The Unnatural TXF.jpg is being used in The Unnatural (The X-Files). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werieth (talk • contribs)

• • It's reasonable (and probably in fact better as to minimize non-free) to use the same screenshot for an episode and for discussing a series-running concept, as long as they are discussed in the appropriate manner in both (likely in the episode, it would be about the critical reaction there, while on the series concept, its creation and development). I will note that The Unnatural is missing a rataionle for the Colonist article. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I added it! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support keeping the current images as they easily pass NFCC criteria. Cavarrone 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SJHMCfromtheair.JPG

It's my view that this could be replaced with a free alternative, but I was wanting a wider disscussion about replacability of arieal and streetview style images, hence an NFCR rather than a speedy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, aerial shots can be expected to be freely (in license) recreated, so a free replacement is possible, and this fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't have access to a plane. I think that these images should be allowed to stay unless someone actually has an image to replace it with it. Perhaps some should notify the original uploader, User:Sabreshark? --evrik ^(talk) 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

evrik you should really review WP:NFCC#1 there are over 600,000 people who are certified pilots in the USA who could take a plane up and get a photo. NFCC doesnt say "we can use NFC until a free version is created" it says "If a free one can be created we cannot use NFC". Werieth (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ketodiastix.jpg

This image contains information that is common diagnostic data, and I am wondering why color tone data could be copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - its data, and thus should be recreatable in a free image. (arguably the image as presented fails TOO, but I would still think that it can be remade to assure complete freeness.) --MASEM (t) 13:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wedge document cover.jpg

I'm questioning the contextual significance of the cover art in the article Wedge strategy. Per WP:NFC guidelines on document cover pages, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. But the article makes no mention of the cover art. It appears to fail NFCC 8: 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. I guess the image might be allowable as Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item, but I'd like to get more opinions on this.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, you are correct, if it were non-free and used in the present manner, it would fail NFCC. However, while it is marked as non-free, I suspect it fails the threshold of originality. The artistic work is well in the PD, and the rest of the cover is text and a few geometric shapes. As such, it itself is likely non-copyrightable and thus in the PD. Which means it may be used in the article. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ketostix chart.jpg

Pure data and could be represented by a free image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:2006 country stamps (british postage stamps).jpg

Relevant article has now been redirected and there is no longer any need for this image. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: The image now fails WP:NFCC#7. It is an unnecessary non-free image, anyway Country definitives, which this image illustrates, has a better non-free image File:GBPictorialRegionalStamps.JPG showing the basic design of most of the stamps shown in this now orphaned image. ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG

Does not meet the (8) Contextual significance (for both Archaeology and the Book of Mormon & Samuel the Lamanite) nor meets the (10) Image description page (specific to use on article Samuel the Lamanite) requirements of wp:NFC. Have tried to resolve the issue at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, but contributing editor (Descartes1979 (talk · contribs)) who is perpetuating this image's usage in both articles doesn't seem to understand current fair use criteria (as opposed to what it was when this image was first introduced), so moving the discussion to this issue-specific venue. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to be shown to be incorrect - each time I try to engage with the anon editor above, my comments are sidestepped. The image is quite relevant to the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article as it is a very popular image of the city of Zarahemla in Mormon culture. In my opinion, it is almost a perfect image for this article. Current trends in Mormon archaeology are clearly trying to equate popular beliefs about Book of Mormon cities and artifacts with real places and peoples. My justification for the image was given when I added the image to the WP - bullet 4 below is the strongest case:

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It is a screen resolution (72 dpi) copy of a painting.
2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the painting or prints of the painting in any way.
3. Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork.
4. The implications of the concepts in the image are discussed in the article itself.

Again - happy to be shown to be wrong in my rationale, but it hasn't been shown to me by the anon editor yet, and hence my opposition. Frankly a little confused why there is such heated opposition, and this smells a little like Mormon activist trying to water down Mormon articles so they are less than controversial, which in my experience is pretty typical.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the references provided at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, the artist (Friberg) responsible for this painting did not rely on archeological experts (or even amateurs) or experts in Mormon studies to help him decide what elements to include with this painting; instead it is explicitly stated that he became frustrated with the lack of any consistency or clarity on how to represent Book of Mormon settings, so he just decided to do things his own way, according to his own artistic sensibilities. This work, while widely distributed for it's artistic merit, is not now, nor ever was intended as a serious practical study in archeology expertise, nor as academically credible in the field of Mormon studies of the Book of Mormon. The artist himself many times stated that he never intended his Book of Mormon paintings to be taken literally: for example one of the common element critiqued in these works is his use of muscle-bound men, which he says he means to be symbolic of their spiritual strength. No one is looking for ruins or other archaeological evidence that look like this specific image; the image is of symbolic and artistic merit, and this article is about the a very literal "down-to-earth" topic of finding (or not finding) physical evidence of the Book of Mormon, via Archaeology, and so this image is out of context for usage in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the image is easily replaceable with a image that is arguably just as legitimate (or illegitimate) of a representation of a city described in the Book of Mormon, but the replacement image is properly licensed, and is housed in Wikimedia Commons: File:Bountiful by Josh Cotton.jpg. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possible replacement is: File:Moroni - Book of Mormon.jpg, although it is of lower quality, and doesn't include a city wall (a significant potential archaeological feature), which the other two images do. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses: 1) "did not rely on archeological experts to help him decide what to include in his painting" - of course he didn't. He went off the Book of Mormon - that is the whole point - it juxtaposes perfectly the differences between what the Book of Mormon portrays and what archaeology actually shows. 2) "is not now, nor ever was intended as a serious practical study in archeology expertise" - of course not - again this is beside the point. His painting has nothing to do with real world archaeology. It doesn't matter that Frieberg used his own artistic license - the painting was massively popular among mormons and captures very very well the image that most Mormons have about what the Book of Mormon is portraying. And it is these popular ideas that the NWAF and other archaeologists went looking for. Is this not a perfect use of an image to augment a wikipedia article? 3) "No one is looking for ruins or other archaeological evidence that look like this specific image" - completely wrong - this is exactly what they are looking for - and precisely why this image is so perfect for the article. 4) "the image is of symbolic and artistic merit" - it is much more than that - again the whole point - the image is so iconic and overwhelmingly etched in the consciousness of Mormons - you can't ignore the image it represents when you are trying to determine what Mormons think ancient civilization in the Americas was like... and thus, its relevance to archaeological research by Mormons. 5) re: other images - they are nice, but not nearly as iconic, recognizable, and ingrained in Mormon culture, and thus don't have nearly the relevance.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Christus (statue) is even more iconic in the minds of Mormons, as perhaps the most definitive artistic representations of Jesus for them, but that doesn't mean that a picture of it should be added to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, saying that Mormons are looking for ancient Mesoamerican representations of someone that looks like it. Ideally, images on this article should be more than a "Have you see this missing <city/deity>?" milk carton style advert, especially when non-free images are involved. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. An image of that statue would be perfectly relevant and a great addition to the article if there was a serious documented effort to search for archaeological evidence of Jesus in the Americas (which there might be of course, since his alleged advent on the American continent is detailed at length in the BOM - something to look into...). These images add greatly to how easily the average reader consumes this topic and the information in it.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete this image. It fails on a number of counts. No, attribution (which creates a copyright violation) invalid Fair Use rational. It has no direct context to the subject of the article and is a simple attempt to illustrate the article with non related images. It also fails because it is clearly replaceable with free content and can be replaced with text. The article will not suffer from its loss. It really does not meet our standards of use for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh...and it has no source and while it is used in two articles does not have a rationale for both (if the same rationale for one was just copied it would be copying an invalid rational). This is a clear cut case for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can tell it fails the #1 criteria for use from Wikipedia's non-free content policy on the Archeology page: no free equivalent. As far as I can tell the image is being used to demonstrate walls and/or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and the 208.81 has already linked free alternatives above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that its use basically fails the free use requirements in that there are free substitutes that are of equivalent or superior value in illustrating the point. It is a famous work in Mormonism, as are many of Friberg's works, probably because it was published in several editions of the Book of Mormon. But just because it's iconic doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way to illustrate the issue. At the end of the day, it is a copyrighted image and if we have found a viable way not to use it, we shouldn't use it. It might be different if this were an article specifically about Book of Mormon-based works of art. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg

Use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No reference to this badge in the article text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just looking it seems the 723 communication as a group is actually being discussed in an entire section as are two other groups with their badges as well. First, I do not see any issue with contextual significance, which is the criteria in question. It makes no mention of any requirement that the badge be discussed in the article or section as the image is being used as to identify the select group it represents and wore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept that there are cases where the use of a non-free image for identification is acceptable, such as corporate logos at the top of the article about that company. I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article. Therefore, all the badges in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada)#Histories and crests of the old units should be removed. I do not question that those uses might be appropriate under fair use, but I don't see how they satisfy NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article.". Its Criteria 8. Contextual significance. The image may be used as it passes that threshold of context to the subject and is being used to represent the group as it was designed to do. It would significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to an understanding of the topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that a removal of this image from the article would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. There is absolutely no reference in the article to the image of this badge. The use is just for identification, which is usually only appropriate at the top of articles about the specific entity in question. Thus this use is a blatant violation of NFCC#8 and should be removed. The reader gains nothing through the presence of this image other than "Mhm, that squadron had a badge and it looked like this." Not having that short Aha moment wouldn't harm a readers understanding at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy should be backed with a link to such policy. There is none. It is not a blatant anything or this would be speedy deleted. Deletion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Using a non free image to identify a subject is allowed. There is no guideline that it be the user box only. It is used as a visual means of identification. That is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no Toshio. Stating that it can be used in the infobox is not a limitation to use only in the infobox. You overlook the full view of our policy on logos.

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Furthermore, sections should be regarded in the same manner as an encyclopedic article if a full article has not been created and use of portraits to identify subjects is common on Wikipedia and does not violate image use or non free content guidelines. However we do need to clean-up and fix issues on that page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use."

I understand the distinction, not how that relates to some perceived need to minimize non free use. There is a Wikipedia criteria for minimal use but that is in relationship to a subject not the project overall, which seems to be the point you are making. I know of no such need to minimize use of non free content unless it does not actually pass our policies or is a violation of copyright. The reason Wikipedia may use non free content is precisely because of fair use.

• "NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that".

What you are suggesting here is not accurate. You are stating that if a non free image can be removed and the subject still understood than it is a failure of NFCC#8. No. The actual criteria is: "'Contextual significance -. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". What that is saying is, if the addition of the non free image will significantly increase an understanding of the topic it may be used. It isn't about any understanding. Its about THAT understanding. So if the image is added because it does in fact add a significant understanding of the subject (in this case, a visual identification of a company and/or infantry type logo for this particular government agency or branch of the Department of National Defense within the country of Canada) then deleting the image would decrease that visual understanding.

• "The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that."

I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that we should be concerned project wide to an overall, overuse of non free content, but that is not part of the deletion discussion to say it is too many for Wikipedia for the individual argument. You have told me what you believe NFCC#8 means but I have challenged that interpretation. I am not attempting to upset or agitate anyone to make a point here. Unfortunately, in this discussion, you are taking the extreme when you say that by losing the logo identifying the squadron, that you lose nothing. That is simply not accurate, any more than removing the logo from any article that represents a company or team loses nothing. It may or may not be in one's view, but it passes criteria as a team or corporate logo for identification and I see no actual guideline or policy limiting the non free image to the info box only.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what I told you about NFCC#8 is the test used for many years now - we have to minimize non-free content in this way as its use is supposed to be exception and far less than fair use allowance would let us use (That's why its important that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project). If we can drop a logo and still understand the topic, it fails NFCC#8. We do make the case that if the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association as how it is meeting NFCC#8. But any other use requires explicit meeting of NFCC#8, meaning that contextual significance of the image of the logo has to be shown. Just displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP, and will fail here. This is a standard case where the images would otherwise be deleted without question, and no one has made a case that seeing the images is necessary to meet both parts of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that this has been dealt with properly if this is standard, but I would argue it really isn't. Could you provide a link to the policy or guideline which states that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project? I continue to state the obvious: your interpretation of a failure of NFCC#8 is incorrect as the policy is written. I also wish you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that you refer to with "[I]f the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association" as well as "displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP." I am unfamiliar with these.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First point, NFC rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", as well as from the Foundation's resolution "Such EDPs must be minimal. So NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work. Second point, NFCC#8 has two clear points (spearted by the comma in that). Let's put it another way. If you never knew that those logos existed and you read that article, is your understanding of the topic harmed? I'm sure it's not as as enhanced if the logos were there ("Oh, how nice, there's a logo"), but you certainly having lost anything. And if the logos were key to understanding the topic, there would likely be sourced discussion about the logos towards that purpose. That's NFCC#8 applied across the board. I will note that while NFCI#2 does allow for logos, this is assuming all other NFCC parts are met, and we're still failing NFCC#8 here. I point to the footnote of NFCI#1 where we do allow non-free images to be used in infoboxes without any other commentary about the image , and while that is written towards cover art, it is implicitly applied to logos as well. I will point out per WP:LOGO: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." --MASEM (t) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(As a note of process, Amadscientist dropped a note on my talk page that they had a response to this but lost it in pending edits and may not be able to retype it for a day or so, so this convo is still pending). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

As a free encyclopedia and an open source, freely edited project, our goal is freely licensed content. As free as possible. Public Domain is preferred but we are allowed to use images with various licenses as well. When using an image in any article for any reason, we should always use the freely licensed alternative when one is available, however if an image has significance to the subject and can be demonstrated, it may be used per our non free content criteria.

The Rationale section at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is basically a disclaimer/explanation/mission statement. It is not, for example, part of the policy or criteria. Also, it is not a part of the individual discussion or reasoning for an image itself.

Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.

How we do this, is to encourage the use of content with a free license (public domain - no restrictions) or, at least, CC 3.0 attribution license which is the license for use of Wikipedia's content, requiring attribution of the author or photographer.

• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

This portion explains that, to keep Wikipedia from possible legal issues, we limit the amount of non-free content. We do this in a stricter manner than US Fair Use case law (as there does not appear to be any actual Fair Use laws) as well as copyright law. How we limit the amount of non free content is set forth in the criteria and policies. Some ways we do this is to limit where non free content can be placed as far as article space only, no use is sandboxes, essays, talk pages etc.

• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

This is stating that we actively strive to only use what is needed per consensus using the policies and guidelines. (let me save this and continue before I crash)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say "NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work", what you are missing is that each article may not be of a single subject. Non Free Content Criteria is aimed at the subject and assumes an article, but in no ways limits it to a full article use. So, while the use of multiple Non Free images is not ideal, it is not a violation of policy or guidelines. In this situation each image identifies a separate entity and subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Give me a little while more before responding to get the rest in)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Full non free image use criteria check

(some bolding for emphasis and separation of text for individual clarity with bolded comments and numbers have been replaced with bullet points)

1. No free equivalent.Y Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.Y (no free image available and cannot be created)

(This portion does not apply as it cannot be transformed or replaced) Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

(This portion is not criteria, but a gauge for editors when uploading. It is not separated into A, B, C because it is not a part of the requirements, but suggestions on how to determine such. While the "test" is in two parts, a yes to one or the other is not an automatic exclusion. "Probably" is not absolute here, which is why it is not a required portion of the criteria)(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

• Respect for commercial opportunities.Y Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

• 1. Minimal usage.Y Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. (This section does not require that the full work not be used. only that it only be used is a portion will suffice. A portion of this image would be confusing and would not suffice) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

• Previous publication.Y Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
• Content.Y Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
• Media-specific policy.Y The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
• One-article minimum.Y Non-free content is used in at least one article.
• Contextual significance.Y Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (As I stated above, the context is that this is the symbol of this entity, squadron or team. The visual identifier does increase the readers understanding of the group by showing the image that is its official seal or logo. Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone)

• Restrictions on location.Y Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
• Image description page.Y The image or media description page contains the following:
  1. YIdentification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
  2. YA copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
  3. YThe name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

I am off for a while, so I leave this discussion with that. Ultimately, this is up to the closing admin to decide if any consensus has been formed from the strength of the arguments made and whether or not no consensus would mean the image would stay or not etc.. Thanks for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguably all your points are correctly take except NFCC#8. The way NFCC#8 is read is not how you describe it, at least towards the second part: "Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone." There is a lot of NFCC that are removed from articles (I point you to our FFD logs) where if this was the reading of NFCC#8, we'd be keeping tons of images, because of course removing the image will be detrimental since you can't replace the visual representation with text easily for all of these. But that's not the metric. We are looking for discussion about the image - the whole contextual significance part. Again, take the example if we never had those images in the article, and consider the text that is presently there. My understanding of the topic has not changed one iota without those images because the images are not discussed at all in the current text. Because my understanding has not been harmed with the absence of the image, NFCC#8 fails. This is the baseline test used across the board, logos are not exempt from this.

