Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

File:Montgomery and Patton Discuss Operations in Sicily.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: No evidence that the image was published before 2005, although it was taken in 1943, and therefore there is no evidence that the image is in the public domain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Is this an official photo, either British or US? In either case it might now be PD if so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If the publication in Joint Force Quarterly was the first publication of this photo, then it is clearly copyrighted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Sophocles Budget Page.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is PD-ineligible due to simply being text and shapes. Text is not chosen in a copyrightable way as it is simply facts and data. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:18, 17 October 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.

---

This is textual from output from software, If it is not user generated than it could be replaced with content that is. Additionally, I am not sure mere 'layouts' are subject to copyright apart from contents placed in them, and if User generated content, the facts could be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything copyrightable would be the choice of words and numbers (if those were chosen in some "copyrightable" way). As I can't easily see the text and the numbers, it's hard to make any judgement. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 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:Rahula College Crest Color.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image violates WP:NFCC#10c on Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya and has therefore been removed from article. No consensus on status of public domain due to lack of evidence of creation date. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:30, 17 October 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.

---

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya. Might be in the public domain due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The expired copyright would need proof of when this logo was first created. I find it unlikely a SVG would qualify. Its use in Akuressa Maha Vidyalaya is non-obvious, so I doubt a legitimate claim to pass NFCC 10c could be created, and the resolution is too large for a non-free fair use image. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

The Legend of Korra

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is a non-free image per character would not be permitted in a list and that one single non-free image with most of the major characters would satisfy WP:NFCC#3a requirements. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:34, 17 October 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 Legend of Korra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an animated TV series. In the article feedback, many readers write that they miss images of the characters. My question is - would it be NFCC-compliant to provide such (unfree) images, provided that every pictured character and the process of their creation (influences, models etc.) is discussed? (There are sources for that.) Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A per character image wouldnt be permitted see WP:NFLIST, However if you can get a cast photo that is created by the original creators (Not fan or WP user created) 1-2 of those would be OK given the independent third party sources are found to back up the content. Werieth (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that is not true. WP:NFLISTS doesn't say that a non-free image per character would never be permitted in a list article. It only says that images showing multiple character at once are preferred over using a single image per character (per WP:NFCC#3a). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In practice, we would never have a list where each character was individually illustrated; it is very hard to imagine that one can't find at least one image that reasonably collects the major characters together in one place, but even if such was the case, it would likely be that only 2-3 major characters would be allowed images, unless of course, the character design was specifically discussed in depth, but otherwise to just illustrate, no. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The Virginian (TV series). The editors at The Virginian seem to have got round multiple cast images by uploading to the commons with the claim of no copyright mark. Can this only be used for pre 1977 or does the year move forward. Most television images (not screenshots which could not have them anyway} do not seem to have a © (letter C in a circle) stamped on them.REVUpminster (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything from 1978 onward typically has assumed copyright whether marked or not (see Commons:Hirtle_chart). For television shows, as long as there was a copyright message somewhere in the show's broadcast (typically at the end), that applied to the whole work, thus making the screenshots copyrights as well. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The images are publicity shots, and I agreed screenshots would not be able to include a copyright mark.REVUpminster (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there using publicity shots (note how on commons they have links to both front and back to assure copyright markings are absent) is completely fine. Most modern shows likely can't do that. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 2 August 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:Net50s.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: No consensus on whether image is copyright as there is not enough evidence to show a copyright notice or lack there there of. As no evidence, it is best to assume the logo is non-free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:38, 17 October 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.

---

Complex logo. Single frame from a video broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo may have been published before with the copyright symbol prior to the image the broadcast was taken from. Unless it can be positively proven that there was never a copyright tag added to that logo, we have to assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant "the broadcast the image was taken from." The article where this was used says it was a "still shot" used to identify the broadcast network. Typically these are shown for a few seconds between programmes. Unfortunately the source is only given as "Youtube" without a specific Youtube URL. —rybec 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And it could be on there for all of 1 second of the 5 second interstitial. Basically, we require positive proof of being non-copyrighted, and because we really can't get that without access to the old broadcast, we're going to have to assume non-free (as it won't meet TOO). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a copyright notice is irrelevant, because under both the 1909 and 1976 Acts, mere broadcast or restrictive syndication of television programs does not trigger the notice requirement. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've found a Youtube video--which does not appear to be a copyright violation--containing the logo (it's shown about 65 seconds in, without discussion). The video is enough to demonstrate the existence of the logo, and supports the claim that it was a still shot. Is that enough sourced commentary to allow its use in PBS_idents#First_logo? —rybec 18:51, 4 September 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 1971 id.svg

Non-Admin Closure: No consensus on whether image falls below TOO. Consensus that images fails WP:NFCC#8 on PBS but not PBS logos. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:42, 17 October 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.

---

Logo that may fall below threshold of originality. Single frame from a network ID broadcast in the United States prior to 1976. No copyright notice is visible in this frame. No consensus in previous discussion. —rybec 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't fall under TOO, it actually would be one of the few old PBS adverts I'd keep since there's a reason why the letters are shaped like heads as explained in the text, and the original of the "P" that still remains part of the current logo. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where it's hard to predict whether the US copyright office would grant or reject copyright registration and thus we should treat it as non-free. I'd say the image should be removed from PBS#Overview. There's zero discussion about the logo. It is thus completely unnecessary in that section and violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a copyright notice is irrelevant, because under both the 1909 and 1976 Acts, mere broadcast or restrictive syndication of television programs does not trigger the notice requirement. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the image from PBS as suggested by Toshio Yamaguchi, and restored it to PBS idents where there is sourced commentary about the image itself. —rybec 00:21, 12 September 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:Knotts Berry Farm Logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image does not meet TOO and is therefore PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:45, 17 October 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.

