Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

File:Jo Rahi so BeKhabri Rahi.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove and delete image. Image has previously been removed, and is tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:22, 13 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFCC#8. The cover of Ada Jafri's autobiography used only on her page. Uploader claims image will be used "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" although the image is actually halfway down the article and there's a free image of Jafri herself in the infobox. The reader gains nothing from the inclusion of this file. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 08:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes... This file was at the top in the infobox earlier when I did not have a free file of the poetess herself. Later, I got one and placed this in the middle. But the file at least tells the reader what her autobiography looked like. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete: It serves no good purpose in understanding the subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Delete: If the autobiography itself is notable for its own article, the cover can be used there. But if not, we don't need to have the cover of the book to understand the existence of the autobiography, unless the cover art itself is the subject of critical commentary (perhaps, did she draw it?, for example) --MASEM (t) 15:06, 6 December 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:EarlyRHCP.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free file is replaced by free image and or text. (WP:NFCC#1) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:20, 13 December 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.

---

Given we already have a free image of the person, do we really need this non-free group shot? Cant simple text replace it Werieth (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, unnecessary non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 6 December 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:Dissonance in Bach.PNG

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been moved to Commons and deleted locally. Further discussion should take place at Commons if necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:16, 13 December 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.

---

Whilst the source is from 1964 work, the actual composition is older (and PD). Referring here, so that a review can take place. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that standardized musical notation of an PD song can be considered copyrightable, but I do not know for sure. Even if this was the case, if this image was not created by a WP user and under copyright, it can be recreated in a free license by a WP user. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what the uploader did in this case. The source listed being used as a reference. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Retagged as {{PD-music-ineligible}} (the original work of course being PD-old, while the musical typesetting as such is not original enough to be copyrighted). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the book from which it was taken, but I wonder what is the source of: (a) the Vivace marking; (b) the ff dynamic; (c) the arpeggiation of the chord at the start of the 2nd measure. None of these are Bach's. None of these are relevant to the article in which it's used, so perhaps just a new version without these features? --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 7 December 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:The Pirate Fairy poster.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Poster has been exchanged for non-watermarked version. No issues in its use as non-free content. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:10, 13 December 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.

---

Poster contains watermarks by a third-party website. - Areaseven (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely should be replaced by a watermark-free version. (It's used properly for work ID, however). --MASEM (t) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Watermark-free version uploaded. – JBarta (talk) 18:12, 11 December 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 Smashing Pumpkins

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus to remove all non-free promotional photos and to remove all sound clips except Cherub Rock and the 1979 samples. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:55, 15 December 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 13 non-free files on a band article? Werieth (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all promotional photos since we have free images of band members and shows. And why do we need all the sound samples? De728631 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to do as you please with it. I'm really the only one who consistently maintains the article anymore, and I don't really deal much with images on Wikipedia (I didn't add any of these) so by all means, I don' think it needs to be this formal. Go remove a bunch of them. :) I doubt there would be much opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Cherub Rock and the 1979 samples appear okay but both should be relocated to the musical themes section (Cherub Rock is), as both demonstrate different musical approaches that are discussed in that section. The other samples - which all have their own song page - are unnecessary here. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 2 December 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:Malcolm-bradbury.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image does not meet inclusion requirements to be used on the Vedontakal Vrop article, and has previously been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:52, 15 December 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 a review of inclusion in Vedontakal Vrop.

I can understand including this picture in the infobox of the author Malcolm Bradbury, but not a fictional element from one of his books. According to WP:NFCI #10. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely clear-cut case indeed. Removed from the other article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. The individual is the author of the books that contained the fictitious subject, and there is not apt to be any free-use image made, so I didn't see a criteria under "images" in WP:NFC#UUI that fits. Can you clarify? Montanabw^(talk) 05:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The cases listed at UUI are not the only unallowable uses, just the ones that are easy to classify. In this case, in the article about the fictional element, a non-free image of the author of the works that contain that element is not necessary to understand the nature of the fictional element, particularly when there's a link to the author on the page. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The interpretation here is incorrect. The image meets all the criteria under policy (WP:NFCCP) including "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is because it is necessary to understand that the opera and the ocuntry are the work of the imagination of the author Malcolm Bradbury. As it is therefore by no means 'a clear cut case indeed', I am restoring the picture.--Smerus (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather bizarre argument. To "understand that the opera is the work" of this person, we don't need to see a photo of what the guy looks like. We only need the attribution spelled out in words, plus the link to his own article. For a photograph that is only being used as a decoration in an infobox, and in an article that otherwise has no coverage at all of the author's personality (and rightly so, because that would be quite out of place in an article about this work-in-a-work), claiming such a justification is really a rather extreme and outlandish form of wikilawyering. I've removed the picture again, and to make things very clear, I consider this a final administrative measure and am prepared to use administrative tools to enforce it (including page protection and/or blocks if necessary). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeez! Talk about over-reaction!--Smerus (talk) 12:05, 7 December 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:CapitalSteezHypetrak.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image meets criteria of WP:NFCC currently. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:45, 15 December 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.

---

Does not meet the non free criteria. Koala15 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can see. He's dead for more than a year, and while there's a possibility of someone providing free media, a check of flickr shows that none presently exist. This is completely in line with NFCC for deceased people. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 6 December 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.

Microsoft Office 2007

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus supports the removal of all images from the Microsoft Office 200 page with the exception of the logo, the infobox image, and the ribbon image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:32, 15 December 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.

---

Can this article really support 16 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see only two appropriate uses of non-free in that article: The current infobox screenshot to show what the programs look like, and the screenshot closeup of the Ribbon (One of the major visual features introduced across the entire line of products). Of the others:

• All those under "Application-specific changes" have separate articles, so the screenshots of the individual apps should be located there.
• We do not need to see the "Non-commercial use" title bar to understand there's a non-commercial use-only version.
• The office button is a glorified menu button, and we don't need to see that, particularly as it is also show (though not expanded) in the Ribbon shot. If the expansion is really necessary, then a combination of the Ribbon and the open Office Menu should be used instead of these two images. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The following screenshots are inexcusable:

• File:MS Word 2007.png
• File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png
• File:Microsoft Office InfoPath 2007.png
• File:Microsoft Office OneNote 2007.png
• File:Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007.png
• File:Microsoft Office Visio Professional 2007.png
• File:Office Access 2007.png
• File:Office2007toolbar.png (Least excusable of all)
• File:Outlook 07.png
• File:Proj2007.jpg
• File:Word 2007 screenshot Edward tbp.jpg

It would have been great if someone could make a screenshot that could replace both File:Office07homestu.png and File:Office2007ribbon.png.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Heck, I'd get rid of just about all of them. I don't think that they meet the NFCC. You don't need to see the layout of the buttons to understand that it's a word/spreasheet/presentation editor. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The ribbon UI piece, being new, introduced in this version, and used across the board for Office, is fair to include (and I'm pretty confident there's UI discussion about the ribbon from MS and others to justify it even better). And one screenshot of a program on their respective pages is also fair, but certainly not in this page. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 9 December 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:NFL Playoffs logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion moved to WP:FFD here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_December_15#File:NFL_Playoffs_logo.svg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:29, 15 December 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 old logo, which is used purely decoratively in the NFL Playoffs, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, unnecessary and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As there is only one use of this file, the proper forum for this would be WP:FFD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:12, 13 December 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.