Now, I will stress again that consensus has determined that when we're talking about the top-of-the-page infobox about an entity, published work, or similar work, where a single identify image would be used in the infobox or at the very top of the page to represent that entity, then the test for NFCC#8 significance is different in that as long as the topic has merited its own stand-alone article - reading that there is likely going to be a good deal of text about the entity or work, that the contextual significance is there due to the implicit aspects of identification, branding, and market associated with the topic when it itself is discussed at length (read: the footnote of NFCI#1). This is the only time that one can present a non-free image without discussing the image itself to meet NFCC#8. In the case of these images, the specific divisions do not have notability on their own and thus there is no implicit allowance for a logo without discussion about the logo image in order to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem trying to push his deliberate misunderstanding of policy again. The requirement to pass NFCC #8 is not and never has been (about from a few weeks about six years ago) whether the image is being discussed in the text.

The requirement is whether it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic -- something significant that would be lost if the image was not there.

The issue for the community to decide is whether or not the understanding the image provides is something significant, in the context of the topic of this article -- is it somthing highly relevant, or is it merely tangential?

That's what the arguments need to address. I have to say I think people trying to establish these images are more than tangential have got quite a challenge on their hands. But there is no policy requirement that they absolutely have to be discussed in the text. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the second part, whether omission of the image harms understanding of the topic. This is why generally (considering IAR) if the image or concept it shows is not discussed in any form in the text, omitting it is not affecting the reader's understanding of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. See 15:59 above "something significant that would be lost if the image was not there."

Omitting an image affects the understanding you would have with the image -- that's what can be lost by omitting the image. Policy is quite clear, intentionally referring to understanding about the topic, not understanding about the text. This has been gone through so many times, why do you insist on flogging this dead horse? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy is not to protect the inclusion of non-free images, it is to be able to make the exception for their inclusion. I've looked, and that's clear throughout the early stages of NFC's development (pre2008). (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 is a good example) that it is able when the exception is made to allow non-frees, and why NFCC#8 is written as it is - "significance" and "omission" are equally weighted tests. The only "protection" that applies to NFC is how we are encapsulating fair use law within the requirements of NFC to help protect the Foundation. Mind you, I am aware that there are editors that would want to be overly aggressive in removal of non-frees where they are appropriately being used and in that sense we have to make sure NFC is being treated fairly both ways (for inclusion and for removal); but we should not be calling NFC as a means of "protecting" the inclusion of non-free images. The Foundation asks us to treat these as exceptional as part of their free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(And to add, I see you were a part of these discussions then in 2007-ish, but in reading them now, I'm not seeing where you're getting this interpretation from in term of "protecting" non-free use, as well as the omission factor. All the discussion there seems to emphasis on discussion of the image in the text, or in limited cases what has become NFCI#1 + #2. It's consistent with how I'm arguing this.) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC cuts both ways. It's there to protect appropriate content, as well as to remove inappropriate content.

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24#New_Criterion_8 is a useful reference, showing some of the alternative wordings that were rejected. The point is that it is useful to think about what is gained by adding the image, what is lost by taking it away. "That understanding" it seems to me plainly means the augmented understanding of the topic with the image, that has just been the focus of the previous part of the sentence. It's hard to logically construe the phrase in any other way. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.

But getting back to this case 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) and the three logos at the bottom, if we applied what was the consideration in at least 2007 - whether there is significant discussion about these entities in the article that would allow for an image for identification. That's a fair question for consensus to decide on - in other words, I wouldn't dismiss the images just because they are logos used in an article but not about the entity of the article, but whether there was enough discussion about the entities in question that necessitated the logo (of course, barring any on-point discussion specifically about the logos themselves). In this case, I'd argue that these don't provide that - the three sections in that last para are likely pulling information from primary sources (there's a few sources listed but the details in the article text aren't fully backed by these - but I'm not questioning validity here), and thus fails the significance test; that is, there is not enough present in these sections that necessitates the need to visually connect the topic to its logo. (Or reiterating points from the 2007 discussion, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it needs a visual identifier). But that is a point of discussion, as long as it is understood that the reason to keep the images is not just because they illustrate those groups, but because consensus has decided that there's enough discussion of those groups that illustrating their logo would be appropriate under NFCC#8. And I would argue that this is a border-line case here - if there was just a bit more sourcing and text to help place the groups into a broader context instead of just much of the internal aspects, I probably wouldn't be complaining about the logos there. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UMassLogo9302.gif

Needs re-tagged as {{pd-text}} Werieth (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

I cant see the justification for 9 non-free files about a single song. There are 5 covers and 4 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

way overkill. There's no discussion about the way the song sounds critically (billboard placements are not that), and thus any music samples need to go. And just because it was remixed several times does not allow additional album covers to be used. I'm stripping all but the first album out, this is clearly violating NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cherry Poppin' Daddies

I cannot see justification for 7 sound samples and 3 non-free images. Werieth (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on the images; showing how the band wanted to image themselves in different periods and pre-2000 likely means we'd have to use non-free. This is not to say these are necessarily good, but they aren't immediately inappropriate. Seven sound samples is. I think there's justification for 3 (just like their band image) to reflect their 3 major periods, but more than that is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi; I'm a primary contributer on the article. If it's alright, I can go ahead and remove the non-free images (since I added them merely as filler), and condense the sound samples down to the most crucial necessities.Skibz777 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, I think you might be able to justify one or more of the non-frees as the band's image has chagned over time and it is of course impossible to get photos from the past. But you'll need to make sure that there is discussion about that image (backed by sources) for that purpose. If anything, the zoot suit one (1998) seems appropriate since that's based around the song the band is most famous for. You just need to be able to demonstrate that. The sound samples, however, do need to be reduced. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Skibz777, this is a big step in the right direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Burelage.jpg

No need for this file. It illustrates the general features of Burelage but so do many other free files in the relevant Commons category. Delete and replace. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, unless this specific stamp style's use of Burelage is called out as a principle example, free media does the job just fine. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:CHANAKYA.jpg

Per Talk:Chanakya#Image_removal_of_File:CHANAKYA.jpg, "No free equivalent" is violated. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Paula Seling Inedit.png

User claims this as license free, the tag they added basicly claims fair use, so this image is replaceable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If this image is non-free, then WP:NFC#UUI#1 seems to apply, i.e. seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Furthermore there are a number of images on Commons (Commons:Category:Paula Seling). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ali Musa DaqDuq's forged ID documents.jpg

This is claimed as US government work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue here? If it's being used as non-free under fair-use, then it doesn't matter whose image it is. It would seem an obvious pass for fair-use. This is a paperwork issue, not a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Works of the US Government are in the public domain. It was incorrect to upload this as fair use if it is already free use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that just because it came out of a US Gov't document does not make the work immediately public domain via US-GOV. They will republish - under fair use - copyrighted material in otherwise larger works that are US-Gov. That doesn't magically make the material that was copyrighted PD-Gov. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to purposely argue around that Masem, but since these are already uploaded to commons...should they be uploaded here as non free content with a link to commons as the source? That is something I have never seen before.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation is here, as if being forged official documents if they even have claim, who the photographer was, etc. They could be legitimate at commons, which is fine. I'm just cautioning that not everything published by the US-Gov't is necessasily PD-Gov -created, yes, but not published. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - All images are already uploaded to Wikimedia commons. Barring any improprieties there of course.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Revolution (The Beatles song)

I don't see justification for 6 non-free files. I see 1, possibly two. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is reasonable justification for the two different audio samples given the discussion between the album + single version. The sheet music cover is not necessary - its not the same as the cover art for the song and not discussed in text. The alt covers of the Thompsons Twins version are not needed and while I would be quick to remove the main cover, I can see that removing that one image could be a problem, so I'd be okay with leaving it in. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VCU Athletics logo 2012.png

Needs re-licensed as free (PD-text) Werieth (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PCathleticlogo.jpg

Needs re-tagged as PD-text Werieth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this really count as a textlogo? One could argue that the overlap of those two letters produces a new shape that is not by itself a typeface and possibly too complex to be regarded as a simple geometric shape. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Central Connecticut Blue Devils Wordmark.png

Needs re-tagged as pd-text Werieth (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Iron Rattler logo.jpg

Not used in infobox despite rationale saying it is. The Iron Rattler article's infobox uses the CC licensed image File:Iron Rattler's Entrance.JPG which includes the "Iron Rattler" sign, so I'd consider this non-free content to have been replaced by free content.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the logo is duplicate, but I think calling the entrance a free image is a problem - its focus is the entryway and sign, and in the US, 3d works of art permanently installed like these do not gain freedom of panorama. So the entryway picture shouldn't be free - but that said, it is a sufficient replacement for the logo in reducing non-free. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UCSF logo.png

This image is currently marked as non-free, citing "strict rules covering how, where, when, and in what manner the logo is to be constructed and presented". The image consists entirely of four letters in black typeface, which would almost certainly render it ineligible for copyright, regardless of any legal or contractual restrictions on its use. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, fails TOO, should be PD-ineligible. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UCSB logo.png

Currently marked as non-free, citing issues with the image being "the official logo". The image and the logo are probably copyright-ineligible, as they consist merely of four letters and a duplicated geometric shape (akin to the shapes found to be insufficient for WP:TOO). RJaguar3 | u | t 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is unlikely to meet TOO. Pretty much typefaces with two simple geometric shapes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jay-Z Magna Carta Holy Grail.jpg

This is tagged as an album cover (Fair use) but may not meet threshold of originality being simple text and geometry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the cross is definitely a simple geometric shape and the rest are letters. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Subway Cookies.jpg

I am wondering if the inclusion of the Subway logo here is de-minmis, or if the image could be cropped to avoid it's inclusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The logo is not de minimus, particularly if the image is to show "Subway"s cookies. It could be cropped, or a new free image obtained without the logo napkin/bag underneath. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a photo of their cookies anyway? They don't look different than other cookies and if a person doesn't know what a cookie looks like then there are thousands of images on Commons such as File:Chocolate Cookie with Chocolate and Peanut Butter Swirled Chips (3).jpg.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NixonandMeir.jpg

Query, This is sourced to an official archive, Is this an official State Department photo, if so it could be freely licensed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say anything without more thorough research, but if the image is from NSA archive, then the publication on the site given in the source link might be the first publication ever, in which case it would be copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if the photo was taken by a gov't employee, then that would make it PD-Gov; on the other hand, if it was a press photo published by the US Gov, that still makes it copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KQRS logo.jpg

This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KXXR logo.jpg

This is a text logo... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional

• File:WLTE logo.png
• File:KZJK logo.png
• File:KFAN logo.png
• File:WCCO AM logo.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Extreme Talk logo.png

Text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Samuelwilderking.jpg

Is this an official photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's using a "logo' template which is absolutely wrong - but there is reasonable allownace for the non-free image for this long-dead person. It needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NFL-Uniform-Jan2002-OAK-NE.png

Non-free image whose NFUR indicates that the purpose of use is "To denote the uniform of the team[s]" playing the Tuck Rule Game. This is clearly insufficient under WP:NFCC#8, which requires that the image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". RJaguar3 | u | t 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KTVI Fox 2 News.png

Violates WP:NFCC#3 (in light of the infobox logo that already serves to identify the station) and WP:NFCC#8 (the news opening is not itself discussed in the text; the image appears to be purely decorative). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no need to show the opening credits in light of the official station logo. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nutri Ventures Corporation.png

Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsure about this one. One could argue that the logo only consists of handwriting-style typefaces, which are ineligible for copyright protection. On the other hand, the individual letters don't seem to represent a single uniform typeface, as for example the first e in the word Ventures seems to be more vertically squashed than the second one and thus the whole logo might be regarded as a creative work and thus in this regard maybe eligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:Glenane.jpg
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster

An editor has removed these images from the page on the grounds that they are not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Having read the guidance I believe he is wrong and that the inclusion of these files is both related to the text and adds significantly to the readers knowledge when researching the army regiment.

My comments on the users talkpage are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is not needed to understand the organization, it is being used decorative File:Glenane.jpg doesn't need to be re-included as it is already used in the article about the event. Finally File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg isnt referenced in the text at all, thus failing WP:NFCC#8 part two. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Werieth is approaching this in an encyclopaedic fashion. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is an historic record of a very simple application form to join a very complicated regiment and is very much referenced in the accompanying text. The attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment's base at Glenanne is "parented" at the source article and the file is very relevant to that incident. That it is repeated in a sub article is of no consequence in my view. File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster are posters commissioned by political opponents to the regiment and show historically how there was a campaign against the UDR. They are required for balance of opinion. In an article as sensitive as this which has been fought over many times, editors must get the WP:WEIGHT of opinion correct otherwise the article will not comply with WP:NPOV. The removal of these two political posters could affect the NPOV balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to add that I am currently engaged in a rewriting process of the UDR article, as can be seen from the many changes over the last week. I have not arrived at the "Political comment" section yet but when I do I fully intend to make reference to the poster images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has it right for NFCC, which these all fail. The application form is "interesting" but not the subject of discussion in the article, and thus the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed by its omission and it fails NFCC#8. The Glenanne photo is inappropriate since it is duplicating the use on the appropriate article for the attack (where the photo is properly used under NFCC), and does not here aid in the reader's understand of the regiment. You don't need to show opponent campaign posters to meet the neutral POV - you can explain in text that the regiment has opposition. Basically, just because something exists, NFCC does not allow us to use an image to simply illustrate this - we need contextual significant that none of the tagged images show here. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant "context" here is that the topic of the article is the UDR. An image does not necessarily need to be discussed, if in itself it conveys something important to reader understanding in that context, beyond what could just be conveyed in words. I don't see a lot in the File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg over what could be conveyed in words; on the other hand IMO the :File:Original Anti-UDR poster does I think have a power and a forcefulness as an image which goes beyond what a mere bland text description would convey, and which I think does usefully convey to the reader the viscerality of the opposition that there was to the UDR from some parts of the community, which is a key thing for the article to communicate. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If these files were deemed to be out of context for non free fair use it was incumbent upon Werieth to discuss the images on the article talk page firstly as per WP:IUP#4. Had this been done it was (and still is) possible to modify the text to bring the images into line with the guidelines quoted although I believe the issue is moot in this case. All of the images are being used in a correct historical context and add to the reader experience. This has been done in a clumsy manner at a time when the article is being rewritten and tightened up. I suggest the images be restored and a period of time given to allow me to fully comply with the concerns stated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective is completely against policy, you dont write and article so that you include media, you include media because the article requires it. Not the way you want to do it. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fundamentals for editing the wiki is WP:GOODFAITH. You have been shown it by both myself and Calil on this occasion. These images (barring File:Glenane.jpg) have all been discussed at length for around 10 years and always been agreed by editors as adding to the experience of reading the article. Your position of authority (whether official or self styled) also carries with it a responsibility. From where I'm sitting you appear to have neglected that in your lack of good faith towards myself and the other editors involved at Ulster Defence Regiment. To explain: it isn't a case of making the text fit the images - it's down to how the text is written and what emphasis is laid upon the images. If I have made errors in my editing which have orphaned the images then I need to be given the consideration of being allowed to correct that. As has already been pointed out; you should have been polite enough to raise concerns about these images before deletion. If you had examined the talk page you would have seen that extensive rewriting is going on. Yes it is sometimes necessary to delete text or images for the benefit of the article but in this case I do not agree with your unilateral declaration without discussion. Nor do I agree with your violation of the 1RR rule. As Calil has pointed out, you are not exempt from sanctions and as I have frequently reminded you, you should pay attention to ALL wiki guidelines, not just the ones which suit your current agenda. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have an "agenda", it may have been discussed for years, however I doubt those who where discussing it took WP:NFCC requirements into consideration (this rarely happens due to peoples lack of understanding NFCC). I have made no assumptions of bad faith, if anything I have taken a fairly neutral position in regards to the motivation of your edits. My actions have been fairly impartial in that regards. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling the partiality of your edits into question. What I'm saying is that you are a deletionist and in being so you are losing sight of other criteria which matter. In other words your agenda is to delete. Discussion is the most important thing on articles and you failed to consider how the incorporation of these images could be discussed. A proper discussion on the talk page could have avoided all of this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, I am not a deletionist, why have I uploaded over 200 non-free files if my agenda is to just delete? Werieth (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS just did some number crunching and Im actually in the top 300 uploaders with regards to the amount of non-free files that I have uploaded. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have put my opinion to you. It's all very well you citing WP:NPA to me btw but yet you've ignored WP:IUP#4, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:1RR. Do I need to remind you that editors such as I give so much time to Wikipedia and we expect to be treated with a little respect when there is an issue. I am in the middle of rewriting that article as I've said manifold times now. How do you think I feel when someone deletes images without a collegiate discussion? I'm sitting here surrounded by books reading to start editing constructively yet I've spent my day trying to make a case for saving these images? Yes, there was a better way to do it - discuss, discuss, discuss, then you can't go wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is a personal attack. WP:IUP#4 doesn't apply as I am not deleting any files (just removing a use). GOODFAITH isnt an issue here either as I never said you where inserting these files in bad faith. as for 1RR, see also Wikipedia:1RR#3RR_exemptions. I do tend to take all relevant policies into consideration when reviewing the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend it to be a personal attack. You should have discussed the removal of the images however. Politeness is a standard wiki protocol. You could see the article was being worked on and could have made suggestions regarding the images, I would have welcomed that. Your link to your exemptions only applies to WP:3RR. As you have already been advised by a sysop you are not exempt for WP1RR as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you are not familiar with articles concerning The Troubles it would be a good idea to read this and other associated material. I have told you a number of times I am prepared to consider the images more carefully when rewriting material which may have been part of the causality of their removal. It boils down to the same thing however: you have not taken my objections in WP:GOODFAITH. You have shown no consideration for the rewriting of the article and above all - you have failed to discuss before removing the images. Thereby creating an unwarranted diversion from the real work of refining the UDR article. As said before, all of this could have been avoided if you'd adopted a policy of discussion as recommended by the wiki.