---

This logo may not meet TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I will ask at commons copyright pump if they will accept it over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

One editor at commons says it should be fine there. I tend to agree.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No issue with that logo {{PD-textlogo}} applies and can be moved to commoms. LGA _talk^edits 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is no evidence of permission from the person who wrote the SVG code. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 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:DerSiegdesGlaubens.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 on all articles except Der Sieg des Glaubens and has been therefore removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:50, 17 October 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 file has its own article Der Sieg des Glaubens thus the other uses are not needed as they can be replaced with a link. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A direct image makes the other articles more relevant, especially Leni Riefenstahl and Triumph of the Will. Both have been devoid of visual material, an amazing feature for articles dealing with visual film material! I have filled some of the gaps. In any case, this poster image should be well out-of-copyright. Is the Nazi Party claiming copyright?? 86.155.210.225 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• This appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6 in all articles except Der Sieg des Glaubens. The copyright has only expired in the United States if the person who made the poster died more than 70 years before 1996, which is unlikely as the poster was made less than 70 years before 1996. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please specify why 1996 is the key date. It is now today the year 2013, not 1996. The copyright would have been owned by the NDSAP (nazi party) since they funded the film and work. 86.155.210.225 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See URAA, Commons:COM:URAA and WP:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 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:No. 5, 1948.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that file should not be used in 11 articles, but no consensus on exactly how many and which articles. As it stands discussion has been stale for over 2 months, and the image is currently only used on 7 articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:56, 17 October 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.

---

I really don't think this file needs used on 11 different pages Werieth (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As a major piece of artwork, it will likely have good reason to be used on a number of pages, but I agree 11 is too high. I see at least 2-3 uses that are not justified (like on list of most expensive paintings), but use on articles about certain art genres and periods, given the importance of the piece, can be justified. But those rationales are terrible and some flatly wrong (obvious copy and pasting going on there). --MASEM (t) 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Pollock is crucial to its own article, abstract expressionism, the 3 history articles and the Pollock bio. He's arguably the most important American artist of the 20th century and the image is needed. In my opinion the image isn't needed as much at the other 5 articles where it appears...Modernist (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Now it's down to 7...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 10 August 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:ThrillaInManilaPoster.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Due to concerns with image not being authentic poster, image has been taken to WP:FFD and discussion should continue there if necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Is this {{PD-Pre1978}} ? LGA _talk^edits 02:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid not. I'm unsure if it is an American, Philippine, or recent work. We assume it as non-free. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is "recent work" then it's current use is probably not compatible with WP:NFCC as a free version could be made by a wp editor using free (PD-Pre1978) pictures. LGA _talk^edits 03:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, being one of the most famous boxing matches (I have zero interest in the sport, but even I've heard of the Thrilla in Manilla) there might be a reasonable allowance for an identifying image, but I don't want to say that with any affirmation. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly if this was a poster used at the time, that is still in copyright, a claim of fair use is reasonable; my point is, is this poster out of copyright and {{PD-Pre1978}}. If on the other hand it is a modern creation then I would question it's use in the article because as a modern creation (and not historical) it could be replaced by a free one. LGA _talk^edits 03:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question on my tp, LGA, I do not have any information more specific than that which I wrote on its upload page as to where it was used or published, aside from the fact that it was used to promote the fight. Nightscream (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The images appear to be from the fight itself (if I recall correctly, their third meeting was the one in which Frazier wore the dark blue trunks that are shown in the image), so how could images of the fight itself have been used to promote it prior to the fact? --Kinu ^t/_c 05:08, 23 September 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:Arthur Mills Lea00.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: No discussion on image's PD status after being listed for over a month. Closing no consensus discussion as stale. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:14, 17 October 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.

---

Image might be in the public domain in the United States.

• It was apparently published in 1986 in Australia in http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lea-arthur-mills-7130 and is no longer copyrighted in Australia (see {{PD-Australia}}).
• It was taken more than 50 years before the URAA date, so it was not protected by copyright in Australia on that date.
• If the image was published for the first time in 1986, then we might have problems with section 303 in the US copyright law which says that the copyright expires in USA on 1 January 2048 if the publication had a copyright notice. Would it be possible to find any evidence of any earlier publication? Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 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.

Linda Hunt in The Year of Living Dangerously (film)

Done. George Ho (talk) 17:34, 17 October 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.

---

I found images of Linda Hunt as a male in one film. Which photo is better, and which article(s)? --George Ho (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently there's not enough information to support the need for this photo. So okay, she was picked to play a male role - and...? We needed critical discussion of how well the make up job was considered to make the visual image necessary. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done and done? --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The picture is now probably appropriate for the film, but I don't think it can be used on Hunt's bio page; I know she's critically acclaimed for that role but that doesn't seem to be sufficient to be necessary to understand the actress (particularly with the lack of a free photo - a reader may go "but she's a guy!" by that picture alone). --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Added in film. George Ho (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's completely fair (IMO). --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

Non-Admin Closure: No Consensus on status of PD or lack of copyright and no consensus on violations of NFCC#8 and NFC#UUI§6. Image is only used on three articles now and seems to be appropriately covered in those topics. Discussion has gone stale over three months ago.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:44, 18 October 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.

---

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 ([1]) 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)

----

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.

Isobel (song)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus to remove 3 alternate/additional covers and keep main cover. No consensus on fifth non-free image of music video. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:49, 18 October 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.

---

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: [2], 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)

---

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.

Multiple non-free logos for same organisation

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that non-free images relating to the Aam Aadmi Party. A newer image for the logo was identified as PD-textlogo. Two of of the images were previously removed and deleted. Consensus shows the remaining image, the Broom, can simply be replaced by text describing it as a broom and therefore the image would fail NFCC#8. The image has been removed, and discussion is closed.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:01, 18 October 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.

---

Sorry, I cannot realistically put three filenames in the section heading. The three are:

1. File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.gif
2. File:Aam Aadmi Party New Logo.jpg
3. File:AAP Election Symbol.jpg

These all relate to Aam Aadmi Party, a new-ish political party in India that has emerged from a populist protest movement. #1 has just been uploaded by me and comes from their official website here as of today. #2 claims to have come from the same source but some time ago. #3 is an election symbol allocated by the Election Commission of India.