Abyssinia, Henry

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image fails WP:NFCC#8, but could be replaced by another image from the episode that has more importance and therefore more contexual significance. It has been recommended that an image relating to the character's death (which seems to be a major part of the episode) would be more appropriate. The image has been removed and tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:25, 15 December 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 a FA so I'm hesitant to touch it, but does anybody else think the file here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Per [1], this was one of WP's first featured articles, 2006-ish, and before image review was a major thing. There was a review in June 2013 per this link but there was no real discussion. So it is completely fair game to question if the image is needed.

As to its appropriateness, I personally would edge on it not being needed, but I can see an argument that as this episode was the first one in US television history that included the death of a major character, someone can argue the importance of this image. I'd get more opinion as it's not an immediate "inappropriate" screenshot. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I frankly fail to see what the fact that it was the first episode to include the death of a major character has to do with the justification of this image in any way. It's quite obviously of the same nature as all the hundreds of others we have been removing lately. Routine, purely decorative use, showing nothing but the face of an actor in an otherwise (visually) unremarkable scene (the factual importance of the scene for the plotline can of course be covered in text, as it is, but doesn't need the visual support to be understood). The character has his own section in another article, with an apparently free image. There's also no meaningful FUR, so it's also a speedy candidate for that fact alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for removal in its current state, I just can see what the arguments for keeping it need to be, and to that end, what has to be addressed to fix that. I don't know if that is even fixable, which is why I can't just say "not appropriate". --MASEM (t) 15:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There definitely are images that would meet NFCC 8 for this episode, but this is on the borderline. I think that if this were an image of the news of the character's death being delivered, it'd be easier to keep it in there. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:56, 9 December 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:Two and a Half Men S11.jpg

Per previous discussion, discussions about a single image with a single use under question should be handled at WP:FFD (since deletion is the desired option). (This is not a statement on whether the image is appropriate or not) --MASEM (t) 23:09, 15 December 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.

---

Not a suffiecent way to indentify the season. Looks just like a random promo photo, nothing that would tell me this is related to the season. Beerest 2 talk 22:57, 15 December 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.

A Star Is Burns

Credits image tagged as FFD. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 19 December 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.

---

How many of these unfree images are needed? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox image is fine (that scene (short film within the epi) is discussed critically. The credit screen is absolutely unnecessary, you don't need to show Groenig's name removed to explain that he took his name off. (For all technical purposes, you'd need to show what the normal credit screen is at that point to make that point, and that's two non-frees for something easily said by text). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 16 December 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.

Do What's Good for Me

Three images tagged as FFD. --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 19 December 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.

---

Blatant violation, we don't need 5 covers for what is a glorified track listing. The user claims that covers need to be displayed "to prove that there where multiple releases in different countries". Unless there is commentary on the covers which this article lacks, the files cannot be justified. Werieth (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not blatant violation. Kids like you and me could technically have its own page and picture as it is a different song. Many CD articles within wiki show more than one cover when there different releases in different territories. Why should this one be any different? If it was five pictures from one release, I would agree. This is five pictures from five different releases. Wozza20 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Even the ALBUM project recognizes that one additional cover in a major release region alongside the main cover is reasonable but any more require sourced discussion of the album art itself. In this case, the only two covers that make sense are the current infobox one, and the one used to promote the issue of homeless kids; the others are just random photo shoots in small markets. --MASEM (t) 02:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Random covers in small markets? Japan, The US and Canada are not small markets.

These are significant separate releases of this single where there is separate cover art through separate record labels. Kids Like You and Me is a definite that should stay in my opinion. The other three covers are also there on good merit. Wozza20 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried doing the same thing on singles, but they are deemed normally unacceptable. This is no exception, unless a remix/different version is done, or someone else renders a song, like The Locomotion. George Ho (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There are different remixes on each release, with each release coming at a different time in the calendar year. There were different remixes in many territories for this single. Why is it unacceptable to show different releases in different territories? I have done the same on a page I created: Sin Limites (2 Unlimited EP) and had a positive "Good Job" message on my talk page from a wiki-editor. If there were many pictures of the same release from different pages of the inlay, I can see a problem with over excessive use of non-free content material. I can not see a problem here. Wozza20 (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Going through the non-free content policy: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

1. No Free Equivalent - There is no free equivalent available of the CD covers.

2. Respect For Commercial Opportunity - This does not hinder archived commercial opportunities.

3(a) Minimal Number Of Items - The one item does not convey the different releases in different territories.

3(b) Minimal Extent Of Use - These are different publications, not over use of one publication.

4. Previous Publication - These items are publicly displayed outside of Wikipedia.

5. Content - The cover art used do meet content standards required of Wikipedia.

6. Media Specific Policy - All items are tagged with sources as required.

7. One Article Minimum - These cover arts are used in the one page only.

8. Contextual Significance - The answer to this appears to be subjective.

9. Restrictions On Location - These cover arts are only used within the article.

10. Image Description Page - All required parameters are present.

I believe this indicates that the copies of cover art included are covered within the Wikipedia policies set out above with my answers. Wozza20 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I can't change your mind, I nominated three non-Dutch covers for deletion. I don't need to notify you, as you can watch the article. Do I? When you respond, I must close this discussion. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 December 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:Ground Zeroes PS4 poster.jpg

Closed for WP:FFD. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 20 December 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.

---

Weak rationale provided that doesn't explain how the same information cannot be conveyed in text or how it adds significant value to the article. This image was originally uploaded as the infobox image, which has since been replaced. « Ryūkotsusei » 01:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 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:Milwaukee Bucks.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC if used twice in one article. Duplicate use has been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 20 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c: used twice in an article but only has one FUR for that article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That second use - plus the 3 other non-free old logos in that Franchise History section - are inappropriate (no discussion at all about the logo changes and even if they were they are trivially simple compared to the current logo). --MASEM (t) 14:45, 10 December 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:1930 Robert Noton Barclay.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image fails WP:NFCC in the use on Manchester Exchange (UK Parliament constituency) article, and has therefore been removed. As there is now on only one article, concerns about the image failing WP:NFCC#10a and a deletion discussion should be taken to WP:FFD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:54, 20 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8 in Manchester Exchange (UK Parliament constituency). Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not fail. Link to NPG is not necessary as the metadata section provides this information, "Copyright holder © National Portrait Gallery, London". I uploaded this file using the wikipedia wizard and if a link was felt to be necessary, then the wizard would have requested it, but it didn't. I suggest that if Stefan2 or anyone else has any further issues they take the matter up with those responsible for how the upload wizard works.Graemp (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The file currently fails WP:NFCC#10a as there is merely a claim that this comes from the National Portrait Gallery without a way to verify this, see {{bsr}}. However, that problem is separate from the other violations in Manchester Exchange (UK Parliament constituency). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 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:Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image is suitable for inclusion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:49, 20 December 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 poster/ad suitable for an episode of Family Guy? George Ho (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes - if there is an official poster like this produced for the episode, this is equivalent of the normal allowance for cover art like for films or the like. (To contrast, the reason we don't regularly allow screenshots is that what screenshot is picked is not an official choice made for marketing and promotion, and thus not regularly allowed without discussion of the scene in question). --MASEM (t) 04:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how come promo ads from mags aren't accepted? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You are generally talking (from past discussions here) promo ads for the show, not the episode, and in that case, the episode's title card or logo is much more appropriate for that, both in terms of identification and cleanliness. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 34#Promo magazine ads for TV episodes. I used promo ads for specific episodes, yet they are deemed unsuitable. Were you assuming that I was gonna use them for television shows? Or maybe the ads promote the show, not the episode? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted ones, they are basically "picture unrelated". Like the Simpsons' one was a generic image of the family and not a scene from the episode; same with the promo for Kristi Alley's premiere on Cheers; it's random head shots. As such, they are not identifying images for the episodes in question. With the poster above while that is not a shot from the episode it is clearly based on the episode, and how Fox decided to promote it. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 13 December 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:Promotional picture of boyfriend from i yah album.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Tagged and queued for deletion under WP:CSD#F7. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:45, 20 December 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 photo depicts a band that is still active, thus the possibility to obtain a free licence photo is still pausible. Using unfree images to depict living people is against Wikipedia's policy guidelines. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious failure of WP:NFCC#1, a great thing to tag with {{subst:rfu}} DMacks (talk) 19:50, 15 December 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:Center for Copyright Information Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Obvious PD-textlogo already moved to Commons. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 20 December 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 looks like a PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I updated the information to reflect that. --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with George Ho and have moved the file to Commons accordingly. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 17 December 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:Bill and Bronwen Astor.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: image has been removed from offending article by uploader and therefore now meets WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:40, 20 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate in the Bronwen article (she's still alive, Bill is dead and its use there is okay.). --MASEM (t) 14:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I'll simply take it out of the Bronwen article. I just used it there as well since I couldn't find any other picture of her at the time. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:53, 19 December 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.