I repeat my earlier suggestion of restoring the images and allowing me the time to reconstruct the text (which was originally totally inclusive of the images). This is not a question of making the image fit the article, it's a question of using available material in the correct place and in the correct manner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

/facepalm . You don't get it, Feel free to improve the article, I will not re-include media that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. As you have seen above there might be justification for 1 file. You again need to re-examine NFCC. You shouldn't change text to justify a file. Before you add the file, the article should have a requirement for the file. When using NFCC you should ask can the article be understood without this file? If the answer is yes, the you should really question whether or not the article really needs the file. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, with respect but in my view it's you who isn't getting it. This article has been fought over so long that some items have become orphaned. I have told you on multiple occasions that is being addressed but can only be achieved over a period of time. I have suggested that you return the files so that the text around them can be restored to include what made them relevant in the first place. Furthermore, and after consideration, I suggest you remove the File:Glenane.jpg file from the sub article Glenanne barracks bombing rather than the parent article. For the avoidance of doubt, the Glenanne Barracks was a satellite base of the 2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment and contained two companies of 2UDR - no other troops were present. This makes the UDR article the parent article. Again, pointing out that no disrespect is intended towards you or your efforts but when the text for "Recruitment" and "Political comment" is properly restored, the article will be crying out for the inclusion of the images so all you've done is highlight the need for this but the files will eventually be restored with full supporting text. It follows that this discussion is a waste of your time and mine - despite your good intentions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The image File:Glenane.jpg has now been removed from Glenanne barracks bombing and restored at the parent article Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces. As agreed by all this file is relevant and used properly with the objection being that it was used twice. Now it's only being used once. Fair?

For further reference: I am in two minds as to whether or not the article on the Glenanne Barracks bombing ahould be kept on the wiki as there is a separate article entitled Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment which I believe should incorporate the information, thus rendering the Glenanne article an un-needed repetition. All things in time however. The UDR article requires a lot more work before I will be free to address other issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The image was perfectly fine as an example of the damage from the barracks bombing, and NFCC#8 would have been met there. The link from the Regiment page to the bombing page would have been just fine and why the image wouldn't need to be on the Regiment page. (And I've no comment if the Glenanne bombing page should be merged into the Attacks page, but if they are, that still makes the image better on that page than on the Regiment page since that's what the image is specifically about.) --MASEM (t) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Theophilus C Abbot.jpg

Collapsing per nominator request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This image is clearly PD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:YBMSeoulRecords.jpg Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:BravoShowLogo 0040 ChefRoble.png This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:BravoShowLogo 0035 FlippingOut.png This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Ioannina radio deejay logo.jpg TOO simple, text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Miyata-Logo.jpg Too simple, text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:New Forgotten Realms logo.png Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Four Square logo 2013.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Michael Hill Jeweller logo 2013.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:ToonamiLogo2013.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:WRVA new logo.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Oldschool1003.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:KEXAMFMlogo.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Piraeus Bank New Logo.gif PD Shape or PD-Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Dbt-s2-header-logo-new.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The John Gawlik House.jpg

A 1909 image of a US subject is clearly PD surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Depend if that's a publication date? As regards non-free, I assume the building's still standing in a comparable form? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And we're missing #10c rationales here on both articles it is used on. Unless we have assurances of being out of copyright we need to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Vibration three.jpg

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo Sud Radio Groupe.png

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lemouv logo.png

PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Property Envy logo.png

PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Munster Fusiliers 01.jpg

I am querying if this actually needs a fair use claim, the unit concerned was not active after 1922 (so the symbol maybe PD-US) ,and additionaly 1922 is certainly older than the 50 years needed for a crown copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Her Wor arms.png

Replaceable from heraldic description surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:DC101Logo.jpg

PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Blythvalley arms.png

Replaceable from heraldic description? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS idents

The non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are {{PD-US-no notice}} even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example , but not all four. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.

If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.

Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.

I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.

I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set. Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic , when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS). I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS". The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article. The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article. Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying? Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to. You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail. But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC#Images #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Wikipedia:Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.

      (ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.

      (iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

      • • • NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent. You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times [13]), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.

            Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.

            The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

            • But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used. On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity. Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy). And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images. You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC#8. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use. Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)

The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.

Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.

But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple. Direct application of NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy. The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image). In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET). So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic. Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather humorous

Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Wikipedia has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content. But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.

The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one. But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter. Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See m:Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free. [14][15]. Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank#Brands and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions. Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred. WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified. The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter. On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1. All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use. WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use. And that's a good thing, worth defending. Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.

The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.

So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist. Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted. So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded. This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it [16]. Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.

As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia. Angr might wish that we were, but we're not. So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for. Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either. Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps. We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia. The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.

VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan". It's something you either are, or you are not. (And his position is that we should be). What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea. This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN. But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be. There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset. Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Women's World Squash 2008.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2008 Men's World Open Squash Championship. Might not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Geelong2008Logo.svg

Rationale for Geelong Football Club lacks components necessary per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and is insufficient in its current form. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "The image is only a small portion of the commercial product." Really? Looks like the whole logo which is present in the top left corner at http://www.geelongcats.com.au/. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Besides, I can get a perfect rendition of the image with a width of $2^{20}$ pixels. This seems to be against WP:NFCC#3b. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events.

Not sure if it additionally violates WP:NFCC#1 because of the somewhat complex art on the helmet. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The logo might be sufficiently complex for copyright protection. Not sure whether the use of the logo in this image would be considered de minimis. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG

Also File:AFCS-Uniform-HOU.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-KC.PNG

Also File:AFCW-Uniform-OAK.PNG

Also File:NFCE-Uniform-WAS.PNG

Also File:NFCN-Uniform-DET.PNG

Non-free images like this shouldn't be repeated in articles about annual events. Not sure if it violates WP:NFCC#1 due to the somewhat complex art on the helmet. Note that the initial image (now deleted per WP:CSD#F5) was licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that in general, reusing uniform images in a season article is unnecessary, except if two factors occur: that the season was the first year these new uniforms were introduced, and that there is significant discussion about the uniform change; both would make the inclusion of the new uniforms for that season appropriate. But this is rarely the case. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of images of sports uniforms

There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:BBC News titles.png

This has a fair use rationale for one article but is used in three articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The image is of the generic titles to BBC News summary's, weekend news, and the BBC News channel. BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, and BBC News at Ten use a version with the number in the titles. Hope this help. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the original comment, rationales could have been added quite quickly for each of the articles. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter

This concerns the following three images:

• File:Ultima2 CompVsRGB.png
• File:KQ CompVsRGB.png
• File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png

All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "[t]o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like. Diego (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LibertyFlames.png

This violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png

This is used in 15 articles but it only has fair use rationales for 4 articles. It violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least 11 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As above. Remove from all articles that don't have rationale pending consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Stripped from all articles that failed 10c. Please dont bring these cases to NFCR, missing rationales are a simple fix, either add the rationale or remove the use. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing 10c violations is often quite difficult. If the image is removed, it is often just re-added again. For example, this image still only has fair use rationales for four articles, but it is nevertheless used in five articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I missed one usage. should be fixed now. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you edit the infobox for James Eagan Holmes you will see a hidden note I left there to not include the image that has fair use for another article. This may help if it keeps getting re-added like the mugshot did. Since I added the note the image has not been added back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.

Set 1:

• File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg
• File:Windows Chicago (build 73) boot screen.gif

Set 2:

• File:Winchicagodesktop.png
• File:Windowschicago73.png

Set 3:

• File:Windowschicago347.png
• File:Windowschicago490.png
• File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Wikipedia first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.

There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Wikipedia. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.

Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I concur with both:

• Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
• Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide",[17] that Microsoft released with the Beta [18] "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:New York Rangers.svg

If non-free, this violates WP:NFCC#9, but maybe it is below the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd edge on non-free (copyrightable) due to the shield shape. Even so, since it is tagged non-free, it is unallowable except in mainspace. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is not below the threshold of originality. An example that Stefan once showed me on Commons was a crown shape on a logo which copyright review office had rejected as being too simple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to commons. If it is below threshold it should be moved to commons and discussed there. I don't see why we should host images here that are PD with a fair use rationale. If it passes there then delete here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we are absolutely assured outselves it is below the threshold, we start with the assumption of non-free. If we do say it is below the threshold, then yes, we can push it to commons, but we have to figure that out first. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons has more experts than us on TOO. I will upload it there, tag it for deletion review, and if it passes we can delete it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:New_York_Rangers.svg --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• This one can be closed. It passed deletion review at commons not as below TOO but published before 1977 without proper notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.

In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see [19] and [20] for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we should seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with WP:NFCC#1 (we have free images that show who is is) and WP:NFCC#3a (already numerous non-frees on that page, though arguably on her more famous and critically acclaimed awards). --MASEM (t) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is zero discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Wikipedia. Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does not require illustration without commentary. That's the failure of NFCC#8 here. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks nude which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources. Diego (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's zero discussion critically about how she looked nude. NFCC#8 fails. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it. Diego (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No, that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Every time someone says "but this can be explained with text", Jimbo kills a kitten. So please don't. Diego (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Bullshit. This is exactly a case where, as there's zero discussion (sourced or otherwise) about how she looks without clothes on, the existence of nude photos (which is documented) can be explained in text. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Too bad then that WP:NFCI#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. Diego (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced commentary, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is PD, that's fine. As I've made clear, it's not the fact its a nude, just that its a piece of non-free (presently) that is not needed. As PD, there's no question that it could be included. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg. I uploaded it to commons and put it up for deletion review if anyone wants to join over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It can't be on commons. It can be used 1 time in 1 article per WP:NFCI 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance. Theworm777 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Changed vote to delete cause I now feel this gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fact she posed in the nude and I am not sure it is needed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.Diego (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will should be deleted then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• DeleteNon free fair use images should only be used when an image is absolutely essential to the article, this image is not.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of NFCC#8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Totally amazed. We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I give up. Now the prudes have changed it to the fair use cover of the 1953 Playboy where she is dressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:NFCC#8 and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that up. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame. The 7 Year Itch, Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The River of No Return helped as well of course. She was very talented and the Playboy, calender picture opened the door...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM," which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period. This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Joseph

Most recent:

• File:Bradley Joseph Secrets of the Sun.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph In Dreams Awake.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Inside the Stars.ogg

Older:

• File:Bradley Joseph The Passage.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Be Still.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Blue Rock Road.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Long, Last Mile.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph The Road Ahead.ogg
• File:Bradley Joseph Dance of Life.ogg

I tagged this as {{non-free}} but because this was flagged as FA in 2007 (before WP:NFCC was as strictly enforced as it is now) the tag was removed. I doubt that a BLP article needs 9 pieces of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I moved the {{Non-free review}} template from the article to the media pages for review per instructions above. A link to the related article is above for ease of access. I also added a link to this discussion on the talk page. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uploader: I believe all relevant guidelines for NFC are also fully complied with. This article is of a contemporary comoposer, the samples are used in a "Musical Style and Composition" section that depicts the many different styles of compositions produced by this artist. I bring attention to NFC policy regarding audio clips in that Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder. Done. I believe the samples are needed to enhance the historical and critical examinations of the excerpts; namely, while the excerpts are described with sourced text, it is easier to understand a musical composition by hearing a sample. I believe these samples meet all 10 criterion of WP:NFCCP and more specifically #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. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Apart from the sound recordings, there are a lot of non-free text quotes in the article. Are all of those really needed? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply: All text quotes are fully attributed and sourced and enhance understanding of the article and makes for easier reading. I am not aware of any NFC policy regarding these. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#Text any non-free media, text, sound, video, images are covered by WP:NFCC. Give then excessive amount of non-free media in this article it is difficult to see most of the items passing WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3, and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: NFC policy does not cover text. If there are excessive quotes (even if properly cited), that falls into copyvio territory. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are '5' properly attributed block quotes in a somewhat lengthy Featured article. WP policy allows an editor to use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, [blockquote], or a similar method. However, If the issue is about any other quotes within the text of the article, this is simply full attribution to reliable sources for material that is an aesthetic opinion for a work of art, following Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. And if that is still a problem, sentences could be recast to exclude the quotation marks. This is a minor issue. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, the quote text is fine. That's not a consideration towards considered non-free media. However, your sound samples are too long - the requirement for non-free is at most no longer than 10% of the work's lenght, or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. You have at least two that exceed 30s. This needs to be fixed, though this should not be taken as a consideration towards the # of non-frees used. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are now fixed. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding sound files. At this point, since all sound files are attributed with proper rationales, I believe the only issue here is what constitutes "excessive". There are 9 excerpts out of more than 200 compositions/arrangements by this composer, in a Musical Style section. I would like to bring attention to WP:WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts in that Short excerpts may be a valuable component of a composer article if they give readers a taste of the composer's style in general, or illustrate certain aspects of that style. which was the full intent for this article. Consider rationing their number: don't try to be comprehensive; leave the reader wanting more. which was also followed, i.e. for the last six years there were only 6 excerpts up until last week when I added 3 more which sparked this review. Therefore, "excessive" may simply be subjective since I find no other WP guidelines regarding this. Any additional clarity would be appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:GG Allin sshot.jpg

Image is a still from a film, and is not being used for "critical commentary" on the film, but for a headshot on the artist's article. If this use is inappropriate, it will fail NFC7. czar · · 04:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be probably be deleted. There's already a non-free image in the article (further down). While Allin has been dead for 20 years, and thus there is very little likelyhood of a free image appearing, there's no compelling reason for the use of two non-free images, and thus one of the images should go. No real preference for which, but one non-free image is enough to illustrate any biographical article. --Jayron32 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all five articles where it is currently being used. Possibly below WP:TOO (essentially a textlogo next to a red square with a white figure trying to hit a tennis ball). Don't know how much of a difference that reflection effect on the square makes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure of the woman puts this well above the TOO. (Same with the logo on Women's Squash Association). Bu agreed that on the individual tourney pages, the logo is not appropriate. There's no overall article on the general tourney, but all those details are in the above Women's Squash Association, where a logo that is close enough (same graphic and block letters, just different subtitle) is used. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Watson's avatar.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Watson (computer) and 2011 in science. The first violation was created through this page move. I don't know whether that use might be appropriate under one of the points at WP:NFCI. The second use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Watson (computer) is fine with regards to 10c; the rationale is referring to that article back when it had a different name. But I agree it should be removed from 2011 in science. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the rationale for Watson (computer) is valid, the current rationale links to Watson (artificial intelligence software) which redirects to [Watson (computer)]] making the rationale completely valid still. as for 2011 it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• • No, 10c is not met. While a wikilink to the article is not required, 10c explicitly requires the name of the article. The image is not being used on Watson (artificial intelligence software) and a rationale for Watson (computer) is lacking. Yes, I could simply correct the name and wikilink in the rationale, but as long as WP:NFCC still means something it is the duty of those wanting to use this image on that page. The current rationale for Watson (computer) is invalid. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I dont have a link handy but a redirect still meets the requirement for 10c, if you want to debate that, raise the discussion at WT:NFC. You will find very little support for your position. A redirect name is equivalent to the article name. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Redirects as article names in non-free use rationales. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this violates WP:NFCC#8 in 2011 in science. That article shouldn't have any non-free images at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Adaptations of Les Misérables

A user keeps adding lots of non-free images which so blatantly violate WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6. They all need to be deleted from the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, thanks for starting this discussion about the images in Adaptations of Les Misérables.

Les Misérables has been adapted so many times, by so many different people.

So it's great to have these images there, because they serve the purpose of illustrating the point that there have been so many different adaptations by so many different people with different ideas and across various media.

All the images are low resolution and each of them has a rationale addressing the inclusion in this article.