I think that #2 should be deleted as obsolete but what do we do regarding #1 and #3? Can we really have two non-free images as primary identifiers of an organisation? - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What's an election symbol in this context? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Political parties in India seem to be constrained at election time to using symbols that are both defined for them and allocated by the Commission. Those symbols are monochrome, simplistic images that seem to lack lettering, probably to reflect the literacy issues in the country (although that is pure speculation on my part). There is guidance in this official document. Outside the elections and on their websites, the parties seem to use their own logo devices. We probably have a similar problem on other pages, eg: Bharatiya Janata Party, - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify: when I say "constrained at election time", I mean on ballot papers. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that the BJP has chosen to incorporate their election symbol in their logo - compare File:BJP-flag.svg and Image:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg. I presume that the AAP could do likewise if they so chose. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The logo the party uses to promote itself, and symbol for it that appears on the ballot paper, both seem to me to be valuable relevant information for readers reading to find out about the party. The copyright taking here is negligible, and the use is reasonable. They should both stay. Jheald (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So "primary identifier" should in fact be plural? Our standard text needs to be revised? - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, this is more of an edge case. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Image 2 should go as I'm not seeing signs of it being a current logo nor discussion about that logo. I would argue that the symbol that is used on a ballot page in India really isn't for en.wiki to have to quantify (that India has adopted this iconic form for illiteracy issues of course should be documented somewhere and that some parties have incorporated that symbol to their logos, but it is not necessary to identify the exact matching of party to icon on a ballet). --MASEM (t) 13:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We have a substantial readership in India, and the identification of what the ballot paper symbol is may be exactly what somebody is coming to WP to find out. It's exactly the kind of information that should be included in a comprehensive piece about the party, for anybody interested in the party -- for a political party it's a pretty fundamental thing, how you get presented on a ballot paper. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A fallacy. We don't have to provide every single answer to every possible question, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia; we're supposed to summarize information and provide references for readers to find out more. People should be using google or another search engine to look for that type of stuff. I would expect that there is an exhaustive list of all the allotted ballot symbols assigned to party hosted by the Election Commission or some other reliable source that we can link to, but for the bulk of english readers, what those symbols are is not important to necessitate a non-free content exception. (Plus, if the people are illiterate, why are they coming to an encyclopedia to figure out the ballot symbol that is meant for them??) --MASEM (t) 14:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article should try to satisfy as broad an audience as possible, and inform them as well as we can about the topic. That's what we're here for. The symbol used for the party on ballot papers seems to me very relevant information, for our readers to know how the party is presented to voters (whether or not the readers are voters themselves). This is the kind of information we do regard as significant to readers -- it's because we regard it as significant, that we think logos are an important thing to present. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But first, it's not a logo. As explained above and looking at [3], its a bunch of iconographs that the Election Committee created to be pulled from by the respective parties to address the illiteracy aspects. This is no different than assigning a random letter code to each party, save here using symbols due to illiteracy. As such it is not an official logo. (This speaks to the fact that some parties have taken that iconograph to put it into their official logo as to help make the connection.) There's no rhyme or reason why this party got a bundle of wheat. From an NFCC#8 view, the average reader will lose no understanding about the party for failing to see the symbol. (I do throw out the question as I've not looked it up is if these potentially are free images due to being associated with gov't work, ala PD-USGov). --MASEM (t) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. We regard the symbols used to represent organisations as an important thing to present -- and this is the symbol that represents the organisation in a very important context. Jheald (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is intended to symbolise a broom, not a bundle of wheat - probably some sort of connection with the phrase "a new broom sweeps clean" but that, like my comment about literacy, is speculation on my part. This icon and others issued by the Election Commission were recently deleted at Commons because they were non-free. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the only depiction of it that I could find on the AAP website earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another example : Lok_Satta_Party Article and File:Loksatta_Party_Flag.svg and File:Lok_Satta_Party_Election_Symbol.jpg. Both should stay as thy are prime identifier. 120.59.143.241 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy answer: The official logo is a free image. This file does not meet the threshold of originality, as it is simply letters and coloring, and so it is public domain and incorrectly marked as nonfree. That renders the other two replaceable and so they fail NFCC #1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm not sure with the wave in the color line that it would qualify as uncopyrightable. That's just enough creative to beg the question. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem: If this isn't copyrighable, the swoosh in the letters doesn't render it so. The Best Western logo (the usual benchmark, as it was found PD) has a lot more creativity to it than a simple swoosh in the letters. This one is pretty clearly PD, and I'll upload to Commons when I get the chance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're confident, then that's fine. That's why I think it begs the question, but not absolutely over the line for creativity. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As another point: the purpose of the way the election symbols were generated seemed to be create a simple image of a very common object (in India) - an elephant, a broom, a bicycle, etc - in fact the 2007 PDF has exact text names for these images that should immediately evoke the image in question. In other words, we can still say that the AAP has a broom image allocated from the Election Committee (which from Sitush's link above, they have taken to use to "sweep the filth" from gov't as a catchphrase), but there's no need to show what that broom looks like since it is a common object; the exacting nature of how the election committee's icons is unnecessary to see. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There's every need to show what the broom looks like, if one wants to show the image by which the party needs to identify itself with at the polls -- something at least as significant as the corporate logo to the average corporation. A broom could be represented in many ways -- this image shows the actual image that the party needs to associate itself with. Jheald (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is completely reasonable for a reader of en.wiki to know what a broom looks like, relative to the fact that none of the images used by the Committee are broom-like and we don't need to distinquish between broom type A and broom type B on the ballot. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it usual for someone to change a FUR while discussion is going on and also to reinstate a potential copyvio in the article? I don't do a lot of image work but it certainly doesn't seem to be something that happens often elsewhere. Discuss, yes; change unilaterally, not often. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As the person that made the change, let me say that it is typical for an image to be visible in an article while it's under discussion here; it (i) makes it easier to refer to, and (ii) prevents it being auto-deleted accidentally.

As for the FUR: the aim of WP processes is to improve things, rather than to judge whether it was got right first time. Boilerplate text for a logo clearly isn't quite right for an additional symbol, so it's appropriate to tweak it accordingly. If you think there are points to add, clarify or correct, then do so. Be WP:BOLD -- that's the WP way. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, it might be appropriate to tweak but only if it is legal to do so. Can people really make up their own FURs? Seems to kind of defeat the purpose in law. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no purpose in law -- FURs are entirely a WP internal administration thing.