Google Play

Non-Admin Closure: The policy-backed consensus shows that the images fail WP:NFCC#8 in the Google Play article, but are acceptible in standalone use within their own respective articles (if those exist). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:05, 23 December 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.

---

Can we really justify 9 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, particularly as 1) those icons for the individual sections are out of date and 2) repeated on the top screenshot for the store itself. The store logo and the screenshot are fair, the rest need to go. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It makes the page sections look a lot nicer, and helps provide a visual reference for each section. 141.218.228.37 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's not reason to use non-free images. They're not for visual appearances. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the reason to keep the logos is WP:NFCI#2 and Wikipedia:Logos, for identification of the respective services within the infobox that describe them. Given that the section for each service is currently "the main article on the subject" of that service within Wikipedia, this use within the infobox is valid. If we created a separate article for one of the services, it would be OK to move the infobox with the logo to that other article and remove it from here. Diego (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Creating an infobox for a topic within the body of another topic does not create "discussion" about that first topic. That's only the case for allowance of the main overall topic. And yes, if you could make separate articles the logos would be okay on those separate ones, however, I very much doubt these individual ones are really notable; perhaps Google Music (in that it has cloud features too to save your own music), but not the others. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It's worth noting that the Play logo is listed as being PD-textlogo on Commons. There's also a current deletion request for File:Get it on Google play.svg. -- Trevj (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the following per NFCC#8 (unless their use is proposed for retention within viable standalone articles about their respective subjects):

File:Google Play Music icon.png

File:Google Play Books icon.png

File:Google Play Magazines icon.png

File:Google Play Movies icon.png

File:Google Play Games logo.png

File:Play Store icon.png

-- Trevj (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per NFCC#8. Each icon is essential to recognizing each application. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is not about Google Play Music, Google Play Books or the other things but about Google Play in general. The icons for Google Play Music, Books et cetera can only be used in the articles Google Play Music, Google Play Books and so on, not in the general Google Play article. See WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the article is about all aspects of Google Play. Similar to how Microsoft Windows has screenshots of the various versions. --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Software screenshots can add significantly to readers' encyclopedic understanding in a way that logos can't. The excessive use of logos within the one article isn't particularly informative; their omission would therefore not be detrimental to understanding the topic. -- Trevj (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Remove those that Trevj advised as well as File:Play Store app.png. Be advised, I changed the license tag on File:Android-app-on-google-play.svg to {{PD-logo}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NFCI#2, Pmsyyz and Trevj, provided that each logo is removed once the respective stand-alone for each section is created (per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFC#UUI#6, avoiding duplicate uses). Keeping or deleting an image under WP:NFCC#8 shouldn't depend on whether the content to which it applies is described in a stand-alone article or as a section of a larger global article. Diego (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There remains significant question whether standalone articles for these services can be actually made (read: notable). --MASEM (t) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • As I've stated, my point is that this should be irrelevant. Content doesn't suddenly become significant or not significant to the readers' understanding of the topic just because we choose to format it with one or the other structure. Diego (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The core reason behind allowing covers and logos for works when the image itself is not a subject of discussion is the presumption that there is significant discussion about the topic (read: standalone article == notable), as outlined at WP:NFCI#1; otherwise the image fails NFCC#8. Placing an infobox for a separate topic is not creating significant discussion on the topic; that's just putting in something to attempt to justify the use. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

        Says who? As explicitly written at WP:Logos, "long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes", as "most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text", and "logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity". I see that in the discussion linked from the guideline about placement of logos, even you agreed to have one logo for each infobox, as long as each logo is used just once for each entity.

        Provided that these infoboxes identify the main place where the entity is described within Wikipedia, and that the main logo for Google Play is not repeated, I don't see anything supporting your position that a logo can be used only when discussed in a stand-alone article, and it contradicts the wording of the guideline as written above; if you want to change that consensus, you should propose your position first at the Logos talk page. Diego (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

        • Read "Placement" in LOGO: "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, the main company logo may appear in the main article about the company, the main school logo in the main article about the school, and the main sports team logo in the main article about the sports team, but a school logo and a school sports team logo may not both appear in the same article (although they may appear in separate articles). Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article." And the issue on identifying images has been a subject of discussion on NFC may times confirming that a stand-alone article is a necessity to use a cover/logo w/o any discussion of the image. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 9 December 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 Angry Video Game Nerd

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the film poster fails WP:NFCC in the listed article. The film poster would be acceptable in a standalone article, if one were to exist. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:14, 23 December 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 doubt we need the film poster in this article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The film may be notable, and if it gets a standalone article then the poster is okay there, but I agree that it is not necessary while the film is only discussed on the page about AVGN. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 1 December 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.

Sporting Kansas City

Non-Admin Closure: WP:NFG violation removed by User:Sven Manguard. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:40, 24 December 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.

---

Sporting_Kansas_City#Colors_and_badge Standard case of WP:NFG violation Werieth (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The last logo as the KC Wizards may qualify as uncopyrightable, but the earlier two logos can't, and should be deleted. There is no need to duplicate the current logo there (already used properly in infobox, and actually a logo that can be justified with text that explains its design). --MASEM (t) 00:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gallery removed. Galleries of non-free images are pretty expressly prohibited. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 11 December 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.

...And Justice for All

Non-Admin Closure: With more additional content that shows the importance of the quote, a non-free image of the scene from the movie could be acceptable within the confines of WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:53, 26 December 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 captured an image from the trailer of the movie, shown in Amazon. Since The Puppy Episode can use an image that shows the historic moment that requires understanding by text, maybe I can upload the moment where he yells out, "You're out of order!" --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because other articles use imagery like that doesn't mean it's appropriate anywhere else. I'd argue the image on The Puppy Episode fails non-free (it's talking heads, so there's nothing that needs visual display). Similarly for the Pacino film someone shouting at a courtroom isn't anything special that needs to be seen visually. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Puppy Episode image was nominated for deletion twice: I withdrew, and the other was concluded as "kept". George Ho (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the amount of discussion about the Puppy Episode and the coming out aspects, and the minimal discussion of "You're out of order!" on that article, you have to provide a lot more discussion about justifying that latter image compared to the Puppy one. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Would changes/expansion help justify? George Ho (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's in the right direction, but consider that the Puppy Episode was an important milestone for LBGT/television (hence its use in several articles), while this is just a famous movie quote and performance. I'm not saying you can't get it there, but the more you can provide on the importance of that quote (whether as a famous line resulting from the film or an attribution to Pacino's acting) the more likely you won't have problems with using the image. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 13 December 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:Turkmenistan FA.png

Non-Admin Closure: File remains in use in only one article, and has appropriate fair use rationale, therefore it currently passes WP:NFCC#10c. No further action is currently needed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:05, 26 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask the uploader to add a rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The uploader may not be the one that added to the second article, and adding that is a responsibility of those wanting to use the image to justify it. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 15 December 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.