I sincerely hope we can find consensus to keep them there, as I feel the article would not look as good as it does now without them, and also readers wouldn't get the instant level of understanding of the main point the article makes.

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The ones that are non-free have their own articles, and thus users can see the images there. We don't allow non-free content in lists (which this is) because like this it tends to be decorative. Here, your argument that the images help the reader to see how many times the work has been adapted is unnecessary as you have dozens and dozens of text entries showing the same thing. Unless the non-free images are discussed in the article and not just the fact that the remake is on the list, they can't be used. Free images are fine and it looks like you have a few there. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and explanation. I know what you mean, there are lots and lots of text entries. But images make articles more much more powerful and also there's the good old "an image says more than a thousand words".

As regards leaving only the free images, the problem is that there is only one afaik.

Do you think if we discuss the images in the article we could justify keeping them?

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Burn it with fire; none of them provide adequate contextual significance for use in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between discussing a copyright issue, and having a "burn it with fire" attitude. List of book-burning incidents , Death by burning Azylber (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is also a difference between reading the policies and guidelines and using non-free images willy-nilly, which appears to be what happened here. "Delete/remove the non-free images with extreme prejudice" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Why? Masem and Hullaballoo have made this perfectly clear; no contextual significance which requires non-free images. One mentions Jaws in a list, one need not see the poster to have an idea of what it is about, or that it exists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Obvious NFCC violations -- gallery of nonfree images illustrating list entries Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• The images should be removed and stay removed. They are decor. They are not discussed, nor should they be. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, consensus seems to be very clear here, so I agree that we should delete the images. I reckon we should give it a couple more days in case someone else has anything else to say, and then delete them.

If anyone thinks we can justify keeping the images by discussing them in the article, please let me know, and I'm happy to write the necessary text. Azylber (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The posters from the 1934 and 1935 films should be more thoroughly investigated before deleting them, since it's highly probable that they're out of copyright and in the public domain now, just like the 1943 comic cover is. Diego (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The easiest way would be to find a high resolution scan and check for a copyright notice. I've used Doctor Macro for that before. Not sure if this film is there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If some of the posters from that age are from the United States, then yes, they should be checked for copyright formalities. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The ones I checked had notices (1935). No word on renewal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I have to agree with Stefan's concerns. It was a concern I myself had back around the time the article was created, though I forgot to follow up on it. I think we could justify inclusion of some of these pictures if we turned the article from a list (as it now, essentially, is) into a full-fledged article that summarises the history of Les Mis adaptations, including summary-style synopses of the adaptations' respective articles. I agree with Azylber that images are good for an article, make it more powerful, etc., but in this case we have policies that are strict with regard to our utilisation of fair-use images, and that unfortunately trumps consideration of the impact of the article. We will have a featured article on the main page within the next few weeks that will not be able to have an image of its subject run alongside it, because the only photo available is non-free. As in that case, I wish there were a better way of doing things, but the policy is what it is. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 in 2008–09 Indonesia Super League or 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. Also, the image violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2011–12 Indonesia Super League. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The image satisfies 10c now, as it is now only being used in Indonesia Super League and 2008–09 Indonesia Super League. Both of those uses are for identification purposes. The use in Indonesia Super League seems to be acceptable. Unless we have a point at WP:NFCI explicitly stating logo uses in articles about specific sports events are acceptable, the image should be removed from 2008–09 Indonesia Super League for violating WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:OasisTowerRender.jpg

This image is used in five articles, but it only has one fair use rationale, and the fair use rationale doesn't say to which article the fair use rationale applies, so the image currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in all of those articles. Additionally, the image violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in most of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does - it points to Oasis Tower, so there's clearly a rationale for it there (its not a template, but the paragraph there does try to hit on the salient points of NFC) (this is not to comment on how valid that rationale is). But separate rationals would be need for each of the other four uses. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It says that it is an "Image of Oasis Tower in Mumbai", not that it is a fair use rationale for the article Oasis Tower or for the article Mumbai. WP:NFCC#10c doesn't only require you to include the title to which the FUR refers; you should also tell that the FUR describes the use of the image in that article. The FUR includes many article titles (Oasis Tower and Mumbai with links, building, information etc. without links), and it isn't clear which article the FUR is meant to refer to. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't require rationale to be that exact - common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower. Yes, it can be more clear, but if, for example, that was the only use of that image on that page, a #10c complaint would be petty. Now, yes, with 4 other images unaccounted for, those need to be very clear for their rationales, and likely the one for Oasis made more explicit. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually this rationale is insufficient in its current form. I disagree that "common sense says what the rationale is for in only the case for Oasis Tower", as that is not clear from the rationale at all. WP:NFCC#10c explicitly requires "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". This rationale is not specific and the use of this file does not satisfy 10c as it is currently written. If people think such a rationale is sufficient, then 10c should be adjusted to reflect that, but until that happens the file should either be removed or the rationale improved to meet the requirements of the current version of 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rationale could be written better, but this is a case where it would be silly to be hard-nosed about #10c enforcement in the use on Oasis Tower since it is the article about the building in the image - an allowable case. All other 4 cases beg the question "why" and thus the rationale needs to be added or the image removed. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should just be left as is. While the rationale could indeed be better, it seems to be kind of silly to try to get it improved, as in this case it is implicitly clear why the image is in the article about that building. The other uses have been removed, so this should just be closed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am just ignoring the fact that this image might violate NFCC#1, since I guess it would be possible to get a free image of the building under construction. I mean, I am not aware of a guideline which says articles about buildings need to include an image of the building in its finished state before the building is even finished. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

India has building FOP, so when it is completed, a free image can be made. That said, it's 3 years away from completion, and even a photograph of the building under construction at this time won't be much. This is a case where a free image can't be had at the present but can in a sufficiently long time in the future that, assuming all other conditions are met, NFC could be used as long as it is subsequently replaced with a free image when that becomes possible. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how much you can see of the building at this time. If three years remain, maybe it is still too incomplete. Once the building is almost complete, a photo of the incomplete building might be sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that once the building is in a state where it is indistinguishably close to the planned rendering, then we need a free image. Three years is likely still a good ways off for it , but maybe in a year or two that will be different. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck⁸⁹ (what's up?) 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
              • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.

  Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• You cannot copy gameplay mechanics - only artistic aspects (see video game clone). So using a top down view, and using free graphics like File:Gnome-stock_person.svg would not be a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.

we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)]

The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.

And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Masem who has explained it well, particularly in the comments Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png

Might violate WP:NFCC#8 in a number of articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Only acceptable at the main ACC article. The use in the ACC-related articles is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Botola vf.PNG

Used in three articles but only has one rationale. Rationale is a group rationale explicitly contianing only one article name. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:División de Honor.PNG

Having reviewed the examples at Commons:Threshold of originality I guess that this doesn't meet the threshold. Essentially consists of some curves and typefaces. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Ivy League logo.svg

I guess the ivy icon places this above the threshold. In that case, the use in Ivy League Men's Basketball Player of the Year violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:LourdesGrayWolves.png

Used in four articles but only has a rationale for one. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• If this were Germany, then it's definitely below TOO; but given that this is the US, we might want to be more cautious since TOO mainly applies to text and geometric shapes. If it's copyrighted, then I can only see justification for it in Lourdes Gray Wolves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the logo is indeed essentially text, except the paw, which I guess isn't sufficiently complex to be copyrightable on it's own and so I guess it doesn't place the logo above TOO. I don't expect that the mere combination of those two basic ideas would be regarded as creative enough by the US copyright office to grant registration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, combining the two won't push it above TOO. But it would be good to get some more opinions on the paw. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The pawprint would be considered artistic enough to push past TOO in the US. US's is basic shapes and geometry, that's not it. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... [editors] who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik ^(talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik ^(talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik ^(talk) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
              • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel _Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some people made up their minds from the moment this was listed here. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did try and reformat the article, but it was reverted by another editor. --evrik ^(talk) 14:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik ^(talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik ^(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                • I've added sources. --evrik ^(talk) 15:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • You can't use the Pine Tree Web one as it is clearly citing Wikipedia, making it WP:CIRCULAR. The other (reading Google's translate) has little to speak directly about the logos and also being a blog raising questions of reliability. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, you're right. I found another source and will look for others. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

File:PaladinsLogo.svg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Furman Paladins. Seems to be below WP:TOO, as consisting essentially of basic geometric shapes (the rhombs) and typefaces (the F). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:2012iccworldt20.png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 ICC Women's World Twenty20. I am unsure whether this consists just of simple geometric shapes and typefaces. The lower part is indeed just typefaces. I don't know whether the blue circle is a simple geometric shape or not. The red-yellow part might push the logo beyond WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that the "upper half" drawing in the logo would be beyond WP:TOO, so it needs valid rationale(s) for each use. Begoon ^talk 03:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png

And yet another non-free sports uniform image, this time violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Las Vegas Locomotives season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg

Used in 2012 Men's World Junior Squash Championships and 2012 Women's World Junior Squash Championships, but only has a rationale for the former and lacks one for the latter. Both uses appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 8 articles. Might be below WP:TOO (essentially typefaces and simple geometric shapes). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:NFL(Australia).png

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Northern Football League Season. Does this count as basic geometric shapes and typefaces? If yes, then it's below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png

Non-free sports uniform image. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012 Omaha Nighthawks season. The logo probably pushes the image past TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

KOFY-TV

I just cannot see justification for 8 non-free files per WP:NFCC#3 and 8. Werieth (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguably many of those fail TOO (fonts and simple graphics) and should be tagged free. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG

I can see justification for including it in the main article, But I cannot see it for uses in:

1. 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
2. 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
3. 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
4. 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
5. 2nd/4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
6. 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
7. 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
8. 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
9. 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
10. 8th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
11. 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
12. 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment
13. 10th Independent Rifle Company, Royal Australian Regiment

• Werieth (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah you're right. Wikipedia will be a lot better devoid of images. 175.35.114.193 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Foundation aims for enabling free content and minimizing non-free content, so removal of these images fits our goal. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
          • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
            • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete from Waterboarding: This isn't even a photo of the act, it is a painting of it! Anyone can make a painting of it. A painting by someone else would give exactly the same understanding. A clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif

From the image:

Windows Server (TM) Code Name "Longhorn"

Evaluation copy. Build 6001

From its copyright statement:

If you wish to benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant, you may not use [...] screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released.

Can someone swap it out for a shot from a 2008 RTM? That would convey the same information and be legally safer. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First thing is we don't need Microsoft's permission to use the screenshot under a fair use claim (if the use of this image constitutes fair use). This use is probably okay under fair use as its nature seems to be largely transformative. That said, the use in Windows Server 2008 appears to be a violation of WP:NFCC#8, as a removal of the image wouldn't harm a readers overall understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to question whether it violates fair use, but it does violate the licence it claims it's under. Swapping the licence out for {{Non-free software screenshot}} would be a possible solution, but Non-free Microsoft is more liberal than Non-free software and therefore better.

As for removing it, I agree that we don't need two images of Server Core, but I'd rather remove File:Windows 2008 Server Core.png than this one, since this one demonstrates the removed features more clearly. I believe having at least one increases the understanding of what exactly is different in a way text can't convey. -81.232.114.228 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

This violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the BSA Brand Identity Guide, I misidentified this emblem: File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg is the 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'. I will fix this.
• The emblem is currently used at:
  • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America): should use the proper 'Boy Scouts of America universal emblem' (Second Class Scout emblem)
  • Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • February 1910: not needed
  • History of the Boy Scouts of America: use 'Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark'
  • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): I am fairly certain there is a training emblem; else the Trained emblem can be used.
    • File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg moved to File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • Proper version of File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg uploaded
    • Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • History of the Boy Scouts of America updated to use File:Boy Scouts of America corporate trademark.svg
    • February 1910: image removed
    • Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America): image removed; will replace with proper emblem once I find it
    • Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now uses proper File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg
    • --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik ^(talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg

This violates WP:NFCC#8 and in particular WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, wait, it's an American painting. Maybe that makes it PD due to failure to comply with copyright formalities, although I have no idea how to prove that. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have had to be registered (falling into the 1950-1963 period where registration was required in the 28 yr term), but there's no easy way to search for this. It would make sense to consider it non-free until it can be found. As for its use, it's clearly fine on Milton Avery's page (an artist's work) but the other uses are suspect - there's not much establishing this as a major work that needs to be seen to understand those topics. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Avery is an important artist from the mid-20th century and this is a fine example of his mature work...Modernist (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a point made on the various "History" articles or the Landscape Artwork articles. It's included and Avery's name-dropped but there's no rational why this piece is more important than any other piece in the same family (contemporary western landscape artists) that we could probably find free replacements for if we're trying to demonstrate this period. Again, same probably with painting articles before - I know that the traditional way to present this in textbooks outside of WP is to show many many examples and let the work speak for itself, but we have a stronger requirement here and that method simply doesn't work. This is not to say that we need to remove those images "now" but just that the language can be improved to make them fit better to describe the importance of AVery's work. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do a copyright renewal search use: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ I read somewhere that less than 5% were ever renewed in the 28 year window. Look at 27, 28, and 29 years after first publication.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in the 78-on copyright office search but I didn't look at the pre-records. I also note that Avery appears to be covered by the ARS ([21]) though that doesn't necessarily mean every work he did is covered. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem: If it was first published in a book or a newspaper, then I believe that you usually need to search for the book title or the name of the newspaper instead of searching for the name of the painitng. This is one thing which makes it difficult to search for renewals of paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding additional text as time permits...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Huge category

Category:Doctor Who character images has over 300 images in it. The few I checked are fair use and not movable to commons. Should we go through all of them or has it been done already? A trusted admin may wish to go through and delete the obvious ones on sight. We may wish to look at other cats, ie. Star Trek, Star Gate, Buffy, Zombies, Werewolves, Vampires, and Casper (cat) etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think all those images need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone should go through the category and list the suspicious cases here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Several of these appear to be used in the infobox of episode articles and seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. However, this needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis as there presumably are other images which satisfy all points of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of them do appear to be images of characters used on fictional character articles, and there's a weak consensus that this is always appropriate - that is, if the character's notable enough for a standalone article, the character image is a reasonable thing to include to show implicitly how the character was portrayed (but again, that's weak consensus). Episode articles have to be reviewed, though. I know that the newer reincanation of the show, the editors have been good, but I suspect a lot of the older series have problems with unnecessary episode images. A case-by-case is needed, but I recommended asking the Doctor Who project to assist here. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 2012–13 NBL season and National Basketball League (Australasia). The uses in 2009–10 NBL season and 2012–13 NBL season appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As a logo, it's only allowable use w/o additional discussion is on the league page, the two season pages are unacceptable even if there were 10c rationales for them. Recommend removal from those pages and using the standards FUR for logos for the NBL page. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TV Patrol

• TV Patrol (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article uses 9 non-free files, I can really only see justification for 1 (WP:NFCC#3 and #8 ). Werieth (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, with the logos they are all derivatives of each other (not even considering past arguments of historical logos), so only one is needed. And we don't need screenshots of the show to understand its a news program. Free images can be had of the hosts (they all appear to be living) so we don't need non-free to show them. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, maybe the screenshots and the images of the host can be removed but the logos and the images pertaining to the "augmented reality" are not to be removed as this best depicts how it evolved as each logo shows the evolution of the show. I am from the Philippines and I know the show very well as I watch it so I have a better say on the article. And besides unlike other shows which only changes title cards, this show, when they do, they're has to be a major change in it. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The changes in the logo are extremely small and trivial. Unless there's detailed discussion from sources that explain each change, it's unlikely to cause the reader confusion. I can understand the use of augmented reality as a highlight of discussing the show but that's probably the only other image besides the current logo I'd keep. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the writers of the page, including me already have an existing plan of massively fixing the article way before this issue came in. In fact it would adhere to your concern about each logo change being small and trivial into putting why the logo change is also a major change in the program. Its just that our schedules do not permit us to do this in a full blown single time edit because as we all know its better if all the writers would first agree on the content that would be placed.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Isobel (song)