Part of the purpose for WP, at least originally, was to make people think for themselves about the WP:NFCC criteria, to explain for themselves how the content they were uploading related to the requirements. You wouldn't believe the row there was for standard FURs to get the nod that people had not made up for themselves. Jheald (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a few points to note here: Parties are allocated symbols per election and by state; only national parties (those over a threshold of vote % in a certain number of states) can actually get a single symbol for nationwide use, e.g., a regional party such as Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam uses a different symbol to contest elections in Karnataka from their alloted rising sun symbol; although both national and regional parties get a permanent right to their symbols until they fall below the vote % threshold. In this case the AAP has been alloted the broom symbol only for the next election in Delhi, there's no guarantee that this is a permanent symbol or will be applicable in other elections. If the image is used as an election symbol, then the NFCC rationale has to reflect this as the same symbol can be allocated for the next election to other parties/candidates in other states. —SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about that wording - thanks for clarifying. The next election in Delhi is December this year. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Then this is even more impedus to remove the image for non-national parties or national parties that don't fall into that allotment. If the symbol on the ballot has a chance to change, its certainly not a proper logo for identification. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think recognized regional parties should be treated the same way as recognized national parties (e.g. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has had the same symbol for longer than the Bharatiya Janata Party and so on) as they contest elections only in those recognized regions, except for certain freak cases. The symbol issue is primarily around non-recognized regional/national parties as they have neither permanency nor extendability around their symbols. —SpacemanSpiff 03:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the first image referenced above, the text-only logo, to Commons as a public domain text/shape only logo. The other two logos (the broom and the person with arms raised) have enough artistic styling to pass the threshold of originality and be eligible for copyright, so I believe they are properly marked as nonfree. Given this, it seems we should use the one that is PD in preference to the others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting more confused by the hour. The gist of Jheald's comments regarding FUR seems to be that the FUR procedure is really pretty irrelevant - a bureaucratic bolt-on of no legal significance. The gist of Seraphimblade's comments seems to be that if there is a PD image available then we cannot use a non-free one and that although the threshold of originality is open to debate, this one falls on the right side. Masem seems to be saying that the broom image isn't needed regardless of legal standing. As things stand, the article contains a PD and a non-free that has a non-standard FUR. When people have sorted out what the heck is going on please could someone adjust the article accordingly. I'm going to have to retire from this discussion because - as so often - my head is spinning with the craziness that is image-related stuff on Wikipedia. You lot all know far more about it than I do, so I'll leave it in your hands. I thank you for your efforts and blame myself for my headache ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• About non-free images, I generally prefer to keep the oldest (upload date). About the claimed non-free version, that has been nominated for deletion commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official Aam Aadmi Party logo from their website.png. And if that's really a non free image, the image should be moved directly rather than uploading a new version (has it been done?). --Tito☸Dutta 05:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Commons deletion request was closed with the result of keeping the AAP logo as PD-textlogo. Given that, I think we're done here? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a clear as mud to me. What is the consensus here? - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Image policy and copyright both can indeed be confusing, and both at the same time can really be a morass. So that's certainly understandable. Essentially, the main AAP logo consists only of text and simple shapes, so it does not meet the threshold of originality and therefore is ineligible for copyright. It is, therefore, a free image, since it is uncopyrightable. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as such, but another editor filed a deletion request there. In the interest of making sure things were settled, I let that get closed first. An administrator at Commons has closed the DR there with a keep result, agreeing that the public domain/no threshold of originality classification was valid. Given that this is settled, we now have a free image to use for the article, the party's official logo. I've placed that into the article, so now any nonfree images are replaced with a free one and would fail NFCC #1 (nonfree images must not have free replacements). It would, of course, be possible to get more free images for the article as well, such as photographs of the party's leaders or events.

Let me know if that makes sense. I do understand this can get complex, and I'm happy to explain further if it's still unclear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's clear enough, thanks. I guarantee that the broom logo will reappear in the article, so I'll have to link this discussion to somewhere there on a permanent basis. Most anons seem never to look at talk pages but at least it would exist as a matter of record. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. Seraphimblade, your argument above, essentially "we have a logo, so any other symbol is unnecessary" has no basis in policy.

The question to ask is: what does that other symbol contribute, and is it significant, over and above what the reader learns from the first symbol?

The answer is yes, because this symbol shows the image the party has to associate itself with for electoral purposes -- something highly significant to the party, and potentially highly significant to the reader too; and it is quite different to the free image, so the free image in no way indicates it to the reader.

We don't have a a logo on article just for the sake of having a logo (so any old one would do, which seems to be your position). We have a logo when we think it is important to the topic of the article, something significant that the reader should be shown. That is the case for this image. Jheald (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the party has to associate itself with that broom image. It is merely that if they want to use an image then the broom is the only one that they are allowed to use. Perhaps a specious point, but I'll make it nonetheless and in particular because we now know that it has been assigned only for the Delhi elections and the literacy rate in Delhi is pretty good by Indian standards. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the image being removed while the discussion here is still ongoing. I've posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_an_image_under_discussion, asking for it to be put back. Jheald (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonfree images are presumed unacceptable until proven otherwise, not the other way around. In this case, the broom image is not in any way discussed within the article. Its only possible justification could be "identification", for which it is often acceptable to use a nonfree logo, but we already have a free image to use for that purpose, so it is replaceable and replaced by a free image and therefore fails NFCC #1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to mention the allocation of the symbol in the article and that has been suggested before. Would that make any difference? - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: the point of "identification" is to show the symbol/s by which an entity is recognised. If there is more than one such image, and they are very different (so that one can in no way be deduced from the other), then it is appropriate to show both -- just as we do for alternate album covers for instance, when the two covers are very different and apply to different significant markets or timespans. The textlogo is plainly an important symbol of the party's identity, but the broom is also an important symbol, because this is how the party will be indicated on the ballot paper; knowledge of that symbol is part of the knowledge that a rounded, comprehensive wiki article on this party should convey.