Digital download cards

Non-Admin Closure: Digital download cards would only be appropriate when there is not a physical release of the content. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:07, 26 December 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.

---

What is the status on using digital download card in season articles? I don't care for them, they don't give primary identification. Like, look here at How I Met Your Mother (season 9) or Two and a Half Men (season 11). Beerest 2 talk 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If there is going to be a physical home media release, the home media cover should be used if available, and if not, then no cover should be used; we have no assurance that the show copyright owners assembled the digital cover. At some point, we are likely going to have shows that will not have a physical release, at which point the digital cover would be appropriate, but these aren't that case. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 15 December 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.

Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)

Non-Admin Closure: Images removed or moved to more appropriate articles per consensus of this discussion. Only three non-free images remain, no consensus to removed those images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:10, 26 December 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 am not seeing justification for 9 non-free images Werieth (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup, far too many. Title card is fine, and since the show is defunct, the BAFTA cast picture is reasonable. There is nothing else really appropriate here:

• The art style of the original books should be left to the pages about the original books.
• The show pictures don't aid in understanding in any way (nothing special about people in period clothing in a show about history)
• The interstitial card doesn't help (though arguably between this and the art style of the original books, this might be justified to show how they kept that style)
• Neither sound file is appropriate, particular the unrelated "bad" sample. Okay, they parodied works, great. But there's no discussion of the muscial composition of the parody to require the need to hear that.
• No need to use a non-free image of the League of Gentlemen to say how they were on the show --MASEM (t) 21:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand and in most cases concur. Am very new at this, so willing to defer to more experienced editors' opinions on the subject. The only one I'd argue for as significantly adding to understanding is the interstitial card, as demonstrating both that the style of the books was kept and how it was adapted for the TV series. Will remove the others immediately. Shoebox2 talk 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that the interstitial card is probably fair, but consider moving the original book style over to the book series (where it would be more appropriate and fair to show the style used in the books). --MASEM (t) 21:16, 16 December 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:The Old Man of Lochnagar.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been updated to be the cover of the book as opposed to the album cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:46, 24 December 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 purports to be a book cover and is used to illustrate the article on the book, but it's clearly an album cover (the source is a listing at an online music store which makes it clear that this is an album of songs from a 1986 musical, so there's no possibility of doubt). It would potentially be legitimate on an article on the album, were one to exist, but the article as it stands doesn't even mention this album.  Mogism (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Image now shows the book. Aquegg (talk) 21:12, 18 December 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:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv

Non-Admin Closure: Two discussions at of the same issue are a violation of WP:FORUMSHOPING and borderline WP:CANVASSING. Searching multiple boards for people to agree with one's opinion (whether right or wrong) is inappropriate and a waste of time. The appropriate place for the discussion is currently at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 21#File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv. Any uninvolved administrator may revert this closure but by doing so would cause that administrator to support FORUMSHOPPING as an appropriate measure against consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:44, 25 December 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 would like second, third and fourth opinions on this file. I believe it meets all the NFCC content criteria as set out below, but the article is up for deletion and I have encountered a lot of resistance, particularly from User:Masem, who cites many rules which do not exist, such as a 30-second max length and a video being considered the equivalent of many hundreds of screenshots and non-free images being "freer" than non-free video. I believe the video is both appropriate, acceptable and vital in its usage and have laid out justification for such below. Other arguments against is that a screenshot can suffice, I do not see how replacing one non-free content with another makes sense, nor do I believe that something like File:Batman - Arkham City combat screenshot.JPG or File:Batman - Arkham City screenshot.JPG demonstrates anything remotely comparable. They could be cutscenes, and it takes two of them to accomplish what the video does and more, and IMO the images don't do that well and this is something I see across many game articles. The video has a central focus in the combat, which has been emulated due to its success, but it demonstrates about 6-7 other elements of gameplay simultaneously, it kills a handful of birds with one stone and I do not understand the resistance to it. I would appreciate input using citable existing guidelines and policies please.

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself:
   1. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and
   2. "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"
   If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

There is no free equivalent, none. Nothing could be created beyond this video which has been created, to suit this usage and it cannot be transformed into free content and it cannot be replaced by a free version. The subject conveys multiple aspects of the game in a single file, and the information cannot be fully conveyed in prose, to the pro- or non-gamer, but especially the non-gamer.

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

Video cannot harm commercial viability of copyright owners, it is a short segment of a game estimated to take at least 12 hours to complete and upwards of 25 to see and complete everything. The content of this video cannot be replicated as it is based on unique actions taken in this one particular non-important and regular event within the confines of the game, and neither diminishes the original work not conveys content that would undermine reasons for purchasing the game such as spoiling story elements.

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

One video is used where two screenshots at least would be required which is not ideal, for aesthetic purposes at least, not including NFC issues. The entire work is not used, it is less than 50 seconds of a 12-25 hour game, the gameplay presented is non-unique within the context of the game and is infinitely repeatable, although this particular content is unique as the exact set of circumstances, enemy placements and moves cannot be repeated. If the bit-rate or size is objectionable it can be modified.

1. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia, by (or with permission from) the copyright holder.

The game has been released, all content is publicly available.

1. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

Content is presentable, compliments the prose and provides a greater and easier understanding of the gameplay, aspects presented within are considered independently notable by reviewers, such as combat, and such imagery is more difficult to consistently obtain and review than say scenes from a film.

1. Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Meets Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video.

1. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

Is used in Batman: Arkham Origins'

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

Subjective, depends on the reader, but it is not simply there for the sake of it, its intent is to improve and enhance the readers understanding of the topic, particularly the non-gamer, who I have made the focus of my game-related FA's. I do believe it accomplishes that, primarily for non-gamers but also for games not aware of the game/series.

1. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Is used only in appropriate article space.

1. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
   1. Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Multimedia.
   2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
   3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Image has a full and complete rationale with appropriate justifications.