I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The last cover, the one that is a simple label, may be free - its text + simple shape and fails TOO. But 4 is still too many. One of the covers is clearly duplicative (there's a small change in the photo), not enough enough to justify it. The alt. art is reasonably fair to include per past discussions on regional variations. The music video image needs a lot better justification to keep. It's a Gondry video who is known to be visually abstract but the image doesn't correlate this to the article. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Book articles don't get multiple cover images. The article The Quest for Kalevala only has one cover image, not seven. Why are music products different? The main difference with music products is that cover images of music products provide less identification than cover images of printed publications since music more commonly is distributed without illustrations (for example on radio). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion within the last two years where the album project said that one additional cover if it is in major retail region and significantly different from the main release (eg: differences between EU and US versions) is appropriate but that's about all the allowance allowed if there's no further discussion on the cover images. So there's still a problem in this article, but we'd otherwise have to re-address that alt art consenssus. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@masem - it does 'correlate' - its from the video -look on youtube 2:23Sayerslle (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because it appears in the video doesn't make it appropriate to include as non-free media here on WP. We need better correlation - specifically sourced discussion - in the text of the WP article that explains about the concept, creation, or the critical reception of the video in a manner that provides contextual significance. As I noted, since directed by Gondry who is known to be a master of the visual element, I am sure there is something that can be found for this, but that has to be found and included, otherwise, the image is just presented "here's a snap of the video, enjoy" and that flat out fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the whole song is explained by Bjork in the long quote there from 'eurotrash' - so in the still you can see what she is talking about She was born in a forest,- there it is behind her, the trees - between the land and the sky , as Basil Fawlty says, and the plane was a moth - She decided to send to the world all these moths that she trained to go and fly all over the world- so the text has explained the concept - so something has been found for this Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just explaining what's in the video isn't sufficient; the understanding of the video is not improved by having the image there over the existing text. We need something that expands more than just that that would make the image essential to add. I will also note, as a separate, that while there is quoted material in the article and the likely source is there, there must be an inline citation to that source material to keep that quote, otherwise, it can be considered a copyright violation; this is a separate issue from the non-free aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

well. its clearly not 'essential' - none of the images surely are 'essential' - just makes the articles more interesting to look at imo - what do you mean there must be an inline citation - it is sourced as it says at the start of the quote -to the eurotrash programme - do you mean it needs ref tags somewhere in the midst of the quote - what difference does that make? - i'm out of my depth here - I don't know all the rules clearly. btw- this is off-topic but can you tell me quickly if linking to youtube videos is frowned on at all at song/album articles? or inadvisable in any way, or is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

First, let me give you some help: Reference this article from Salon: [22], which specifically has the following quote (among others): "Certainly the fragile quality of light in “Isobel” recalls silent films.". There's enough in that article that can now be used to explain the visual nature of the video, thus making the inclusion of the image appropriate, and meeting NFCC#8. (There also may be other articles, but I hit on this one first) But that has to be included. As for quotes and citations, see WP:QUOTE on why we need to cite quotes, and WP:CITE for basic citation needs. On using YouTube videos, you need to be careful to make sure the video is actually copyright-allowable on youtube (normally: uploaded by the person that owns the copyright). That's more described over at External Link guidance. But to get to the point, the music video image certainly can be kept, since the Slate article, at minimum, supports the reason to see the video image. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

ok - the quote was cited though, to the eurotrash programme - but I think I get the idea more with the text discussing, not just the narrative, but the 'art' of the video , - though the salon quote is pretty pseuds corner-ish imo - the light seems to dim and swell from moment to moment, almost as if the film stock itself possessed a beating heart (!) - i'll read the guidelines. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, on the cite, we'd want something more explicit (if its a program, the program season/episode information, so that it can be verifieid). As for the Salon quote, while a lot of the comments it makes are fluffy, it does establish - for purposes of NFC and Wikipedia - that the video gives off an old-school silent-era film quality which is something that is not easily described by text, and thus why I suggest using that to support the image. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Alagoas.jpg

This file is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

• Brazilian monitor Ceará
• Brazilian monitor Pará
• Brazilian monitor Piauí
• Brazilian monitor Rio Grande
• Brazilian monitor Santa Catharina
• Pará-class monitor

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• It also fails WP:NCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • • No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Here's the complete text of #3:
          • Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
          • Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
        • How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
              • There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensrÿche

I cant see justification for 9 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spot checking a few FA band articles, 4-5 for a group like this may be reasonable (perhaps even high), certainly not 9. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As the contributor who originally added the samples, I agree that 9 is a bit much. There were originally 7 samples, but two more were added since there are currently two versions of the band, which have both released an album. I have just removed three samples, bringing it back to six samples. I would like to propose to leave it at six for now because of the exceptional "two bands" situation, where you can basically regard the 5th and 6th sample as "5a" and "5b". The court date is set for November, after which one version is awarded the name Queensrÿche, and the other will probably continue under a different name and will thus also get its own page on Wikipedia, bringing the number down to five. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

5 Is even high. Preferably 2-3 samples are acceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As Masem said above after looking at several FA articles, 4–5 may be reasonable. Still, it's arbitrary. As the WikiProject Music did not have anything about what is a reasonable number of samples at the time I added the samples, I looked at Rush (band) for an indication as to how many songs I should put up (a comparable band to Queensrÿche in many respects, which has six audio samples). Two to three samples is too few. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But even then I said 4-5 may be too high. Non-free music samples are not just added to fill out a band's article, they need to be contextually significant, and specifically with bands to highlight distinct musical aspects that have been discussed by sources and included in the text. I'm not judging the band itself but compared to most bands at FA, I wouldn't call Quuesryche as having a very distinct sound that would necessary require a similar number of sound samples, but I've not thoroughly reviewed the text to confirm that. The key is, in band articles, sound samples aren't just included for making sure there are N samples; they are added only if they help the reader to understand the band's musical significance. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry for interpreting your post differently. Although I would have liked to keep the anthology-like presentation of songs highlighting a particular period — as copied off Rush (band) — it's true that Queensrÿche hasn't been "relevant" for over 15 years. So I have narrowed it down to their two Grammy-nominated songs, and I think it will be good to keep in the two versions by the currently existing bands, as it helps people identify a distinction between them as long as they're still around. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (song)

I cannot see a justification for 7 covers, I can see 1 cover and then one for the sound sample but a total of 8 non-free items for one song? Werieth (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, this is absurd. 1 is enough. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ottawa LPP Stadium Proposal.JPG

Both uses in Lansdowne Park redevelopment and Frank Clair Stadium appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. The paragraph beginning with "On May 27, OSEG revealed an updated design...." in Lansdowne Park redevelopment#Lansdowne Live/Lansdowne Partnership Plan is well understandable without this image. Same goes for the section Future in Frank Clair Stadium. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's reasonable in the article about the stadium as long as it is recognized as replacable fair use once the stadium is constructed. It is unallowable on the redevelopment article. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the statuette and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, so we need a free licence from the photographer regardless of the copyright status of the statuette. See {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo part is not necessarily replaceable, depending on where the statuette is located. If it is a non-public place, then it is not easily replaceable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Commons file has a correct copyright tag (for the photo part), then the photo part is replaceable by cropping out the statuette from that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't solve the problem with the trophy, since all that would remain were the poster with the Yahoo logo, which is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the statuette. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Allentown, Pennsylvania

• Allentown, Pennsylvania (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I cant see the justification for the 5 non-free files that are being used on this article. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be some wiggle room, but I do agree least 3, 4 of them need to go.

• File:Berninger eighthstbridge.jpg is non-free while a PD postcard File:Allentown 8thstbridge.jpg showing the same, demolished bring is over at commons. There's certainly no reason given to use the non-free painting since it's being used to illustrate the section on transportation, which the postcard does fine.
• File:One City Center - planned Illustration.jpg and File:Two City Center.jpg are both images of buildings under construction (along with another building File:Allentown Arena - planned illustration.jpg. As there's only some discussion on these buildings, three non-frees can't be used here, and certainly limited it to two as both One and Two City Centers designs are similar. If anything, I would remove all three - they don't help illustrate the article, while the last one is about a notable building coming in and could be used there.

These three images illustrate the redevelopment of the Center City Business District, a major $500 million dollar project that is currently underway. They give the reader of the article illustrations of the goals of the project, and they are an important illustrative part of that section. The images are fully justified in their use with Fair-Use rationales, and until the time when the project is complete, and free photos can be taken of the completed buildings, they simply can not be replaced.

Their removal would significantly degrade the value of that section. Also, one has to ask what will be the benefit to the reader of the article by their summary removal? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While the text explains the significance of the $500M renovation project, there's nothing to describe the importance of the new building renderings, and ergo there is no contextual significance for these images (failing NFCC#8). There would need to be sources discussion to explain some of the background of the buildings' designs or the like to consider their inclusion. Yes, once the buildings are complete a free image can be used with no question but with non-free we have to be more discriminatory. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:AllentownJuly281979.jpg seems completely inappropriate, particularly given that the text says "While Allentown currently has no passenger rail service (the last public rail service, which was part of the Bethlehem-Philadelphia service provided by Conrail under contract with SEPTA, ceased operating in 1979), several of the Allentown-area stations once used for passenger service have been preserved through their current commercial use.", meaning that we can get a free image of one of these still-existing stations to illustrate that point over the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

File:AAFMAA-Logo-SVG-translucent.svg

This file doesn't comply with WP:NFCC#3b. As explained at Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format, an SVG file shouldn't have more detail than needed for the article, but this isn't the case as the image displays perfectly at huge resolutions. I'm not sure how to reduce SVG files as a reduction would require removing some SVG elements. Maybe it would be easiest to just convert it to PNG. SVG files tend to be tagged with {{non-free reduce}} for months or years with no fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Nzarmy.gif

The uses in 21st Battalion (New Zealand), 22nd Battalion (New Zealand), 23rd Battalion (New Zealand) and 27th Machine-Gun Battalion (New Zealand) are all icon-like and violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. While I can almost see how section 8 applies in this case, I'm not sure about the sizing comment. If the image were larger in the articles, would your objection to its use go away? Blackfyr (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The uses would still violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I'm still not seeing how the image really violates WP:NFCC#8, especially since, according to the NZDF site, the image 'may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission' AND it is being used in a respectful manner to indicate visually which forces are part of the NZDF. IOW, if the NZDF doesn't object to Wikipedia using the image, why do you? Blackfyr (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Free of charge is not equivalent to free of copyright which is our metric that we need. It is not that we're worried about NZDF objecting to the use, it is the fact that it has copyrights on it that prevent it from being redistributed for any purpose (including reuse and modification). We have to consider it non-free, and can only use such images in a restrictive manner as part of our free content mission. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Queen of Swords (TV series)

• File:Mysterious circle2.JPG
• File:QoS2cast.jpg
• File:Queen of Swords Titles 2.jpg
• File:Queen of Swords.JPG
• File:Texas Hollywood.jpg
• File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG

I cant see how these pass WP:NFCC#3&8 Werieth (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Read the rationales, after all that is what they are for. Blanket deletions of all IS excessive. REVUpminster (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ill counter that, blanket usage is excessive. I wasnt removing all the files, I was removing all but the title card. There was only one other file (per Masem) that should be kept. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The title card one is fine ("Titles 2") as the means of ID'ing the show. A cast picture "QoS2cast" with actors in their character roles is reasonable for such a show. The rest are all problems, particularly the Texas Hollywood one as that is an actual, still existing place and thus free imagery can be obtained. The other 3 are all excessive and unneeded. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG covered by WP:NFLISTS #5 REVUpminster (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• But fails WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• (EC) You have the cast picture for that, a separate one is not necessary. If the lead actress' look in the masked Queen role is really important, there woudl sources that describe her appearance and thus would help to satisfy NFCC#8. But right now, that's just not there, and as I'd consider the cast picture not a question for such a show, this is duplicating that. (You can also sorta get an image of her from the title card too, in a Zorro-like outfit) --MASEM (t) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The cast photo came from promotional wallpaper for computers freely available on the defunct website but does not show the character of the title. The titlecard image does not cover WP:NFLISTS#5 There is another wallpaper image of the character freely available in costume that is available.REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• The mysterious circle image is to explain what in words is a difficult subject. REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The mysterious circle image shows two people swordfighting/fencing in costume. It's not critical to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. Again, on the main character's costume, there's nothing really discussed about it that requires a visual representation - she is one of the actresses in the cast photo, but now doning a black mask and outfit. That really doesn't need a new image to describe it unless that look is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. That is what is lacking to be able to use it. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The costume was one of the reasons sony sued and also one of the reasons it failed. See Legal issues REVUpminster (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I will give you that (but urge to try to improve on that rationale), but I would suggest moving that image down to the Legal section where showing that she looks similar to Zorro is important. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is nobody independent going to comment or comment to what is regarded as excessive as I have now seen featured articles with seven non free images.REVUpminster (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no firm number in how many non-free media an article can allow. Some are such that zero non-frees are appropriate, some may have 10 or more. The matter is more whether each individual non-free use is appropriate which each picture having to meet all 10 points of NFCC. In your case, I think there's 3 reasons non-frees (title card, cast pic, and her outfit in light of the lawsuit), but that's it. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Within the article there is a link to the mysterious circle article. This image explains how it was used in the TV series. It is not about the fencers. REVUpminster (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it has to be seen via non-free imagery. In fact, this is the type of case where while you discuss that they trained using the mysterious circle, an image of an actual "mysterious circle" (which we have on that linked article) may be better representative of the implication here. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The image on the mysterious circle article contains five circles and only serves to confuse how it was used in the TV series.REVUpminster (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then no image is required as long as you have a link to the page on mysterious circles. This is effectively a WP:NFC#UUI issue, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean non-free media is required to show it. You can use free (As suggested) but no image is a possible solution too. The non-free doesn't help here. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Clear violation of WP:NFG where the user refuses listen. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Question: Please explain why WP:LOGO should not be applied. Oh, and I did include commentaries on the images, so WP:NFCI #8 should also apply.
  2. Comment: "user refuses listen" is blatantly wrong and sounds very rude. I asked twice for a discussion before the removal of any content [23], [24] but can't find any contributions of User:Werieth on Talk:Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere. --jergen (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No where on WP:LOGO does it say galleries of non-free files are permitted. There is/has been zero sourced commentary about the designs of the logos. WP:NFG is also listed as reasons to not include said images. WP:NFCC#8 hasnt been met. These logos are just used as eye candy. PS When working with NFCC, like copyvio, and BLP, the default is removal until consensus for inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

To meet NFCC#8, we generally require sourced commentary, and not just discussion of what the logo looks like, as to establish contextual significance. Any image can be discussed without sourcing, and this sometimes is sufficient, but here as there's nothing else to make the need to show the logo important, it's not sufficient. Something along the lines of documented design choices or reasons to change, for example, would be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is indisputable that the presence of the logo's increases the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The only thing we can discuss is how significant the increase is and how harmful the omission would be. And how to weigh this to the other factors. --Egel _Reaction? 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is in fact easily disputable if omission harms the reader's understanding, as if there is no contextual significance, then the image absence does not harm understanding. Yes, they are related to the topic, therefore they do meet the first part of NFCC#8, but the topic about the scouting organization does rest on knowing the various logos used, in the present version, and thus beyond the main, current logo, are otherwise nice but decorative images and fail the second part. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Then we are more in agreement than I thought. The arguments are correct, but the conclusion is not consistent. The logo is a significant part of the identity of a Scouting organization and therefore can tell a lot about the organization in question, if you know where to look. So there is contextual significance, so the image absence does harm understanding. As far as I can see, all the logos are the current versions. --Egel _Reaction? 14:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • One logo is fine for exactly the purposes you state - it is in fact the allowance we give for an stand-alone article on a notable organization. But any additional logos (for historical logos or subsidaries of the organization that do not have stand-alone articles) need justification for their inclusion, such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one. If that information isn't in the article, then the logo image is not necessary to comprehend the article and can be removed appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Where can I find the part "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one."? --Egel _Reaction? 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's what "contextual significance" means. Not just displayed, but discussed to some depth in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "how the design was made or why they moved to a newer one" has a low significance / urgency in the context of the discussion of the organisation as a whole. That are subjects to discus in a sub-section such as "History of the logo" of the section "History of the organisation" when the organisation has its own sizable article, in contrast with only a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. The logo itself has a high significance / urgency in the context of the information about the Scouting organisation as a whole, as explained above, and should therefore be included even if the organisation only has a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. We should use the opportunities that the rules provide us and not go invent ourselves stricter rules, for whatever reason. NFCC # 8 is clear to me: you can only use a logo when it is necessary for a good understanding of the organization, so for bands sometimes, often for companies and for Scouting organizations almost always. An explanation of the elements of a logo is needed because not all readers have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the logo. The explanation is not needed to provide contextual significance, because that is already present. --Egel _Reaction? 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
            • "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one." is a nice rule of thumb (and nothing more) for some classes of images but not for the current main logo of a Scouting organisations. Review should done on the basis of the official rules, not on the basis of self-invented rules of thumb. --Egel _Reaction? 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I added the images back in, again, to keep the bots from tagging them for deletion. This, in essence, is the same discussion we had earlier (and still open on this page) about the Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Savez_izvi.C4.91a.C4.8Da_Bosne_i_Hercegovine. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have sat this one out for a while solely because I didn't want to engage in yet another pointless debate. I want to note that Werieth is engaging in the same bullying tactics on Jergen used against me. Also, the demand that images be not placed in the article until this discussion is over is simply that, a demand. It is not actual policy and is made up. --evrik ^(talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually see the bottom of WP:NFCC the burden Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to ensure that it comply with policy. Unless there is consensus for usage it doesnt meet WP:NFCC and thus needs removed. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I should now also note that in placing the images back in the article to prevent them from being tagged by he bots and then removed prior to the discussion being over (which could take months), I have now triggered edit war with Werieth. Update I have added all the images back in ansd set them up so someone who speaks Danish, or is familiar with the images can write a description which will justify their being used in the article. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That was just reverted. --evrik ^(talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You dont include media, and then wait for justification for its usage. You have justification and then include the media. (You have things backwards) Werieth (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Linux gaming images