@Sitush: Masem is of the view that saying "the party will be represented by a broom" is sufficient; but I don't agree. To show the actual image in question gives the reader an eidetic association that is much stronger and more precise -- and qualitatively different -- than just a word. The image is worth presenting to the reader because it has inherent significance for the party, as its designated election mark, rather than for any discussion that might be made of it. Jheald (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But these are not logos. These are symbols created by the election committee allocated to the parties - some parties request them, but others are given out based on the rules. Now, some parties have wisely incorporated the symbol into their party logo to help establish that identity, but the symbols by themselves are not logos and thus are not covered by our allowance for logos. Add the fact that the symbols and allocation can chance every few years, means its less about image and identity and more to simply a visual mnemonic for the parties. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether it's a logo or not, for some narrow definition of the term "logo". There's nothing particularly special about it being a "logo" per such a definition. Logos are an example of things which engage NFCC #8, as being considered significant in the context of the topic by virtue of what they are. Knowledge of the symbol officially designated as the "visual mnemonic" for the party is similarly significant. The is exactly what the NFC provision for logos or album covers is for. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a specific reason for logos and cover art - when there is no discussion of those images, then the rationale we use to include them is to show, implicitly, the branding/marketing/image that the entity wishes to express itself to the world, even if this is not discussed. As such, these election symbols, if the parties do nothing further with them, are not logos, because the entity isn't using the assigned symbol as its broader identity. These are, for all purposes, the equivalent of a stock ticker symbol, a one-to-one identity function to help illiterate voters in India to match parties. Add in the fact that all of these are common objects that even the India election committee's document uses text descriptions over images, and that just screams that without any further discussion of the symbol, its not an identifying logo that would fall into our provisions for such logos. We do not use images of logos or cover art to help reader associate the topic they represent with that image. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet stock ticker symbols are something that we include in articles -- whether or not the company selected them.

The fact is that it is not a generic broom that voters will be presented with, but this specific image. It is this specific image that is the official "visual mnemonic" for the party, and that is information that we should present, because it has material real-world significance. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I am going to keep reverting it out of the article until some agreement is reached and blow the consequences. I've tried to be fair here - raising the issue, asking questions etc - but we've now got an anon reinstating the copyright violation on the basis of this discussion but not actually participating in it (and it is a violation, even though it may turn out that we decide to ignore that). 3RR allows an exemption for copyright violations. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Because stock ticker symbols are free content (just 3-4 letters) ergo not an issue at all. But we're talking non-free imagery which must be used with high levels of discretion. While it is "that" broom symbol that will be presented for the party, it is also the "only" broom symbol in the block of symbols created by the India Election Committee - all the symbols are distinctively unique to prevent confusion. A person that reads "this party is represented by the broom icon on the election ballot" will not be confused which symbol is the broom if presented with all the symbols given. And again, as I understand how the ballots are presented, the party name is printed along with the symbol where used, so again, there's no potential confusion that we discluding the images will provide. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Electronic voting machines nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets look at the precedence set before us by other political parties:

• File:Indian National Congress.svg
• File:Bharatiya Janata Party.svg
• File:Republicanlogo.svg
• File:DemocraticLogo.png#1 , File:Democratslogo.svg#2

and yes all of them are copyrighted. The Democrat party of USA even has two copyrighted symbols. If the AAP "Broom" symbol is a copyvio, so are these. --Ne0 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they and the broom symbol are copyrighted and thus are treated as non-free, meaning we only use them when they provide contextual significance and not replacable with other media. In the case of the Indian National Congress, because they have chose to include the palm symbol into their main logo, there is no need to include the exact same symbol in the infobox. In the case of the Republican and Decocratic logos, we are talking about older logos which do have discussions about these logos in a historical form, thus giving contextual significance to be used. The Broom icon is not discussed in any relevance to its meaning or use by the party, so it fails these tests. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my view : At the ballot box, (Indian) voters often choose a symbol rather than a name,therefor Election symbol "broom" is significant. Source SourceFiveSymbol SourceFirstPost . 59.177.5.62 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The broom symbolizes 2 things:

1. The mission to cleanse the society dirtied with corruption: "'We are starting our journey from this holy ground and I am hopeful with this broom we will be able to cleanse society' -Kejriwal"[4]
2. The labor class, specifically Sweepers: "After the launch, Kejriwal swept central Delhi's Valmiki Complex where sweepers of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) reside."[5] --Ne0 (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

While that gives better support to including the image (and which likely should be in the article irregardless of image use), we're still taking about a non-free image of an otherwise ordinary broom iconograph (as with most of these election symbols). There is no other broom-like image used by the IEC, and the people that will be the ones voting by that image - the illiterate ones - aren't going to be coming to WP to read about those images. If this party has not chosen to incorporate the image into their logo, it is not our duty to show it as there are other sites on the web that have this as well. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason symbols are used on ballots is NOT that people are illiterate, but most of them are versed in other languages, there are over over 20 different native languages in India. For children going to school, there's the Native Language, the National language (Hindi), and the IT language (English). In this mess half the people miss out on learning English. Note that AAP is the abbreviation of Aam Aadmi Party, a Hindi word written in English; and आम आदमी पार्टी is abbreviated as आप, is NOT in English. --Ne0 (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Per the Bloomberg source above: "In a hugely multilingual country where a large part of the electorate is either illiterate, semi-literate, unable to read English or unable to read the language of a particular region, political communication is often as much visual as oral and textual." I read that as basically saying that the Indian people that will be voting via the symbol are among the last type of people that would use en.wiki as their first, primary source to understand which symbol belongs to which party. And unless the specific political party does anything to emphasize the meaning of that symbol within the party's platform, the primary readership of en.wiki isn't going to understand the topic about the party better by including the non-free image. Basically, including the visual symbols via non-free content runs afoul of the lines of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NFCC. We can link to external sites like the IEC that have the full list of symbols, and we can use text descriptors for the symbols (using the exact same language the IEC offered to describe them), as a tertiary source, that is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote another source: "India is a multi-lingual country that uses a variety of scripts for languages, it is hard to provide texts on ballot papers that cover all important scripts. Instead, by using a symbol, an Indian who reads and writes only Tamil can still vote in an election in Bengal where the text is likely to be only in Bengali and perhaps English."[6] So my question is, what do you do when you are "illiterate" in Bengali or whatever the local language is where you are staying ? Being able to read English "probably" won't help you any. Yes, it is only the symbols, that will be recognized, no matter which language you know. --Ne0 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The reader literacy argument does not mean anything on English Wikipedia where every reader is expected to understand basic English. I do not think the broom/sweeping image has a sufficient rationale unless and until the image itself is made the subject of a paragraph of text in the article: why it was selected, what the reactions are, who is the artist, etc. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument, surely, is slightly different. It is that in the multilingual society of India, these visual symbols have real importance, for the reasons that Ne0 has set out. This is the symbol the party has embraced, and needs to build up in its electorate's perception. That is something the reader should know, to understand how the party is likely to present itself, and what visual symbol it needs to associate itself with.