The video fails WP:NFCC#3 as the image could be replaced by a simple screenshot, instead of a series of screenshots (in the form of a video). There is nothing that the video does that a screenshot with accompanying sourced text could not do for this article. There could also be a link to a video of the gameplay on a reputable website (from the publisher's site) in the external links section. In my experience, the general consensus is to never us a non-free video unless that video itself is the subject of the article. Under the media specific policy, Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video is not a policy. Because video is a compiling of multiple images, it would fall under WP:Image use policy and WP:NFCC. All points of WP:NFCC must be met for non-free files to be included. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is one NFC better than another? This is exactly the argument I had with Masem, there is no guideline, especially 3B, that says use an image instead of video or that an image is freer, therefore it meets all points of WP:NFCC and should be included. There is no single image that could convey seven different aspects of gameplay, and a 'general' consensus that is not identified as a rule, guideline or policy cannot be used to justify an alternative interpretation of an actual rule, guideline or policy. 3B asks that the video be relatively low bit rate, nowhere does it say use image over video, if this were the case there would be no videos on this site. Also a video is not a series of screenshots, or any article using video would be invoking 2000 NFC images, this is a false equivalency, and also, not in the rules, guidelines or policies of NFC. As I said in the opening, I appreciate input, but in the form of "citable existing guidelines and policies". Nothing regarding this appears in WP:Image use policy either. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarrorblake's disagreeing is no way shape or form similar to that I don't like it guideline that it makes examples of. He is trying to make heads and tails on why it's not being accepted. I think it might have been a mistake to lead other editors over here, Darkwarriorblake. There can be editor's that can be a deletionist to a majority of free-use files. Definitely some only mainly preferring files that come from Wikimedia Commons half the time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is telling DWB that he can't use non-free. Just that a non-free video file is excessive non-free use when a non-free still image can do the same job. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

An image cannot do the same, you are wilfully ignoring this argument, you are wilfully ignoring that this does not fail 3B anymore than an image would, there is I REPEAT NO GUIDELINE THAT SAYS AN IMAGE SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD OF A VIDEO, NOT ONE OF YOU CAN SUPPLY SUCH A GUIDELINE, RULE, OR EVEN AN ESTABLISHED CONSENSUS TO SUCH AND SO I ASK YOU HOW THE HELL DOES IT FAIL 3B? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 07:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to undo my comment since it was closed but since you replied. I will reply back. I am not saying that everybody (like you) are against free use. I am saying that some are really that strict about it. I am not being negative about that either. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to boldly close this discussion simply because you disagree with it, one discussion is about retaining it which I note you have involved yourself in to the ignorance of my responses here that demolish your arguments, this discussion is for input from people who are supposed to know what they are doing and there is no reason for that to end. I would ask that you respect that even if you do not like it.

This discussion should be closed because the WP:FFD was already up and running and at the start of this discussion already had opinions from five different editors, so I do not know why Darkwarriorblake came here asking for more opinions, but in my opinion it seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING because Darkwarriorblake did not like the direction of the discussion. Aspects (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

File for deletion is not NFCC review, I came here because people were abusing NFCC 3 and I wanted opinions from people who are meant to know what they are doing. Your spurious commentary is neither required nor wanted. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 10:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NFCC and FFD are complementary processes about specific media files; and issue with an image file should only be discussed at one or the other but not bot. If you want to discuss the merits of NFCC in light of a given file, the that should have been done at WT:NFC. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue with that is, going back to November, yourself and Stefan (the instigator of all of this) are two of the major contributors there, which both explains why you think you are right, having existed in an echo chamber, and reduces any chance of hearing from anyone impartial. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, its about the same groups of people who are active at all image discussion boards, whether it be WP:FFD, WP:PUF or WP:NFCR. Having two discussions is inappropriate per WP:FORUMSHOP. Opening a discussion here and there, especially without linking the two is you trying to find more people to agree with you (whether you are right or wrong). You keep telling editors in the FFD discussion that they have made their point, and they should stop arguing with you, but you are the sole person who is responding. You made your point that you don't like the policies, or others interpretation of them, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to try to circumvent the system. I will be re-closing this discussion per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVASSING momentarily. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I want it made clear that this closer was inappropriate, and the user a bullying editor keen to abuse the system, user doesn't agree with my opinion and has twice now closed this discussion to prevent a dissenting view from forming. I came here because this was the link on the template to review a NFCC file, because I wanted insight into the policy that the, at the time, limited views on File For Deletion were hamstringing debate. If the two are somehow connected this was not knowledge to me, but the user will not accuse me of SHOPPING for an agreeable view or CANVASSING, both of which I could have accomplished in much easier ways than coming here. IDONTLIKEIT does not apply, because I don't not like NFCC 3, I think it is fine, it is the mangled abuse and misinterpretation of the guideline by this closed echo chamber of users which causes me concern, where a small handful of like-minded users can gang up and enforce their will through the apathy of the majority. The discussion can remain closed, but it will be recorded permanently and made clear that ТимофейЛееСуда, the closing editor, is an abusive editor, who will accuse opposing thoughts with anything he can, to undermine them and their stance, which is the mark of both a poor person and editor. Discussion over. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:30, 25 December 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:SteamMachine.png

Non-Admin Closure: Local copy of image has been deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:55, 27 December 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.

---

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in multiple articles. Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That image appears to be a violation of WP:NFCC#1 and should be replaced by a freely licensed illustration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It says that manufacturing and distribution will begin next year, so it is possibly not yet replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A free illustration can be made by adapting the design illustrated in File:SteamMachine.png and transforming it into a new work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A free illustration can be made by waiting for the console to be released and then photographing it too. I'd say we ought to delete this non-free image. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And given that beta units are supposed to be going out within a month, this is the option I recommend. (I did warn the user that uploaded it that it would likely be challenged in terms of its use).

Also, to note, this type of discussion (that the image fails NFCC in any use) should be at FFD, not here, since deletion is the nom'd goal. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the benefit of deleting it over transforming it into new work until the beta launch? DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Until the console and controller are released and we can create free-use images - it's something we have previously done for announced, but not-publicly-shown consoles. It's more important that we have a picture of the controller, it's a new concept that is difficult to understand through text alone. - hahnchen 14:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking - Has been released to beta. Photos available in the wild. Can now be replaced. - hahnchen 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Except we're talking about consoles that will be in the wild (at least beta versions) within the month, as opposed to some random timeframe of mid-next year. So we know there's a reasonable likelihood and soon for a free image to be generated. We can wait. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • And then we can delete after we're done waiting. - hahnchen 15:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
      • No, NFCC#1 doesn't say wait for free content to be available, it only asks "if", and since the answer is yes, within a known and reasonable time frame, the non-free should be removed. Again, if it was the case that there would be no consoles in the wild until a vague "mid 2014" date, that would be different, but they've said beta units will be out shortly. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
        • NFCC actually says "No free equivalent", of which there are none. Like the discussion over multiple cover arts at WT:VG, instead of relying on policy, you seek to impose your own ILIKEIT subjective standards as to what a "reasonable time frame" constitutes. When a free equivalent can be produced, we delete the non-free image, like we have done previously. If you're correct, it shouldn't be a long wait. - hahnchen 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Policy says "or could be created" - there's no interpretation there to miss; the free media does not have to exist as long as it is reasonable that it can be created to make a non-free fail NFCC#1. Now technically, we could wait long enough for everything to go out of copyright (95+ years) and that would make stuff free, but that's not at all reasonable. On the other hand, within a month these machines will be in the wild, so yes, we certain can create free media for this then. If the time frame was more uncertain and longer (eg if there was no known beta period and that we had to go with a "mid-2014" date) then yes, it would be reasonable to say that we have no idea when free imagery could be made so we would allow non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Also to add - I do appreciate that Valve is not well known for meeting deadlines hence Valve Time around the time of HL2 and other titles, but their record of late has been spot on with no to minimal delays. So in this case, the variability of the the possible release really doesn't enter the equation; until Valve actually announces a delay, there's no reason to assume one will occur , and thus we are still looking at only a month. And a point to add - what exactly does the picture of Valve's controller add that can't be understood by seeing other controllers that we can photograph freely? The fact that track pads replace the thumbsticks and the touchscreen in the center are not hard-to-visualize elements that requires a non-free to understand, though certainly a free image would be nice to see. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, has Valve actually stated explicitly when this machine will enter beta testing phase? If I recall correctly, they stated something in the same lieu as "probably this year" and "soon". DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They specifically "this year" (no probably) [2] and that they plan to discussion initial results of beta testing in January, so we have a very narrow timeframe here. (Yes, problems can arise at last minute, and if that pushes the beta back to an indefinite timeframe, that's different.) --MASEM (t) 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. A free image could reasonably be created at the beta release. I think that there is no need for a non-free image for use in an encyclopedia, until the device is released as there may be last minute changes that alter how the console looks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Replace - The Steam Machine beta has begun. Therefore, access to the hardware is not as exclusive as when I first uploaded the image. Can somebody accommodate this request? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  @DarthBotto:, If you are the original uploader, you can tag the file as WP:CSD#G7 so that an administrator can delete it. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well I have deleted it now, the copy off commons should be deleted too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 27 December 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:Boston-New Orleans-Portland Breakers.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#3a and should be narrowed down to just the appropriate logo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:22, 27 December 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.