This concerns the following images:

• File:WorldOfGooBuilding.jpg
• File:Penumbra-Overture-2007.png
• File:Civivilization-Call-To-Power.jpg
• File:Reverent (Doom).jpg

According to the substantially identical rationales, the purpose is "to demonstrate a popular commercial game that was released for the Linux platform." These images appear to fail WP:NFCC#8. The text of the article already tells us that these games were ported to or made for Linux, and nothing about the appearance of the Linux ports is discussed. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup, in fact, I know we actually have free screenshots of Linux-ported games (There's at least three that you can find through Humble Bundle), so there's zero allowance for these examples. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Stamp UK 1983 28p Xmas.jpg

No need for an unfree file. Stamp not essential to the article, it is one of thousands of Christmas stamps and could easily be replaced with a free file. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

With how it is written presently, there's perhaps a possible non-free UK stamp image to be used to explain how the UK approaches issuing the stamps w/o a direct religious theme but still alluding to the religious nature of the holiday. But that is not sourced one bit that we would need to have at minimum to include. Ideally, it would be a specific stamp design that is discussed in this fashion to show how this is done. Remove otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Colonist (The X-Files)

There is no need for 6 non-free files, especially when a lot of them are used on other articles. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "Gallery of Images" has been removed. I missed that the first time, so I'm sorry about that. However, the remaining four images are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, [rather than] simply provide visual identification of the elements" (WP:NFLISTS). The images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like. For instance, the black oil's application and the mechanism to make it look right are discussed in "production", and without the image, its not exactly clear what it looks like in the series. The same goes for Alien Rebels, whose faces have been sowed shut and the production process is described therein. I would concede that the Alien Bounty Hunter's image, however, doesn't really add much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the three current images (the "grey" image, the black oil, and the rebels) have sufficient discussion in text to pass a basic NFCC#8 check. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• However File:Vienen TXF.jpg is already being used in Vienen and File:The Unnatural TXF.jpg is being used in The Unnatural (The X-Files). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werieth (talk • contribs)

• • It's reasonable (and probably in fact better as to minimize non-free) to use the same screenshot for an episode and for discussing a series-running concept, as long as they are discussed in the appropriate manner in both (likely in the episode, it would be about the critical reaction there, while on the series concept, its creation and development). I will note that The Unnatural is missing a rataionle for the Colonist article. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I added it! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• I support keeping the current images as they easily pass NFCC criteria. Cavarrone 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SJHMCfromtheair.JPG

It's my view that this could be replaced with a free alternative, but I was wanting a wider disscussion about replacability of arieal and streetview style images, hence an NFCR rather than a speedy. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, aerial shots can be expected to be freely (in license) recreated, so a free replacement is possible, and this fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't have access to a plane. I think that these images should be allowed to stay unless someone actually has an image to replace it with it. Perhaps some should notify the original uploader, User:Sabreshark? --evrik ^(talk) 17:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

evrik you should really review WP:NFCC#1 there are over 600,000 people who are certified pilots in the USA who could take a plane up and get a photo. NFCC doesnt say "we can use NFC until a free version is created" it says "If a free one can be created we cannot use NFC". Werieth (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ketodiastix.jpg

This image contains information that is common diagnostic data, and I am wondering why color tone data could be copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - its data, and thus should be recreatable in a free image. (arguably the image as presented fails TOO, but I would still think that it can be remade to assure complete freeness.) --MASEM (t) 13:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wedge document cover.jpg

I'm questioning the contextual significance of the cover art in the article Wedge strategy. Per WP:NFC guidelines on document cover pages, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. But the article makes no mention of the cover art. It appears to fail NFCC 8: 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. I guess the image might be allowable as Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item, but I'd like to get more opinions on this.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, you are correct, if it were non-free and used in the present manner, it would fail NFCC. However, while it is marked as non-free, I suspect it fails the threshold of originality. The artistic work is well in the PD, and the rest of the cover is text and a few geometric shapes. As such, it itself is likely non-copyrightable and thus in the PD. Which means it may be used in the article. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Ketostix chart.jpg

Pure data and could be represented by a free image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

File:2006 country stamps (british postage stamps).jpg

Relevant article has now been redirected and there is no longer any need for this image. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: The image now fails WP:NFCC#7. It is an unnecessary non-free image, anyway Country definitives, which this image illustrates, has a better non-free image File:GBPictorialRegionalStamps.JPG showing the basic design of most of the stamps shown in this now orphaned image. ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG

Does not meet the (8) Contextual significance (for both Archaeology and the Book of Mormon & Samuel the Lamanite) nor meets the (10) Image description page (specific to use on article Samuel the Lamanite) requirements of wp:NFC. Have tried to resolve the issue at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, but contributing editor (Descartes1979 (talk · contribs)) who is perpetuating this image's usage in both articles doesn't seem to understand current fair use criteria (as opposed to what it was when this image was first introduced), so moving the discussion to this issue-specific venue. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to be shown to be incorrect - each time I try to engage with the anon editor above, my comments are sidestepped. The image is quite relevant to the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article as it is a very popular image of the city of Zarahemla in Mormon culture. In my opinion, it is almost a perfect image for this article. Current trends in Mormon archaeology are clearly trying to equate popular beliefs about Book of Mormon cities and artifacts with real places and peoples. My justification for the image was given when I added the image to the WP - bullet 4 below is the strongest case:

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It is a screen resolution (72 dpi) copy of a painting.
2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the painting or prints of the painting in any way.
3. Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the artwork.
4. The implications of the concepts in the image are discussed in the article itself.

Again - happy to be shown to be wrong in my rationale, but it hasn't been shown to me by the anon editor yet, and hence my opposition. Frankly a little confused why there is such heated opposition, and this smells a little like Mormon activist trying to water down Mormon articles so they are less than controversial, which in my experience is pretty typical.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the references provided at Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG, the artist (Friberg) responsible for this painting did not rely on archeological experts (or even amateurs) or experts in Mormon studies to help him decide what elements to include with this painting; instead it is explicitly stated that he became frustrated with the lack of any consistency or clarity on how to represent Book of Mormon settings, so he just decided to do things his own way, according to his own artistic sensibilities. This work, while widely distributed for it's artistic merit, is not now, nor ever was intended as a serious practical study in archeology expertise, nor as academically credible in the field of Mormon studies of the Book of Mormon. The artist himself many times stated that he never intended his Book of Mormon paintings to be taken literally: for example one of the common element critiqued in these works is his use of muscle-bound men, which he says he means to be symbolic of their spiritual strength. No one is looking for ruins or other archaeological evidence that look like this specific image; the image is of symbolic and artistic merit, and this article is about the a very literal "down-to-earth" topic of finding (or not finding) physical evidence of the Book of Mormon, via Archaeology, and so this image is out of context for usage in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the image is easily replaceable with a image that is arguably just as legitimate (or illegitimate) of a representation of a city described in the Book of Mormon, but the replacement image is properly licensed, and is housed in Wikimedia Commons: File:Bountiful by Josh Cotton.jpg. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possible replacement is: File:Moroni - Book of Mormon.jpg, although it is of lower quality, and doesn't include a city wall (a significant potential archaeological feature), which the other two images do. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses: 1) "did not rely on archeological experts to help him decide what to include in his painting" - of course he didn't. He went off the Book of Mormon - that is the whole point - it juxtaposes perfectly the differences between what the Book of Mormon portrays and what archaeology actually shows. 2) "is not now, nor ever was intended as a serious practical study in archeology expertise" - of course not - again this is beside the point. His painting has nothing to do with real world archaeology. It doesn't matter that Frieberg used his own artistic license - the painting was massively popular among mormons and captures very very well the image that most Mormons have about what the Book of Mormon is portraying. And it is these popular ideas that the NWAF and other archaeologists went looking for. Is this not a perfect use of an image to augment a wikipedia article? 3) "No one is looking for ruins or other archaeological evidence that look like this specific image" - completely wrong - this is exactly what they are looking for - and precisely why this image is so perfect for the article. 4) "the image is of symbolic and artistic merit" - it is much more than that - again the whole point - the image is so iconic and overwhelmingly etched in the consciousness of Mormons - you can't ignore the image it represents when you are trying to determine what Mormons think ancient civilization in the Americas was like... and thus, its relevance to archaeological research by Mormons. 5) re: other images - they are nice, but not nearly as iconic, recognizable, and ingrained in Mormon culture, and thus don't have nearly the relevance.--Descartes1979 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Christus (statue) is even more iconic in the minds of Mormons, as perhaps the most definitive artistic representations of Jesus for them, but that doesn't mean that a picture of it should be added to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, saying that Mormons are looking for ancient Mesoamerican representations of someone that looks like it. Ideally, images on this article should be more than a "Have you see this missing <city/deity>?" milk carton style advert, especially when non-free images are involved. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. An image of that statue would be perfectly relevant and a great addition to the article if there was a serious documented effort to search for archaeological evidence of Jesus in the Americas (which there might be of course, since his alleged advent on the American continent is detailed at length in the BOM - something to look into...). These images add greatly to how easily the average reader consumes this topic and the information in it.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete this image. It fails on a number of counts. No, attribution (which creates a copyright violation) invalid Fair Use rational. It has no direct context to the subject of the article and is a simple attempt to illustrate the article with non related images. It also fails because it is clearly replaceable with free content and can be replaced with text. The article will not suffer from its loss. It really does not meet our standards of use for this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh...and it has no source and while it is used in two articles does not have a rationale for both (if the same rationale for one was just copied it would be copying an invalid rational). This is a clear cut case for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can tell it fails the #1 criteria for use from Wikipedia's non-free content policy on the Archeology page: no free equivalent. As far as I can tell the image is being used to demonstrate walls and/or cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and the 208.81 has already linked free alternatives above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that its use basically fails the free use requirements in that there are free substitutes that are of equivalent or superior value in illustrating the point. It is a famous work in Mormonism, as are many of Friberg's works, probably because it was published in several editions of the Book of Mormon. But just because it's iconic doesn't necessarily mean it's the only way to illustrate the issue. At the end of the day, it is a copyrighted image and if we have found a viable way not to use it, we shouldn't use it. It might be different if this were an article specifically about Book of Mormon-based works of art. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg

Use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No reference to this badge in the article text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just looking it seems the 723 communication as a group is actually being discussed in an entire section as are two other groups with their badges as well. First, I do not see any issue with contextual significance, which is the criteria in question. It makes no mention of any requirement that the badge be discussed in the article or section as the image is being used as to identify the select group it represents and wore it.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept that there are cases where the use of a non-free image for identification is acceptable, such as corporate logos at the top of the article about that company. I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article. Therefore, all the badges in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada)#Histories and crests of the old units should be removed. I do not question that those uses might be appropriate under fair use, but I don't see how they satisfy NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know when the badges were designed, however, all the groups predate 1905, so if the images are covered by crown copyright, they are likely actually in the public domain if the images date from 1963 or earlier, In that case their non-free status would be inaccurate and this discussion moot. ww2censor (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"I am not aware that there is a consensus, manifested in form of a policy or guideline, which says it is appropriate to use non-free images to identify each single entity discussed in an article.". Its Criteria 8. Contextual significance. The image may be used as it passes that threshold of context to the subject and is being used to represent the group as it was designed to do. It would significantly decrease the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to an understanding of the topic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that a removal of this image from the article would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. There is absolutely no reference in the article to the image of this badge. The use is just for identification, which is usually only appropriate at the top of articles about the specific entity in question. Thus this use is a blatant violation of NFCC#8 and should be removed. The reader gains nothing through the presence of this image other than "Mhm, that squadron had a badge and it looked like this." Not having that short Aha moment wouldn't harm a readers understanding at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy should be backed with a link to such policy. There is none. It is not a blatant anything or this would be speedy deleted. Deletion of the image would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. Using a non free image to identify a subject is allowed. There is no guideline that it be the user box only. It is used as a visual means of identification. That is acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos which says "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." The use in 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) violates NFCC#8 because NFCC#8 requires that the logos "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which isn't the case here, as the use is simply for identification. The article content doesn't depend on the image to be understandable and as such the image should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, no Toshio. Stating that it can be used in the infobox is not a limitation to use only in the infobox. You overlook the full view of our policy on logos.

The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.

Furthermore, sections should be regarded in the same manner as an encyclopedic article if a full article has not been created and use of portraits to identify subjects is common on Wikipedia and does not violate image use or non free content guidelines. However we do need to clean-up and fix issues on that page.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow that for other material at all. If topic (the person, company, or published work) does not have notability for a stand-alone article, and the non-free image of that topic is not discussed itself by critical commentary, the use of non-free without comment does not extend to that. The reason we allow logos and other images to be used when there is no commentary about the image itself is that when the topic has a stand-alone article/is sufficiently notable, the image does help to associate with any implicit marketing/branding/visual relationship that is otherwise unstated in the article. A section about a verified but non-notable facet of a larger organization does not have allowance for an image in this fashion (unless, of course, one can discuss the image itself within NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't assume that the subject is not notable enough for a stand alone...just because one has not been created yet. Also, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that limits non free portraits/logos by assumption of notability alone. The fact that the logo is not directly discussed is not important in this case as it is used (by the subject) as a means of identification. Our Fair Use policy is not about direct, critical commentary of the image itself. Just that there be contextual significance.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use. NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that (which is the case here). The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that. We don't allow entities or topics that are sub-topics of a notable topic to have such displayed (a basis of NFLISTS) unless the image there is specifically discussed in detail or otherwise determined critical to understand, a factor these logos do not meet. This is a standard case that these logos would be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "We don't have a Fair Use policy, we have a Non-free policy which is a very important distinction because we need to minimize non-free use."

I understand the distinction, not how that relates to some perceived need to minimize non free use. There is a Wikipedia criteria for minimal use but that is in relationship to a subject not the project overall, which seems to be the point you are making. I know of no such need to minimize use of non free content unless it does not actually pass our policies or is a violation of copyright. The reason Wikipedia may use non free content is precisely because of fair use.

• "NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that means if the image can be removed and the section of the topic still understood, it fails that".

What you are suggesting here is not accurate. You are stating that if a non free image can be removed and the subject still understood than it is a failure of NFCC#8. No. The actual criteria is: "'Contextual significance -. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". What that is saying is, if the addition of the non free image will significantly increase an understanding of the topic it may be used. It isn't about any understanding. Its about THAT understanding. So if the image is added because it does in fact add a significant understanding of the subject (in this case, a visual identification of a company and/or infantry type logo for this particular government agency or branch of the Department of National Defense within the country of Canada) then deleting the image would decrease that visual understanding.

• "The exception is made for top-level infobox images on notable topics, per NFCI#1, because when the topic is notable and being talked about at length, the representative image of that topic has been determined to be appropriate to include to help with that."