I frankly don't understand why inclusion has met with such opposition. Presumably nobody here disputes that in pure legal terms there is an absolutely cast iron case for fair use, as an educational use of a non-commercial image of public significance. Now of course WP takes a more sparing line than that. But if you consider the purposes for which we have logos and things like album covers at all -- to show the dominant visual entity or entities that the subject of the article is associated with, because we consider such dominant visual entities relevant and significant for our readers to know about. This symbol, and public identification of this symbol with the party, is plainly of huge significance to the party. On that basis, it is relevant and significant for our readers to know about.

Even more so if you consider the usual cases where we accept alternate logos or album cover images, ie where there is more than one key signifier associated with the article subject. The real-world significance of this image to the party is a lot stronger, and therefore it is even more relevant and significant for our readers to know about, as a symbol of fundamental importance to the party, than is the case for images we are usually more than happy to accept for alternate covers or logos.

In that context, I really don't understand the opposition here. By the standards we usually apply, inclusion here ought to be a slam dunk. Jheald (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's nothing like an alternate art cover. One, it is not their logo, it is an iconograph created by the IEC that they AAP have picked to use. The AAP have not decided to incorporate that into their own logo (unlike the other party I've seen, the one with the open palm, that have put that into their logo). The only place where this icon is used by the party is on the election ballet, so it is nothing like an alternate cover where there is wider distribution of that cover. There is also nothing special about the image, it is a realistic line drawing of a broom. If I told you, verbally, the AAP had the broom icongraph, and then showed you the India ballot in a language you couldn't read but with the various icons, you would still be able to pick out the AAP party because there is no other broom-like image. It is exactly a case where we can minimize non-free inclusions, as per the Foundation's resolution, by simply verbally stating they use a broom icon as per IEC rules; the reader's comprehension of the AAP is not harmed by not seeing the broom image. This is a textbook case of how to reduce non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I will note that it is possible to source a discussion about the AAP and their use of the broom to "clean up gov't" as part of their current platform. That said, it is a broom icon designed by the election committee that like all other symbols they offer is meant to be highly generic, every day objects (compared to, say, the GOP elephant or Democrats donkey logos), and meant to be unique from all the other possible symbols that the IEC has offered/created for the ballots. One does not need to see the icon of the broom to understand that they are using the broom icon for their platform. I still cannot accept the argument that we need to show these images to help those with language problems in India figure out which symbol is which as that screams of WP:ITSUSEFUL and as a tertiary source, something we don't have to do since we can link directly to sites with the full details of this. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument that our readers can look it up elsewhere is a rubbish argument. Our aim here (on any topic) is to provide a comprehensive self-contained article with all the relevant information significant to the reader in one place. That's the basis for NFCC #8 -- if the reader ought to know about the image, because it's important to the subject of the article, then it's in. Not "if it's important, never mind, they can go forth and look it up elsewhere".

As WP:ITSUSEFUL, note what WP:ITSUSEFUL actually says: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Even for English-language readers, having an eidetic knowledge of the party's symbol can be relevant and useful, for example allowing them to much more quickly identify and associate its publicity and communications (and candidates on a ballot paper) than proceeding solely on text. That's recognised by WP:NFCC, and part of the reason we include logos and covers, "for identification"; so should not be dismissed.

But to me it's not "It's useful" that the nature of the electoral environment being multilingual seems to emphasise, but rather: "It's important". It makes it even more important for the party to successfully identify itself with an immediately recognisable non-verbal symbol. And because it is important to the party, that makes it significant and relevant for our readers to know about -- quite apart from helping readers to answer questions such as, if there is an election billboard that is not in English at all, which party is it promoting? Jheald (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not our purpose. We are a tertiary source, so we are to summarize what is out there, and provide reference and links for people to look up for information if they need more details. Your argument and how that is tied to NFCC#8 would immediately allow for inclusion of things like individual character images for fictional works (because of course its important for the reader to see these to understand the work). That's not our purpose - we are not supposed to be single source place for the reader to learn about a topic but a broad overview (the entire purpose of an encyclopedia). If these symbols were important to the parties, they would incorporate it into their branding (which some have), but its not our responsibility to make up for that if the party doesn't do that. And again, I stress, we can say in text that the AAP has the broom symbol, and that they have used that broom symbol as a play on "sweeping away corruption", but you don't need to see the broom symbol is understand this. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment : Quick points : #1. Election Commission of India has allotted this symbol Broom^{(Hindi : Jhaaru)} to AAP party to represent themselves in upcoming election in 2013. #2. This Election Symbol image will be there in Ballot box or EVM by which Voters, identify and Vote them. #3. In the starting of this FU discussion , the point of discussion/argument was "Can we use two Non-Free Use rational images(which was not explicitly mentioned in Wiki policy of NFR images)"? But after Logo has been accepted in Wiki Commons as PD text, Now Question is "Can we use this NFR single image (broom) in the article to identify Aam Aadmi party and Is this a fair use ? ". And one more Question " In the Info-box , can we write "Broom" in election symbol section rather than an actual image? ^{Symbols are important to Political parties and Voters to identify or connect themselves in election} 120.59.130.125 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It a fallacy to say "okay, one logo has been marked free, does that meant we can now use a non-free?" We aim for minimial non-free image use, which can be zero, so if the free image is the logo of the party, there's no need for non-free (if otherwise not discussed). We certainly can use the language "BROOM" as the infobox's party identifier (since the IEC does have names for these icons, those are just as official). --MASEM (t) 21:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody share a link which mentions that 'Symbols' allocated to different 'political parties' in 'India' are non-free? I searched the 'Election Commission of India' site thoroughly but did not find any restriction that prevents its use in 'Encyclopedias'. --ratastro (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We require images to have clear identification as being in a free (as in thought) license such as CC-BY to assume that they are free. Otherwise, we assume they are non-free, which is the case here. This doesn't mean we can't use such images, but we are required to minimize such usage due to the Foundation's goal for free content generation. In this case, the symbols are not logos and simple iconographs of common items, and ergo their display here is not needed. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:1870 school room.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that there is no evidence to show that the image has ever been published, and therefore it fails WP:NFCC#4. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:03, 18 October 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.