---

No sourced discussion of the logos, other than a brief mention about logo not changing. Rationale feels a little convoluted and seems to miss the point of WP:NFCC Mosmof (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The trio of logos is offered as a single image montage on the website it was published on, USFL.info; if USFL is the copyright owner of the logos (I'm not sure how that works in that league), then this is consider "one" non-free file (they took three and published one image for us) and would be "okay" to use; if the copyright is owned by someone else, then that's 3 non-frees and I totally agree it should be reduced to one (the most current, Portland) with text to explain the same logo, outside of the city name, was used in previous years. Arguably, by NFCC#3a, even if the USFL owns the logo copyright, reducing it to a single logo (with the same idea that we can describe that the city text changed but otherwise the same logo in previous years) would be further minimal use so this would still seem to be the right option. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 2 December 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:Extract from DoOS 1 to 50K map of Jamaica Sheet G 1973 showing course of Juan de Bolas River.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#1 due to its ability to be replaced by a free map. A request has been opened and responded to at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Juan de Bolas River. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:26, 27 December 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'm querying if use of this map extract is fair use because of it's size, In addition surely there are modern replacements for this map which show the course of the river? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this is a textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1, since it is clearly possible to create a free alternative serving the same purpose. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sfan00 mentions:

• The size of the extract. In fact it is three grid squares wide by one and a bit tall which at 1:50,000 equates to five and a half miles by about two and a half. A tiny area. Did you perhaps mean resolution? That is 152 dpi and could certainly be halved without making the extract illegible.
• Potential modern replacements. I don't understand; in what way would that make a difference?

Toshio Yamaguchi says:

• it is clearly possible to create a free alternative. Well, yes and no. To do so would require a survey of the river and surrounding area would it not? That would be a non-trivial undertaking. Or am I showing my age and overlooking something obvious? -Arb. (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Geographic data across the world is uncopyrightable, but maps generated from it can be, so we need a map licensed freely. However, there are tools that can be used to generate such maps where the maps generated are CC-BY or equivalent licenses. (For example, on this river's page is a map of Jamacia showing the rough location of the river, which was generated by user using standard geographic data.) I did try seeing if OpenStreetMaps had this area mapped out but I don't see it but you can make a request at WP:GL/M for a map that works for the river there. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, a very helpful and constructive comment. Request raised as suggested - Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Juan de Bolas River. A small section of the river is in fact shown on OpenStreetMaps - linked in the request. -Arb. (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, I colon-linked this image there, only to avoid NFCC#9 issues but so its still used. To the admin watching this, I recommend that we don't delete this image until the GL has a chance to make the image, to help there (they don't seem backlogged so give it a few days). --MASEM (t) 18:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from a cartographer, freely available geographic data isn't usually available at that detailed of a scale outside the U.S. The alternative is basically copying the stream course from that topo map onto OpenStreetMap, I'll leave it to others to decide if that's an improvement. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 4 December 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:10ontenshot.jpg in 10 on Ten, in reference to Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8. Multiple listed images have already been deleted, the remaining are tagged as di-orphaned fair use, and will be deleted by an administrator. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:29, 27 December 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.

---

Werieth is still bulk-removing anything under NFCC and edit-warring to impose his will over other editors.

This is mainly re: Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, a GA on a cinematographer and film director. Werieth has blanked all of the images and is edit-warring to impose this. One would think that the work of a cinematographer was a candidate for appropriate use of NFC, Werieth evidently disagrees. His comments "files lacks critical commentary" are simply untrue (truthfulness is not a feature of Werieth's edit summaries, per many repeated examples alleging lack of FURs, replaceability etc).

There may be images here that are inappropriate, or excessive. That's why we have talk pages and forums for discussion. However blanking all images from a GA on a visual arts topic is most suspicious, let alone one that has already reached GA. Edit-warring to impose this is unacceptable, per our basic policies.

This has now spread to one of these images in use on a related article, 10 on Ten, a "talking head" documentary where the filmmaker talks to camera about his film 'Ten'. Werieth alleges that this is replaceable. That might be true for a mugshot used in a bio, but that's not what that is. This is a still from the film, a film that consists largely of just this talking head image.

Already raised in the ongoing edit-warring debate re User:Werieth at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Werieth_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If the film is just a documentary of talking head shots from Abbas Kiarostami (whom we have free images of) with no special cinematograph effects, then the still is completely replaceable by free media, in this case the text phrase "The film is a documentary of various talking-head shots of Kiarostami.". You can include a free image of Kiarostami on that page to help the reader see who this is, but they don't need to see an unremarkable image of him from the film to understand this. Pretty much cut and dried here. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The file was removed from Ten (2002 film) for failure to meet WP:NFCC#8 a two sentence article cannot justify a screenshot. Period. We already have a free photo of the director which could easily serve the same function. If you want to discuss Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami which uses 8 non-free files which again dont meet NFCC see below. Since this is two separate articles I would suggest splitting this into two sections. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• File:10ontenshot.jpg Picture of a living person, nothing visually unique about it. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Tenxtremecloseup.jpg fairly standard "dashboard cam" style nothing unique about it Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Closeup'90shot1.gif image being used to show emotions of the protagonist image doesn't show anything distinguishing (perhaps a better quallity image could, but this file doesnt) Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Wind Will Carry UsGraveyard.jpg image is of such poor quality and shows very very little. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:ABCAfricashot1.jpg just another example of a million similar photos of children in africa. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Tasteofcherrycolour1.gif nothing visually distinguishing. Just a shot of someone driving a car. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:Tasteofcherryshot1.jpg of such low quality almost zero detail can be made out. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• File:FiveKiarostami1.jpg Again nothing visually unique/significant, its just ducks on a beach. Werieth (talk) 17:16, 3 December 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.

