Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Queen of Swords (TV series)

{{archive top}}

• 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)

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

File:PBS idents

Consensus not reached. Last discussion was on 10 February 2013. --Cloudbound (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

---

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 [2]), 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. [3][4]. 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 [5]. 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)

---

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