I am not sure where you are getting this. NFCI#1 says nothing about logos. That is about cover art such as film posters, DVD covers, etc.. What NFCC#1 say is that there is a very simple test:"before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" Also, if you read WP:NFCI #2, it does indeed state that team and corporate logos may be used for identification, which this easily falls under.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Minimum use applies to the entire project, not individual topics. I have told you what NFCC#8 means - there are two tests, whether inclusion helps, and whether omission harms. The first test is nearly always met (I can nearly always prove that understanding is met) but the second test nearly always fails, and particularly in this case, because I can remove those logos and I have lost nothing about the understanding of the topic. This is where NFCI#1 (and by the same approach) NFCI#2 is an allowance only in infoboxes and nowhere else when there is no significant discussion about the images. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that we should be concerned project wide to an overall, overuse of non free content, but that is not part of the deletion discussion to say it is too many for Wikipedia for the individual argument. You have told me what you believe NFCC#8 means but I have challenged that interpretation. I am not attempting to upset or agitate anyone to make a point here. Unfortunately, in this discussion, you are taking the extreme when you say that by losing the logo identifying the squadron, that you lose nothing. That is simply not accurate, any more than removing the logo from any article that represents a company or team loses nothing. It may or may not be in one's view, but it passes criteria as a team or corporate logo for identification and I see no actual guideline or policy limiting the non free image to the info box only.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what I told you about NFCC#8 is the test used for many years now - we have to minimize non-free content in this way as its use is supposed to be exception and far less than fair use allowance would let us use (That's why its important that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project). If we can drop a logo and still understand the topic, it fails NFCC#8. We do make the case that if the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association as how it is meeting NFCC#8. But any other use requires explicit meeting of NFCC#8, meaning that contextual significance of the image of the logo has to be shown. Just displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP, and will fail here. This is a standard case where the images would otherwise be deleted without question, and no one has made a case that seeing the images is necessary to meet both parts of NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that this has been dealt with properly if this is standard, but I would argue it really isn't. Could you provide a link to the policy or guideline which states that minimal use applies per page and across the overall project? I continue to state the obvious: your interpretation of a failure of NFCC#8 is incorrect as the policy is written. I also wish you could provide a link to the policy or guideline that you refer to with "[I]f the entity the logo represents is notable for its own standalone article and the logo is otherwise not discussed in any depth, we do allow the logo to be used for implicit marketing and branding and visual association" as well as "displaying the logo to a non-notable entity is not sufficient - this is use that fails for all other non-free media across WP." I am unfamiliar with these.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First point, NFC rationale: "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", as well as from the Foundation's resolution "Such EDPs must be minimal. So NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work. Second point, NFCC#8 has two clear points (spearted by the comma in that). Let's put it another way. If you never knew that those logos existed and you read that article, is your understanding of the topic harmed? I'm sure it's not as as enhanced if the logos were there ("Oh, how nice, there's a logo"), but you certainly having lost anything. And if the logos were key to understanding the topic, there would likely be sourced discussion about the logos towards that purpose. That's NFCC#8 applied across the board. I will note that while NFCI#2 does allow for logos, this is assuming all other NFCC parts are met, and we're still failing NFCC#8 here. I point to the footnote of NFCI#1 where we do allow non-free images to be used in infoboxes without any other commentary about the image , and while that is written towards cover art, it is implicitly applied to logos as well. I will point out per WP:LOGO: "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." --MASEM (t) 03:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(As a note of process, Amadscientist dropped a note on my talk page that they had a response to this but lost it in pending edits and may not be able to retype it for a day or so, so this convo is still pending). --MASEM (t) 05:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

As a free encyclopedia and an open source, freely edited project, our goal is freely licensed content. As free as possible. Public Domain is preferred but we are allowed to use images with various licenses as well. When using an image in any article for any reason, we should always use the freely licensed alternative when one is available, however if an image has significance to the subject and can be demonstrated, it may be used per our non free content criteria.

The Rationale section at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is basically a disclaimer/explanation/mission statement. It is not, for example, part of the policy or criteria. Also, it is not a part of the individual discussion or reasoning for an image itself.

Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media.

How we do this, is to encourage the use of content with a free license (public domain - no restrictions) or, at least, CC 3.0 attribution license which is the license for use of Wikipedia's content, requiring attribution of the author or photographer.

• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law.

This portion explains that, to keep Wikipedia from possible legal issues, we limit the amount of non-free content. We do this in a stricter manner than US Fair Use case law (as there does not appear to be any actual Fair Use laws) as well as copyright law. How we limit the amount of non free content is set forth in the criteria and policies. Some ways we do this is to limit where non free content can be placed as far as article space only, no use is sandboxes, essays, talk pages etc.

• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia.

This is stating that we actively strive to only use what is needed per consensus using the policies and guidelines. (let me save this and continue before I crash)--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When you say "NFCC is considered both in context of the article and the overall work", what you are missing is that each article may not be of a single subject. Non Free Content Criteria is aimed at the subject and assumes an article, but in no ways limits it to a full article use. So, while the use of multiple Non Free images is not ideal, it is not a violation of policy or guidelines. In this situation each image identifies a separate entity and subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Give me a little while more before responding to get the rest in)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Full non free image use criteria check

(some bolding for emphasis and separation of text for individual clarity with bolded comments and numbers have been replaced with bullet points)

1. No free equivalent.Y Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.Y (no free image available and cannot be created)

(This portion does not apply as it cannot be transformed or replaced) Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

(This portion is not criteria, but a gauge for editors when uploading. It is not separated into A, B, C because it is not a part of the requirements, but suggestions on how to determine such. While the "test" is in two parts, a yes to one or the other is not an automatic exclusion. "Probably" is not absolute here, which is why it is not a required portion of the criteria)(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

• Respect for commercial opportunities.Y Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

• 1. Minimal usage.Y Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. (This section does not require that the full work not be used. only that it only be used is a portion will suffice. A portion of this image would be confusing and would not suffice) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

• Previous publication.Y Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
• Content.Y Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
• Media-specific policy.Y The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
• One-article minimum.Y Non-free content is used in at least one article.
• Contextual significance.Y Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (As I stated above, the context is that this is the symbol of this entity, squadron or team. The visual identifier does increase the readers understanding of the group by showing the image that is its official seal or logo. Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone)

• Restrictions on location.Y Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
• Image description page.Y The image or media description page contains the following:
  1. YIdentification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
  2. YA copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
  3. YThe name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

I am off for a while, so I leave this discussion with that. Ultimately, this is up to the closing admin to decide if any consensus has been formed from the strength of the arguments made and whether or not no consensus would mean the image would stay or not etc.. Thanks for the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguably all your points are correctly take except NFCC#8. The way NFCC#8 is read is not how you describe it, at least towards the second part: "Its omission would indeed be detrimental to the understanding of that visual representation as that cannot be replaced with text alone." There is a lot of NFCC that are removed from articles (I point you to our FFD logs) where if this was the reading of NFCC#8, we'd be keeping tons of images, because of course removing the image will be detrimental since you can't replace the visual representation with text easily for all of these. But that's not the metric. We are looking for discussion about the image - the whole contextual significance part. Again, take the example if we never had those images in the article, and consider the text that is presently there. My understanding of the topic has not changed one iota without those images because the images are not discussed at all in the current text. Because my understanding has not been harmed with the absence of the image, NFCC#8 fails. This is the baseline test used across the board, logos are not exempt from this.

Now, I will stress again that consensus has determined that when we're talking about the top-of-the-page infobox about an entity, published work, or similar work, where a single identify image would be used in the infobox or at the very top of the page to represent that entity, then the test for NFCC#8 significance is different in that as long as the topic has merited its own stand-alone article - reading that there is likely going to be a good deal of text about the entity or work, that the contextual significance is there due to the implicit aspects of identification, branding, and market associated with the topic when it itself is discussed at length (read: the footnote of NFCI#1). This is the only time that one can present a non-free image without discussing the image itself to meet NFCC#8. In the case of these images, the specific divisions do not have notability on their own and thus there is no implicit allowance for a logo without discussion about the logo image in order to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem trying to push his deliberate misunderstanding of policy again. The requirement to pass NFCC #8 is not and never has been (about from a few weeks about six years ago) whether the image is being discussed in the text.

The requirement is whether it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic -- something significant that would be lost if the image was not there.

The issue for the community to decide is whether or not the understanding the image provides is something significant, in the context of the topic of this article -- is it somthing highly relevant, or is it merely tangential?

That's what the arguments need to address. I have to say I think people trying to establish these images are more than tangential have got quite a challenge on their hands. But there is no policy requirement that they absolutely have to be discussed in the text. Jheald (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but given how most of the past several years worths of FFD have gone with deletion, mere inclusion of an image that may help the reader without any text about the image is not sufficient to meet NFCC#8. How else can you meet contextual significance without text to describe the image or its importance/relevance to the article? I agree there are cases where a non-free image may be used, but not explicitly discussed directly, and be considered okay. But without any text to describe why the image is important, you are most of the time going to fail NFCC#8. Otherwise, several years' worth of FFD have been wrongly deleted, per your logic. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the community, not the text, which decide whether or not the image is important/relevant. Discussion of that importance/relevance is persued on talk pages or FFDs or NFCRs, like this. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The community decides, but the ground rules for judging that as impartially as possible is to look to what the text says and how the image helps understanding towards that text. Otherwise, we'd have people running around going "That's a nice image, it should stay" without any other reasoning, and sway the community that way. There has to be ground rules - which can bend per IAR - to initiate consensus, and that has always been relevant discussion of the image in the text as some basis. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously if an image is fundamental to some text discussion, that's one very fundamental and typical way that the presence of an image can significantly add to reader understanding. But it's only one way, and NFCC #8 is intentionally written to be open to any way the image may add significantly to reader understanding -- for the community to assess. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the second part, whether omission of the image harms understanding of the topic. This is why generally (considering IAR) if the image or concept it shows is not discussed in any form in the text, omitting it is not affecting the reader's understanding of the larger topic. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't forget it. See 15:59 above "something significant that would be lost if the image was not there."

Omitting an image affects the understanding you would have with the image -- that's what can be lost by omitting the image. Policy is quite clear, intentionally referring to understanding about the topic, not understanding about the text. This has been gone through so many times, why do you insist on flogging this dead horse? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're trying to change the baseline that's been standard practice for years, how NFCC#8 has been interpreted for FFD discussions as well as at FAC. You're nit-picking on the words ("text" vs "topic") and missing the larger point, that contextual significance nearly always requires the picture, or concepts within the picture, to be the subject of discussion in the article text. Treating the second part of NFCC#8 as you are implying basically means it is impossible to delete any non-free image, because once there, its removal will always harm the understanding of the topic to some degree, and ergo "passes" NFCC#8. The second NFCC#8 test is based on starting from the assumption that the image was never present to begin with (omission) and then seeing if the reader's understanding of the topic is harmed by its omission. If the image is discussed in text, this is nearly always true. If there's no discussion at all about the image, this nearly always fails. It's a stronger line than what you have been trying to argue, but one that falls in line with the Foundation's resolution (using non-free in the context of education), and one that is supported by practice at FFD/FAC, as well as numerous discussions on this page. Again, I am aware there are edge cases where inclusion without discussion in the text is valid, but again, these are edge cases. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely reminding you of what NFCC #8 says, and if you check the archives at WT:NFC its formulation in those terms is quite intentional. If shortcuts have sometimes been taken at FFD, that is nothing to be proud of. Our intention is that if we can significantly add to reader understanding, we do so. That is something WP:NFC is written to protect. What the community is called on to assess is whether additional understanding provided by the image is significant in the context of the topic of the article, with closing admins directed to ignore discussion contributions not specifically addressing that point. That is what the policy requires. Jheald (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC policy is not to protect the inclusion of non-free images, it is to be able to make the exception for their inclusion. I've looked, and that's clear throughout the early stages of NFC's development (pre2008). (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24 is a good example) that it is able when the exception is made to allow non-frees, and why NFCC#8 is written as it is - "significance" and "omission" are equally weighted tests. The only "protection" that applies to NFC is how we are encapsulating fair use law within the requirements of NFC to help protect the Foundation. Mind you, I am aware that there are editors that would want to be overly aggressive in removal of non-frees where they are appropriately being used and in that sense we have to make sure NFC is being treated fairly both ways (for inclusion and for removal); but we should not be calling NFC as a means of "protecting" the inclusion of non-free images. The Foundation asks us to treat these as exceptional as part of their free content mission. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(And to add, I see you were a part of these discussions then in 2007-ish, but in reading them now, I'm not seeing where you're getting this interpretation from in term of "protecting" non-free use, as well as the omission factor. All the discussion there seems to emphasis on discussion of the image in the text, or in limited cases what has become NFCI#1 + #2. It's consistent with how I'm arguing this.) --MASEM (t) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NFC cuts both ways. It's there to protect appropriate content, as well as to remove inappropriate content.

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 24#New_Criterion_8 is a useful reference, showing some of the alternative wordings that were rejected. The point is that it is useful to think about what is gained by adding the image, what is lost by taking it away. "That understanding" it seems to me plainly means the augmented understanding of the topic with the image, that has just been the focus of the previous part of the sentence. It's hard to logically construe the phrase in any other way. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

But yet from the same discussions, I'm seeing it the other way. For example, there's talk specifically on cover arts and logos, and the points being made there clearly are looking to isolate and allow those uses in general where images are used for identification when the subject they identify is the topic of the article in question or there is significant commentary in a larger article about the subject they identify (the work or entity); Other uses are otherwise not appropriate for pure identification (from Archive 24 and in 25 and 26 - this is about where the wording for NFCC#8 was nailed down). These spun off to what we have as NFCI#1 + #2 today. But its clear that the consensus was not just to put an identifying image just because something it identified was mentioned, that's where critical commentary is being pulled into that discussion then, as a means of distinguishing the proper use. That all points back to how the second part of NFCC#8 has to be treated. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to wind back to the historical perspective. At that time Betacommand had just gone on the rampage, tagging far more images for deletion than in the short term could humanly be fixed. In response Wikidemo (talk · contribs) (now Wikidemon (talk · contribs)) created {{Non-free album cover}}. This was hugely controversial at the time, with a significant number taking the view that a boilerplate rationale was not acceptable, that such images could only have a bespoke rationale, that they needed specifically to support the text of the article. That point of view did not prevail. But it is interesting to note how it did not prevail. What could have been done was a specific carve-out specifically for these images. But NFCI #1 was not created as a carve-out. Instead, the discussions affirmed the principle that what mattered was whether the images added to reader understanding, not whether they were the subject of discussion in the text. Given that, NFCI #1 was simply the working out of an example. (cf the exchange between Wikidemo and Borisblue at 23:07, 10 July 2007). Jheald (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, not the way I'm reading the archives (and arguably the boilerplate rationale issue is a separate matter, in terms of making it too easy for editor to add non-free without thought before adding); Further, this was just after the Foundation issued the March 2007 Resolution, and what you call a "rampage" was not that, it was the need to make sure all non-frees met, at minimum, NFCC#10c, since now the Resolution was in place and we had a year to fix things. After 2008, that's a different story, though). It's clear NFCI#1 + #2 bore out in cases where the topic in question being identified by the image (cover art --> published work. Logo --> entity it represents) in that if there was "critical commentary", defined loosely as a dedicated/stand-alone article for that topic or that there was a section of an article that had significant discussion about that topic. In fact you can see the underpinings of NFLISTS in that section as well. That appeared to be a sufficiently minimial requirement as to allow images for identification. I would argue that point remains today with very little change from that balance - that the spirit of NFCI#1/#2 bears out that we don't question the use of cover art or logos on articles specifically about the topics they represent, but there's iffiness when in the context of an article - though certainly not outright disallowance. In fact, I've argued before for the allowance of identification images when an article is the result of merging multiple notable articles by choice into a single larger article that is better suited for comprehension; not allowing identifying images in this case penaltizes the editors for avoiding multiple articles in favor of the more comprensive one.