---

An 1870 image taken in the UK, may well be public domain under EU-Anonymous, In any case it would be PD in the US as it's prior to 1923. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo has to have been published prior to 1923 to qualify for PD under that rule. "Published" in this context means reproduced in a book, magazine or newspaper, or issued as a postcard. We don't have any proof that it was ever published at all. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The info in the rationale states the photo is from a school archive, so we have no proof at all that the image had been published prior to the upload here. It might therefore violate WP:NFCC#4. Furthermore if the image is non-free, then the use in Warwick School appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 23 September 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.

Thirteenth

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion has yielded no consensus and has been stale for over a month. ---- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:07, 18 October 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.

---

See also: Talk:Syncopation § Replaceable

• All Points West 'Railroad sonority'.png & MIDI
• I Found a New Baby 13th chord.png & MIDI
• Music in Twelve Parts transitional thirteenth chord.png & MIDI
• Noreen's Nocturne.png & MIDI

Given the number of free files (55) is there really a need for 10 non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can musical notation be necessarily copyrighted? Obviously the performed work is copyrighted but the sheet music itself? I do agree non-free should be trimmed out removing any non-frees in favor of free examples, but the question is if the sheet music is copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, notated music is copyrighted the same way as a book is. Like a book, small excerpts can be used under the Fair use principle, but its use is limited on WP by WP:Fair Use. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What if we remove the free files and keep the fair use content?

What makes these files different than a supposedly valid fair use example? Hyacinth (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What if we remove the free files and keep the fair use content? that is the exact opposite of our mission. Our mission is to provide free content, not copyrighted material. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The non-free files that were listed here number eight, not ten. The Debussy examples, which were not listed, are PD-US and can be kept, right? The "All Points West" excerpt could be shortened: just the second and third bars ought to be enough to show the alternating flats and sharps, in my opinion. Would those eight notes be short enough to be non-copyrightable? All the examples do have sourced commentary, albeit in the captions. —rybec 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When I first uploaded the Debussy example I was playing it safe. Upon review, prompted by this discussion, I realized they are PD-old-70. Hyacinth (talk) 21:13, 11 September 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:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image is not PD-textlogo due to the texture of the typeface on the font and therefore passing the threshold of originality. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:28, 17 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Textured typeface I think is enough to push it over. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I was told otherwise, as in the case of File:Extreme Talk logo.png. Levdr1lp / talk 14:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know where the discussion was? I'd benefit from more insight since this comes up fairly regularly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_24#File:Extreme_Talk_logo.png. Also, as someone who is uploading files more and more often to the Commons, I seriously doubt this file qualifies for copyright. Levdr1lp / talk 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a month, and I still see no difference between this file and File:Extreme_Talk_logo.png. The non-free content review for the latter was the basis for this discussion. Could @Sfan00 IMG: (editor who initiated "Extreme Talk" NFCR) or @Diannaa: (admin who closed "Extreme Talk" NFCR) or any other editor familiar w/ this issue please provide some kind of input here? I searched this page's archives for "typeface" and "font", and the following users (mostly admins) have regularly weighed on similar discussions: @Andrew c:, @LtPowers:, @Masem:, @Stefan2:, @Toshio Yamaguchi:, and @VernoWhitney:. This is not "vote-stacking" or "campaigning", but rather an attempt to generate some kind of consensus on an issue that, as @Grandiose: says, "comes up fairly regularly". Levdr1lp / talk 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Threshold of originality varies by country. For the United States, I don't think this one meets the threshold for copyright protection. Compare the examples of actual court cases listed at commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. File:Extreme Talk logo.png likely meets the threshold of originality for copyright protection and should be tagged as non-free because of the patterned background. Regarding File:WMMS-HD2, W256BT logo.png, I think that should also be treated as non-free. If the letters and numbers where just monochrome red, then it could perhaps be below the threshold, but the black "sprinkles" on the letters in my opinion place this above the threshold. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, in this case here. If the two "9"'s had exactly the same "splotches", that would be clearly something from the font set (which can't be copyrighted) and that would make it a text logo. But with the variation, that creates originality. Now, on the Extreme Talk logo, the three "E"s have the same splotch pattern, showing they were taken from the font, not added afterward, and since fonts can't be copyrighted, the rest of the logo is okay as free. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the combination of the font and the background, the overlap and coloring of the two words and the tilt of the word TALK is not enough to meet TOO? Seems original enough to me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'E's may be the same, but the 'T's are different, and there's a background pattern that could be copyrightable. Powers ^T 22:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Then yea, I would edge on calling it non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks unfree to me. Compare with Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png where the file was deleted due to textures. You can see that file at de:Datei:BF-Schriftzug.png. Same problem with File:Extreme Talk logo.png: that one's probably also unfree.