Hattie Jacques

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that now, after the addition of more appropriately sourced content about the scene and specifically the actress within the scene, the file meets all criteria of inclusion of WP:NFCC. It should be noted that regardless of the motives of this discussion, the discussion was successful in bringing the article to the appropriate standards for the inclusion of the specific non-free content.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:41, 27 December 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 don't think we need two non-free images of this person (one in the lead and one in the "Starting on the Carry On series: 1958–63".) Beerest 2 talk 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We have one good image for the lead, showing the individual, not a character. We then show that individual playing probably their most notable character – and certainly one that has entered into popular culture, both for the the comic character itself, and by use in the British media, as a shorthand term for the role of matron in the NHS. This is hardly unusual or an excessive and flippant use. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The film image from Carry On Nurse is appropriate on that film's page (as the scene is one of discussion , about the plastic daffodils), but this doesn't aid the reader to understand the actress any further because there's nothing visually distinctive of critical commentary about her appearance. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, but—as the tag at the top of the page makes clear—this is still under construction. The use of the media shorthand to refer to NHS matrons by Jacques's name is yet to come. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The supporting material for an image needs to be in place first before a non-free image should be used. Arguably, the importance of NHS is a factor on the Carry On films page (which appears to be one of the long-term legacy aspects from this), not on the actress' page. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Massively debatable. There are numerous articles which have two non-free images on them: one of the individual and one of the individual in their best-known or most notable role. As to the second part, that's also massively debatable: it is the actress that is referred to more than the film series. - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping images; every image has to be evaluated individually. And it's not the actress that is addressed, it is the character and scene, and as we have no article for the Matron character, the series article makes the most sense to talk about the legacy. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not entirely logical: there is an equally strong case (possibly stronger) for it on her page, rather than a page that deals with 30+ films when the character only appeared in five. I'm happy for image reviewers at PR and FAC to make the call, and I asked one of them to have a look earlier today. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Er, this is the page where the process for NFC is determined, not PR or FAC. They're welcome to participate in this conversation here, of course, but this is where this should be done. The image clearly is about the legacy of the films, not the character or the actress, hence why the image should be there on the series or the specific film it is from. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, on the second point it really isn't as clear cut as you think and the actresses article is probably stronger than the series page, regardless. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue here. Carry On Nurse was one of the more well known Carry On films of the black & white era, and Hattie's scene with the daffodils is the most well known in that film. To have this image in the main Carry On article or the film article would be wrong as the scene is not iconic to the series, more to the *actress*. The scene only lasted seconds, right at the end of the film, but Hattie will always be remembered for the scene. Most people won't even associate the scene with Carry On Nurse. --Cassianto^Talk 06:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And right now, the article on Hattie doesn't support this: "Although Jacques's role was still relatively small, she appeared in perhaps the best known scene of the film, in which she retrieves a daffodil from Wilfrid Hyde-White's bottom which was put there by a mischievous nurse as revenge for his constant harassment of the staff.[97] So popular was Jacques's scene, that the producers imported 2 million plastic daffodils from Japan which were then used to promote the comedy." It talks to the scene, not the actress. Now, I would assume that if you're right you can find sources that come down to say this is Hattie's most well known role for herself (not the film), but those need to be found and added. This is why NFC should not be added until the content in the article is there to support it. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you see the "article under construction" tag? Cassianto^Talk 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Its there, and that's why you don't add non-free until the article's ready to support it, to avoid situations like this. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This "situation" is being caused by knee-jerk do-gooders, not us. The images are being looked at by an image expert so I don't share your worry at this stage I'm afraid. Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For "knee-jerk do-gooders", you can also read sock, although why no-one has thought to raise that in the appropriate forum is something of a mystery... - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

NFC is supposed to be used only if it meets all 10 criteria at any time, and promptly removed if it fails that. Hence the need to not insert NFC until the article can support the NFC. And this page is where the image experts and image discussions occur on WP. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating about this page being the place where socks bring images to be examined, but firstly, it just about does (although slightly tenuously, I'll agree) and secondly, (as I've already pointed out) there is an image review in progress: Crisco is in the midst of an image check, and I'm happy for him to give his advice, regardless of whichever forum is appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Calling people enforcing NFC as socks is a personal attack; this is free content work first and foremost and maintaining that is a requirement all editors are expected to abide by. And regardless of what one editor says, these discussions are consensus based and will be closed and actioned on based on an uninvolved admin/non-admin. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a "sock" is a fair observational comment if that sock actually exists. Are you saying it doesn't? Cassianto^Talk 19:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But that's not a sock. He closed down his prior account on Nov 15, has not edited with that since, and opened up the new one on Nov 22, identified himself via his old account. That's the farthest thing from a sock on WP, which is more specifically editing and trying to hide their identity. So calling someone a sock with clear evidence that this is not the case is a personal attack. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Masem, that certainly isn't the "farthest thing from a sock on WP": that particular epithet would go to the overwhelming majority of editors who have one account, not two, even if one one of them does have a potentially temporary Retired tag on it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. He's only edited WP with one account any any time - not switching back and forth. (Reviewing his contributions, it looked like he decided to retire (note: not vanish), closed down the account, got full prot on it. And then a week later changed his mind, created the new account and immediately associated the new account to the old one, full disclosure.) That absolutely in no way is a sock, and is allowed per WP:CLEANSTART. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Really? A personal attack? That's nonsense: calling a duck a duck isn't an attack, so please try not to smear me. I'm sure you know of Crisco: he is uninvolved, which is why I asked him to do an image review before the sock started this procedure. He has done reviews for articles I have been involved in before and will unhesitatingly ask for images to be removed if he knows they are not appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Beerest identified his original account. That's not a sock, that's what we expect when you edit from a new account. And again, this discussion is consensus-based, which will overrule any decision that Crisco comes to, though their opinion can be injected into this discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Break

This somehow got very out of hand. Can we just go back to discussing the image? BTW, I don't get the sock accusations. If they are at me, let me explain: I retired because I was sick of personal attacks, but then realized that I shouldn't let other people control my Wiki experience so I returned. There is no socking done here, as I tried making it as clear as possible that I am Beerest 355. (Plus, that account has not even edited this discussion, so there is clearly no socking, unless you are trying to suggest that me and Masem are the same person.) Beerest 2 talk 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So anyway, is the image worth keeping or not?

• Delete for now. I don't believe there is critical commentary as of yet. There is no deadline for critical commentary to be added to the article, but until then I think that we should probably remove it as we can't have unfree images without a reason, whether the reason is coming or not. Beerest 2 talk 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Can we all stop the mudslinging? Yes, NFCC discussions can get quite personal, and yes, there are varying opinions on the appropriateness of images, but that doesn't mean we should have a PA festival that makes the internets run red with unfunneled rage.

Now, for the image: I disagree with both Beerest and Masem, and will explain why. First of all, precedent (far from "other stuff exists", precedent shows that consensus has been reached before on a similar case or similar cases) shows that multiple NFCC files can be considered acceptable, even at the FA level. Chrisye, for instance, has two images of the singer: one when he started his career, and one during his battle with cancer, showing two different looks. Sebastian Shaw (actor) had two non-free images at the time of promotion, one showing the actor and the other showing his most significant and recognisable role. Thus we can ascertain that there has been consensus previously that two non-free images of the same individual may be considered appropriate, assuming they are sufficiently dissimilar and show different aspects of the individual.

In this case, I believe that criterion is met. Jacques should be depicted as an individual first, for identification purposes; the first image (File:Hattie Jacques - signed.jpg) serves that function well, and I don't think anyone above has disputed its use for this article. The second image (File:Hattie Jacques in Carry On Nurse.jpg), which seems to have been the bone of contention here, is sufficiently dissimilar in my opinion. Instead of a publicity or glamour shot style, we are presented with a quarter-length, zoomed out portrait of a woman holding a flower, a woman clearly in-character. This is not a picture of Hattie the woman, it is a picture of Hattie the "Matron", and important for the understanding of the character.