But getting back to this case 36 Signal Regiment (Canada) and the three logos at the bottom, if we applied what was the consideration in at least 2007 - whether there is significant discussion about these entities in the article that would allow for an image for identification. That's a fair question for consensus to decide on - in other words, I wouldn't dismiss the images just because they are logos used in an article but not about the entity of the article, but whether there was enough discussion about the entities in question that necessitated the logo (of course, barring any on-point discussion specifically about the logos themselves). In this case, I'd argue that these don't provide that - the three sections in that last para are likely pulling information from primary sources (there's a few sources listed but the details in the article text aren't fully backed by these - but I'm not questioning validity here), and thus fails the significance test; that is, there is not enough present in these sections that necessitates the need to visually connect the topic to its logo. (Or reiterating points from the 2007 discussion, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it needs a visual identifier). But that is a point of discussion, as long as it is understood that the reason to keep the images is not just because they illustrate those groups, but because consensus has decided that there's enough discussion of those groups that illustrating their logo would be appropriate under NFCC#8. And I would argue that this is a border-line case here - if there was just a bit more sourcing and text to help place the groups into a broader context instead of just much of the internal aspects, I probably wouldn't be complaining about the logos there. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UMassLogo9302.gif

Needs re-tagged as {{pd-text}} Werieth (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

I cant see the justification for 9 non-free files about a single song. There are 5 covers and 4 sound samples. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

way overkill. There's no discussion about the way the song sounds critically (billboard placements are not that), and thus any music samples need to go. And just because it was remixed several times does not allow additional album covers to be used. I'm stripping all but the first album out, this is clearly violating NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cherry Poppin' Daddies

I cannot see justification for 7 sound samples and 3 non-free images. Werieth (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on the images; showing how the band wanted to image themselves in different periods and pre-2000 likely means we'd have to use non-free. This is not to say these are necessarily good, but they aren't immediately inappropriate. Seven sound samples is. I think there's justification for 3 (just like their band image) to reflect their 3 major periods, but more than that is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi; I'm a primary contributer on the article. If it's alright, I can go ahead and remove the non-free images (since I added them merely as filler), and condense the sound samples down to the most crucial necessities.Skibz777 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, I think you might be able to justify one or more of the non-frees as the band's image has chagned over time and it is of course impossible to get photos from the past. But you'll need to make sure that there is discussion about that image (backed by sources) for that purpose. If anything, the zoot suit one (1998) seems appropriate since that's based around the song the band is most famous for. You just need to be able to demonstrate that. The sound samples, however, do need to be reduced. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Skibz777, this is a big step in the right direction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Burelage.jpg

No need for this file. It illustrates the general features of Burelage but so do many other free files in the relevant Commons category. Delete and replace. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, unless this specific stamp style's use of Burelage is called out as a principle example, free media does the job just fine. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:CHANAKYA.jpg

Per Talk:Chanakya#Image_removal_of_File:CHANAKYA.jpg, "No free equivalent" is violated. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Paula Seling Inedit.png

User claims this as license free, the tag they added basicly claims fair use, so this image is replaceable. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If this image is non-free, then WP:NFC#UUI#1 seems to apply, i.e. seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Furthermore there are a number of images on Commons (Commons:Category:Paula Seling). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ali Musa DaqDuq's forged ID documents.jpg

This is claimed as US government work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue here? If it's being used as non-free under fair-use, then it doesn't matter whose image it is. It would seem an obvious pass for fair-use. This is a paperwork issue, not a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Works of the US Government are in the public domain. It was incorrect to upload this as fair use if it is already free use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that just because it came out of a US Gov't document does not make the work immediately public domain via US-GOV. They will republish - under fair use - copyrighted material in otherwise larger works that are US-Gov. That doesn't magically make the material that was copyrighted PD-Gov. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to purposely argue around that Masem, but since these are already uploaded to commons...should they be uploaded here as non free content with a link to commons as the source? That is something I have never seen before.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation is here, as if being forged official documents if they even have claim, who the photographer was, etc. They could be legitimate at commons, which is fine. I'm just cautioning that not everything published by the US-Gov't is necessasily PD-Gov -created, yes, but not published. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - All images are already uploaded to Wikimedia commons. Barring any improprieties there of course.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Revolution (The Beatles song)

I don't see justification for 6 non-free files. I see 1, possibly two. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is reasonable justification for the two different audio samples given the discussion between the album + single version. The sheet music cover is not necessary - its not the same as the cover art for the song and not discussed in text. The alt covers of the Thompsons Twins version are not needed and while I would be quick to remove the main cover, I can see that removing that one image could be a problem, so I'd be okay with leaving it in. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:VCU Athletics logo 2012.png

Needs re-licensed as free (PD-text) Werieth (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:PCathleticlogo.jpg

Needs re-tagged as PD-text Werieth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this really count as a textlogo? One could argue that the overlap of those two letters produces a new shape that is not by itself a typeface and possibly too complex to be regarded as a simple geometric shape. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Central Connecticut Blue Devils Wordmark.png

Needs re-tagged as pd-text Werieth (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Iron Rattler logo.jpg

Not used in infobox despite rationale saying it is. The Iron Rattler article's infobox uses the CC licensed image File:Iron Rattler's Entrance.JPG which includes the "Iron Rattler" sign, so I'd consider this non-free content to have been replaced by free content.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the logo is duplicate, but I think calling the entrance a free image is a problem - its focus is the entryway and sign, and in the US, 3d works of art permanently installed like these do not gain freedom of panorama. So the entryway picture shouldn't be free - but that said, it is a sufficient replacement for the logo in reducing non-free. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UCSF logo.png

This image is currently marked as non-free, citing "strict rules covering how, where, when, and in what manner the logo is to be constructed and presented". The image consists entirely of four letters in black typeface, which would almost certainly render it ineligible for copyright, regardless of any legal or contractual restrictions on its use. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, fails TOO, should be PD-ineligible. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:UCSB logo.png

Currently marked as non-free, citing issues with the image being "the official logo". The image and the logo are probably copyright-ineligible, as they consist merely of four letters and a duplicated geometric shape (akin to the shapes found to be insufficient for WP:TOO). RJaguar3 | u | t 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is unlikely to meet TOO. Pretty much typefaces with two simple geometric shapes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Jay-Z Magna Carta Holy Grail.jpg

This is tagged as an album cover (Fair use) but may not meet threshold of originality being simple text and geometry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the cross is definitely a simple geometric shape and the rest are letters. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Subway Cookies.jpg

I am wondering if the inclusion of the Subway logo here is de-minmis, or if the image could be cropped to avoid it's inclusion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The logo is not de minimus, particularly if the image is to show "Subway"s cookies. It could be cropped, or a new free image obtained without the logo napkin/bag underneath. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a photo of their cookies anyway? They don't look different than other cookies and if a person doesn't know what a cookie looks like then there are thousands of images on Commons such as File:Chocolate Cookie with Chocolate and Peanut Butter Swirled Chips (3).jpg.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NixonandMeir.jpg

Query, This is sourced to an official archive, Is this an official State Department photo, if so it could be freely licensed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say anything without more thorough research, but if the image is from NSA archive, then the publication on the site given in the source link might be the first publication ever, in which case it would be copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Though if the photo was taken by a gov't employee, then that would make it PD-Gov; on the other hand, if it was a press photo published by the US Gov, that still makes it copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KQRS logo.jpg

This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KXXR logo.jpg

This is a text logo... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional

• File:WLTE logo.png
• File:KZJK logo.png
• File:KFAN logo.png
• File:WCCO AM logo.jpg

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Extreme Talk logo.png

Text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Samuelwilderking.jpg

Is this an official photo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's using a "logo' template which is absolutely wrong - but there is reasonable allownace for the non-free image for this long-dead person. It needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:NFL-Uniform-Jan2002-OAK-NE.png

Non-free image whose NFUR indicates that the purpose of use is "To denote the uniform of the team[s]" playing the Tuck Rule Game. This is clearly insufficient under WP:NFCC#8, which requires that the image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". RJaguar3 | u | t 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:KTVI Fox 2 News.png

Violates WP:NFCC#3 (in light of the infobox logo that already serves to identify the station) and WP:NFCC#8 (the news opening is not itself discussed in the text; the image appears to be purely decorative). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no need to show the opening credits in light of the official station logo. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Nutri Ventures Corporation.png

Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsure about this one. One could argue that the logo only consists of handwriting-style typefaces, which are ineligible for copyright protection. On the other hand, the individual letters don't seem to represent a single uniform typeface, as for example the first e in the word Ventures seems to be more vertically squashed than the second one and thus the whole logo might be regarded as a creative work and thus in this regard maybe eligible for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

• File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg
• File:Glenane.jpg
• File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg
• thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster

An editor has removed these images from the page on the grounds that they are not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Having read the guidance I believe he is wrong and that the inclusion of these files is both related to the text and adds significantly to the readers knowledge when researching the army regiment.

My comments on the users talkpage are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth#Ulster_Defence_Regiment

SonofSetanta (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is not needed to understand the organization, it is being used decorative File:Glenane.jpg doesn't need to be re-included as it is already used in the article about the event. Finally File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg isnt referenced in the text at all, thus failing WP:NFCC#8 part two. Werieth (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Werieth is approaching this in an encyclopaedic fashion. File:UDR Join 70 47r.jpg is an historic record of a very simple application form to join a very complicated regiment and is very much referenced in the accompanying text. The attack on the Ulster Defence Regiment's base at Glenanne is "parented" at the source article and the file is very relevant to that incident. That it is repeated in a sub article is of no consequence in my view. File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg and thumb|150px|Original Anti-UDR poster are posters commissioned by political opponents to the regiment and show historically how there was a campaign against the UDR. They are required for balance of opinion. In an article as sensitive as this which has been fought over many times, editors must get the WP:WEIGHT of opinion correct otherwise the article will not comply with WP:NPOV. The removal of these two political posters could affect the NPOV balance of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I need to add that I am currently engaged in a rewriting process of the UDR article, as can be seen from the many changes over the last week. I have not arrived at the "Political comment" section yet but when I do I fully intend to make reference to the poster images. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has it right for NFCC, which these all fail. The application form is "interesting" but not the subject of discussion in the article, and thus the reader's understanding of the topic is not harmed by its omission and it fails NFCC#8. The Glenanne photo is inappropriate since it is duplicating the use on the appropriate article for the attack (where the photo is properly used under NFCC), and does not here aid in the reader's understand of the regiment. You don't need to show opponent campaign posters to meet the neutral POV - you can explain in text that the regiment has opposition. Basically, just because something exists, NFCC does not allow us to use an image to simply illustrate this - we need contextual significant that none of the tagged images show here. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant "context" here is that the topic of the article is the UDR. An image does not necessarily need to be discussed, if in itself it conveys something important to reader understanding in that context, beyond what could just be conveyed in words. I don't see a lot in the File:Bloodmoney Poster.jpg over what could be conveyed in words; on the other hand IMO the :File:Original Anti-UDR poster does I think have a power and a forcefulness as an image which goes beyond what a mere bland text description would convey, and which I think does usefully convey to the reader the viscerality of the opposition that there was to the UDR from some parts of the community, which is a key thing for the article to communicate. Jheald (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If these files were deemed to be out of context for non free fair use it was incumbent upon Werieth to discuss the images on the article talk page firstly as per WP:IUP#4. Had this been done it was (and still is) possible to modify the text to bring the images into line with the guidelines quoted although I believe the issue is moot in this case. All of the images are being used in a correct historical context and add to the reader experience. This has been done in a clumsy manner at a time when the article is being rewritten and tightened up. I suggest the images be restored and a period of time given to allow me to fully comply with the concerns stated. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your perspective is completely against policy, you dont write and article so that you include media, you include media because the article requires it. Not the way you want to do it. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the fundamentals for editing the wiki is WP:GOODFAITH. You have been shown it by both myself and Calil on this occasion. These images (barring File:Glenane.jpg) have all been discussed at length for around 10 years and always been agreed by editors as adding to the experience of reading the article. Your position of authority (whether official or self styled) also carries with it a responsibility. From where I'm sitting you appear to have neglected that in your lack of good faith towards myself and the other editors involved at Ulster Defence Regiment. To explain: it isn't a case of making the text fit the images - it's down to how the text is written and what emphasis is laid upon the images. If I have made errors in my editing which have orphaned the images then I need to be given the consideration of being allowed to correct that. As has already been pointed out; you should have been polite enough to raise concerns about these images before deletion. If you had examined the talk page you would have seen that extensive rewriting is going on. Yes it is sometimes necessary to delete text or images for the benefit of the article but in this case I do not agree with your unilateral declaration without discussion. Nor do I agree with your violation of the 1RR rule. As Calil has pointed out, you are not exempt from sanctions and as I have frequently reminded you, you should pay attention to ALL wiki guidelines, not just the ones which suit your current agenda. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have an "agenda", it may have been discussed for years, however I doubt those who where discussing it took WP:NFCC requirements into consideration (this rarely happens due to peoples lack of understanding NFCC). I have made no assumptions of bad faith, if anything I have taken a fairly neutral position in regards to the motivation of your edits. My actions have been fairly impartial in that regards. Werieth (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not calling the partiality of your edits into question. What I'm saying is that you are a deletionist and in being so you are losing sight of other criteria which matter. In other words your agenda is to delete. Discussion is the most important thing on articles and you failed to consider how the incorporation of these images could be discussed. A proper discussion on the talk page could have avoided all of this. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, I am not a deletionist, why have I uploaded over 200 non-free files if my agenda is to just delete? Werieth (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

PS just did some number crunching and Im actually in the top 300 uploaders with regards to the amount of non-free files that I have uploaded. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any personal attacks. I have put my opinion to you. It's all very well you citing WP:NPA to me btw but yet you've ignored WP:IUP#4, WP:GOODFAITH and WP:1RR. Do I need to remind you that editors such as I give so much time to Wikipedia and we expect to be treated with a little respect when there is an issue. I am in the middle of rewriting that article as I've said manifold times now. How do you think I feel when someone deletes images without a collegiate discussion? I'm sitting here surrounded by books reading to start editing constructively yet I've spent my day trying to make a case for saving these images? Yes, there was a better way to do it - discuss, discuss, discuss, then you can't go wrong. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is a personal attack. WP:IUP#4 doesn't apply as I am not deleting any files (just removing a use). GOODFAITH isnt an issue here either as I never said you where inserting these files in bad faith. as for 1RR, see also Wikipedia:1RR#3RR_exemptions. I do tend to take all relevant policies into consideration when reviewing the usage of non-free files. Werieth (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not intend it to be a personal attack. You should have discussed the removal of the images however. Politeness is a standard wiki protocol. You could see the article was being worked on and could have made suggestions regarding the images, I would have welcomed that. Your link to your exemptions only applies to WP:3RR. As you have already been advised by a sysop you are not exempt for WP1RR as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. If you are not familiar with articles concerning The Troubles it would be a good idea to read this and other associated material. I have told you a number of times I am prepared to consider the images more carefully when rewriting material which may have been part of the causality of their removal. It boils down to the same thing however: you have not taken my objections in WP:GOODFAITH. You have shown no consideration for the rewriting of the article and above all - you have failed to discuss before removing the images. Thereby creating an unwarranted diversion from the real work of refining the UDR article. As said before, all of this could have been avoided if you'd adopted a policy of discussion as recommended by the wiki.

I repeat my earlier suggestion of restoring the images and allowing me the time to reconstruct the text (which was originally totally inclusive of the images). This is not a question of making the image fit the article, it's a question of using available material in the correct place and in the correct manner. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

/facepalm . You don't get it, Feel free to improve the article, I will not re-include media that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. As you have seen above there might be justification for 1 file. You again need to re-examine NFCC. You shouldn't change text to justify a file. Before you add the file, the article should have a requirement for the file. When using NFCC you should ask can the article be understood without this file? If the answer is yes, the you should really question whether or not the article really needs the file. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, with respect but in my view it's you who isn't getting it. This article has been fought over so long that some items have become orphaned. I have told you on multiple occasions that is being addressed but can only be achieved over a period of time. I have suggested that you return the files so that the text around them can be restored to include what made them relevant in the first place. Furthermore, and after consideration, I suggest you remove the File:Glenane.jpg file from the sub article Glenanne barracks bombing rather than the parent article. For the avoidance of doubt, the Glenanne Barracks was a satellite base of the 2nd Battalion Ulster Defence Regiment and contained two companies of 2UDR - no other troops were present. This makes the UDR article the parent article. Again, pointing out that no disrespect is intended towards you or your efforts but when the text for "Recruitment" and "Political comment" is properly restored, the article will be crying out for the inclusion of the images so all you've done is highlight the need for this but the files will eventually be restored with full supporting text. It follows that this discussion is a waste of your time and mine - despite your good intentions. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The image File:Glenane.jpg has now been removed from Glenanne barracks bombing and restored at the parent article Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Opposition_forces. As agreed by all this file is relevant and used properly with the objection being that it was used twice. Now it's only being used once. Fair?

For further reference: I am in two minds as to whether or not the article on the Glenanne Barracks bombing ahould be kept on the wiki as there is a separate article entitled Attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment which I believe should incorporate the information, thus rendering the Glenanne article an un-needed repetition. All things in time however. The UDR article requires a lot more work before I will be free to address other issues. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. The image was perfectly fine as an example of the damage from the barracks bombing, and NFCC#8 would have been met there. The link from the Regiment page to the bombing page would have been just fine and why the image wouldn't need to be on the Regiment page. (And I've no comment if the Glenanne bombing page should be merged into the Attacks page, but if they are, that still makes the image better on that page than on the Regiment page since that's what the image is specifically about.) --MASEM (t) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Theophilus C Abbot.jpg

Collapsing per nominator request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This image is clearly PD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:YBMSeoulRecords.jpg Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:BravoShowLogo 0040 ChefRoble.png This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:BravoShowLogo 0035 FlippingOut.png This is a text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Ioannina radio deejay logo.jpg TOO simple, text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Miyata-Logo.jpg Too simple, text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:New Forgotten Realms logo.png Text logo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Four Square logo 2013.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Michael Hill Jeweller logo 2013.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:ToonamiLogo2013.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:WRVA new logo.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Oldschool1003.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:KEXAMFMlogo.jpg This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Piraeus Bank New Logo.gif PD Shape or PD-Textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC) File:Dbt-s2-header-logo-new.png This is a text logo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The John Gawlik House.jpg

A 1909 image of a US subject is clearly PD surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Depend if that's a publication date? As regards non-free, I assume the building's still standing in a comparable form? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And we're missing #10c rationales here on both articles it is used on. Unless we have assurances of being out of copyright we need to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Vibration three.jpg

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo Sud Radio Groupe.png

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Lemouv logo.png

PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Property Envy logo.png

PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Royal Munster Fusiliers 01.jpg

I am querying if this actually needs a fair use claim, the unit concerned was not active after 1922 (so the symbol maybe PD-US) ,and additionaly 1922 is certainly older than the 50 years needed for a crown copyright? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Her Wor arms.png

Replaceable from heraldic description surely? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:DC101Logo.jpg

PD-Shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Blythvalley arms.png

Replaceable from heraldic description? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)