This document is a good source for information about the threshold of originality of the United States. On the first page, it says "The work, CCC LOGO, appears as follow:" After that follows a logo which the copyright office deemed not to meet the threshold of originality. Below, it says "The registered work, CAR CREDIT CITY LOGO appears as follows:" and this is followed by a different logo, which is essentially the first logo within a border. The Copyright Office found that the first logo was below the threshold of originality but that the second one was above the threshold of originality. These two logos seem to be more complex than the copyrighted logo in the PDF file. The decision doesn't come from a US court but from the Copyright Office, but on the other hand, most examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States also come from the Copyright Office. The idea is that the Copyright Office should approve registrations if something is above the threshold of originality and reject if it is below, but there could potentially be some errors in those decisions. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:Roundup herbicide logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Split discussion ending in finding a consensus for the split of the Roundup article. The non-free logo will move with the Roundup article in order to keep from failing WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:40, 17 October 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.

---

This was originally in an article on the product before it was merged to an article on the chemical. Since then the patent expired and the chemical is sold under numerous brands now. To have just the logo of one brand is spam for that brand. Should we include all the brand logos or just this one? There is also an RfC about unmerging the brand again at Talk:Roundup (herbicide).--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Including all wouldnt be appropriate, Its not really spam since that brand is what defined the chemical for most. Come back here if the un-merge fails. Right now NFCR shouldnt be used until after the RfC as the RfC might make this discussion pointless. Werieth (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime we should remove the logo from the article. Otherwise it is the same as including File:McDonald's Golden Arches.svg in Hamburger. We can always replace it depending on the RfC outcome.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 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:Firefox-logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is not free and is now only used on appropriate articles relating to the versions of Firefox that used that logo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:45, 17 October 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 rationale for its use in Firefox says "To identify the Firefox web browser in the articles about Mozilla Firefox only" but in the infobox, this image has been replaced by a newer logo. It does appear in a gallery in Firefox#Branding_and_visual_identity. —rybec 19:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The file could potentially be free - files such as a later logo give Firefox's terms as compatible with free status. I think this option needs a close look. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This may be a mix-up between trademark and copyright. See: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/licensing/ It looks like all logos are free licensed but have restrictions when it comes to trademark use. They have an email on that page to confirm. If this is the case then we can move them all to commons and apply free licenses with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:VPC may help define the free license wording.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/ better link to free license with trademark exemption.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Old Mozilla logos are unfree and new Mozilla logos are free (with regard to copyright). All Mozilla logos appear to be trademarked. See Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox logos which specifies version numbers for Firefox. Version numbers for other Mozilla products should preferably be looked up. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better if I had given more detail. I think the situation is just as Stefan2 describes [7]. I just am not sure the gallery containing this one non-free image is acceptable. WP:NFG seems to discourage it. —rybec 03:55, 31 August 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.

Belldandy

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that 6 images were too many, but that the remaining images are relevant to discussion on the change of the artist's style. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:01, 18 October 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 same as WP:NFR#Karai; is it really necessary 6 images of the same character? There were 9 images on February 22, 2013‎, but Werieth removed 7 of them. However, Billby bring them back, and now there are 6 images, but I still thinking it has a lot of images. For comparison, extremely longer articles about fictional characters such Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man use 8, 7, and 4 non-free images respectively. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not valuable to compare the # of images in other articles (This is why we avoid stating what the maximum # of non-frees can be due to being gamed). The 3 manga images, for example, are excessive as while there are small changes, we don't need to see them all. We aren't a "bird-watchers guide" here when it comes to fictional characters, set to identify every iteration so readers can recognize them , as that's thinking in reverse of non-free image usage. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree the they are excessive. The use of three images was because the sources referred to three stages in the art style, with the current style of the character being dramatically different from the initial and largely determined by a particular point in the series. I can see it being reduced to two, but it was a big change between the original and what is used now, and that is only able to be shown to the reader through the use of images. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Even taken that point, that the artist's style developed over time, the middle image is not helpful (there's no specific discussion towards this) and then the last manga image is duplicative with the anime image (which are close enough to be considered the same). --MASEM (t) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The middle image is the one referred to in the text as being "more refined ... as in Childhood's End - it was generally regarded as part of the progression. But otherwise I agree, and while I think it is useful it isn't essential, and don;t really object to removing it. I do think that it is valuable, though, to have a small depiction of the art style used in the anime, as the other major medium for the character. I previously removed the OVA and movie styles, as they were only significant in being similar to the anime, and I removed the chibi style, as there weren't any sources that specifically discussed that art style as a comparison to others. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with you Masem, adding that I think only the first two images are necessary. The second anime image is very similar to the first one. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that there's enough of a consensus that we don't need the second manga image, so I've pulled it. I do think a single comparative image from the series is valuable, given the change in media, so I'd like to keep it if there isn't a problem, especially given that the sources generally compare the art style between the anime and the manga. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 4 September 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:Syd Barrett Abbey Road 1975.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is for removal from Wish You Were Here article. No consensus on usage on Barret or Shine On You Crazy Diamond articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:17, 18 October 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.

---

usage on Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) and Shine On You Crazy Diamond do not meet WP:NFC and usage on Syd Barrett is debatable. Werieth (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While there is discussion in both the song and album articles of how Barrett's appearance affected the recording, I don't think it's necessary on both or even on the Barrett page; the photo is specific to the recording of Shine On during the 70s, so I think its use is fair there, but not the other two pages. (One use of this photo somewhere seems appropriate due to how his appearance affected that session, but not all three) --MASEM (t) 16:02, 24 September 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:MeTV WOIO.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:23, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 04:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and should be true for any other MeTV rebroadcasters as they all use the same basic logo with the name of the city serviced under it. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WOIO logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Note that CBS Eye is on the Commons as PD-text. Levdr1lp / talk 15:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WMWX logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, even with the stylized X, that still looks like a simple font. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WBIK logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:31, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC):Agreed. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WXKR logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:31, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo? Levdr1lp / talk 15:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The brush-like numbers I think should be okay in this situation to be below TOO. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WRXS logo (lower res).png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:39, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo? Levdr1lp / talk 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a standard typewriter font. Should be under TOO. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WOSA logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WOSU-FM logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:40, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 17:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

File:WOSU-TV logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:41, 18 October 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.

---

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 17:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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