As for discussion of the image proper: more discussion of the role's impact (i.e. exactly what the stereotype was, which can be understood from this image) would be helpful, but I think this already (albeit barely) meets the minimum standards for passing the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much the number of images (two is by far not necessarily a problem), but that in this specific case, we have two non-free images of the actress at the same period in her life; if you see Hattie in one, you clearly can see who Hattie is in the other, and thus they are duplicative of each other. The examples are more reasonable for having two images because of being in two different periods in the actor's life, and so it is not clear given one who the other photo is a picture of. And as you say, the second photo from the film is from the film and certainly describes the Matron character and based on what I'm reading, certainly the bit character is a legacy of the film, but we have nothing here to go on presently to say this was the most well known role Hattie was famous for; this is why this image is fine on the page about the film or film series, but not on the actress, at least until the aspect of the importance of this bit part to her career is established. That is, in this current state, the reader's understanding of the topic is not reduced by the omission of the image (since we can describe that image of "Hattie in a matron nurse's outfit holding a plastic dafodile with a confused look", that image extrapolated from the portrait image of Hattie. I'm not saying this image never would ever be possible to use on Hattie's page, but Hattie's page presently doesn't support it and that needs to be fixed to retain the image to clearly pass the NFCC#8 bar. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"we have nothing here to go on presently to say this was the most well known role Hattie was famous for"? The text right next to the image states "Jacques is enduringly associated with the role of hospital matron". You're very wrong about the image being better on the page about the series, or at least your opinion on that point is misguided: we're talking about Jacques's character being considered as a stereotype of a matron, NOT about the Carry On matrons being considered that way. The news media quoted in the article make that rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that text is there per this [3] , and that's the type of justification that's fine, and needed to be there before the image was added. As it is there now, now I agree it passes NFCC, as it now reflects the importance of the scene to the actress. Everything before was to the film/scene/character, but not actress. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Masem, I never said the number of images was part of the criteria. However, you would not have opposed this image if it were the only one in the article, and thus the fact that more than one image was used was a consideration here. As for the prose needing improvement to make the NFCC position more solid, that was in my reply as well. @Schrocat: Thank you for improving the text associated with the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's not that there was more than one image, it was that (without the now-added commentary) there were two images of the same person roughly similar in appearance as they were taken in the same period of her life being used on the page, which is a problem. (This in contrast to your other examples, where the two images were takes from very different periods in their life and was not obviously clear they were of the same person) Now that's its crystal clear that the role is inseparable from her, that second image is fine. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 6 December 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:Mudvayne.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus holds that non-free image could be replaced by free images therefore failing WP:NFCC#1. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:42, 27 December 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.

---

Photo of a recently active band, no reason to believe a free replacement can't be found. Яehevkor ✉ 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a bunch of images on Flickr apparently under CC terms but with a huge watermark on them. That said, I do agree that with how recent the band's split up is, NFC should not be allowed, similar to recently deceased people, until a reasonable amount of time for free images to come up can be done. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 4 December 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:Hockney.clark-percy.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Policy-backed consensus holds that image fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in all articles except the painting and artists articles. If there are disagreements about that specific guideline or others, those opinions should be discussed at the appropriate talk page or by opening a WP:RFC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:49, 27 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6, except in Mr and Mrs Clark and Percy. Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Major painting by an important contemporary artist; needed and belongs in the various articles...Modernist (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Its reasonable on the artist's page (and the work itself, duh), but absolutely not on Greatest Painting in Britain Vote; that page should simply be a list to these paintings and not a gallery even if most of them are PD. This is particularly true given that the article is unsourced and likely fails notability tests. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines do not address the issues of contemporary visual art and need changing...Modernist (talk) 01:00, 13 December 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:Hockney, A Bigger Splash.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Policy-backed consensus holds that image fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in all articles except the painting and artists articles and also fails WP:NFG in a few. If there are disagreements about that specific guideline or others, those opinions should be discussed at the appropriate talk page or by opening a WP:RFC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:52, 27 December 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.

---

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6, except in A Bigger Splash. Also fails WP:NFG in several of the articles in which it is used. Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Major painting by an important contemporary artist; needed and belongs in the various articles...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine on the page about the work and the artist, but of the three other uses, only one barely passes (20th century Western art), and that's only where the painting is simply mentioned in passing so even that fails. A link to the work's page is more preferred and are free equivalent replacements for its use on Pop Art and History of Painting. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merely mentioning a painting isn't sufficient. We also have WP:NFC#UUI §6 for handling that situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines need changing...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 13 December 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.

Sex141

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that low resolution image is acceptable as there is no longer an issue with privacy. Image has been updated to smaller resolution. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:02, 27 December 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 am very concerned about privacy of living people as much as copyrights of unfree screenshots. George Ho (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The infobox template and indeed the project website seems to encourage at least one screen shot of the home page. I got the idea when looking at another website article (Gizmodo). Of course, I do take note of the potential BLP issue. The images of people in the screenshot in the infobox are too small to make anything of them. As for the other, I believe it is necessary and there is a detailed narrative in the document to the effect. However, I have chosen another shot where the person's face is obscured, and I hope that will satisfy the concerns raised. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that this is where modification of the screenshot by pixelating the photos and names (but otherwise showing the layout) is warranted without violating the principles of NFC, as long as you mention in a caption ("photos and identifies have been pixelated for privacy") so that the reader is aware the screenshot is not exactly how the site appears. Alternatively, consider if you can get away with just the header material prior to the listing itself. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The website often pixellates the images,but doesn't always. Commons takes the view that "Pixelated features can sometimes be revealed by squinting one's eyes. These crude attempts to anonymise images may damage the value of an image". Anyway, I would prefer the size of human facial features of image (plus any original pixellation) to limit the recognisability of the subjects rather than substantially alter the crop to show how the product is being marketed by the site. It's mentioned in the narrative of the article. Let's face it, personal data such as name is likely to be made up anyway. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think you need to pixelate the whole tableau area, but just the individual face shots and names (albeit likely false to begin with). This would still show the reader how the data on the page is arranged and while squinting can still possibility give details, we've taken appropriate steps to make immediate positive identification impossible. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't see the home page screenshot adequately pixelated to avoid privacy issues. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
          • I've reduced the resolution further. I hope this addresses your concerns. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing the pixelation in the image, and while the names are difficult to make out exactly they're still "clear". (It's definition the right direction). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
            • The individual faces were lightly pixellated and were unrecognisable at the original sizes. Ironically, reducing the home page to the current size has the same effect as squinting, and look as though they would if the pixellation had not been applied.

              As I said above, I would prefer to anonymise through reduction that excessive pixellation as the marketing is an important part of the critical commentary. The text may be "clear" but it's already a struggle to actually read it. And it seems to be already accepted that the names are "working names" and not real. A proper balance between privacy and the needs of the reader needs to be struck. The real question, therefore, is whether that balance has been struck, and not whether you might be able to make out their names if you try really hard. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A reader can still identify anybody with either nickname or real name by either headshot or barely-readable name. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I shrank images and change the format from PNG to JPEG. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• You didn't answer the question and then proceeded to resize the image well beyond what is necessary for protection of privacy given the nature of the site/service, and in the process making the reader unable to discern even the barest type of detail as described in the article. Hopefully we can find a compromise with the new size of image I've just uploaded. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave the images up to the administrator then. The bot can shrink vertical images to below 280px or 270px, and horizontal images to 350px or below. George Ho (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. I don't know where you are coming from – the image size should be an editorial decision, not a mechanical/technical one. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you put the images to no less than 300px (or size where text is possible to read), you may overbalance the boundaries of privacy. A reader understands the whole content at small size, like 220px (default size of images in articles). George Ho (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes little sense to me. The "under 300px" rule seems arbitrary at best. There are certainly circumstances when that can work, but privacy protection depends as much on the size of the original face/text as the scaling achieved in the final. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can people involved with subjects identify women in headshots at 220px? George Ho (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

<still mystified> But all headshots of the women in those two images are well below 200px, In fact, they are about a quarter of the size of a postage stamp... -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I meant size of each whole screenshot. Women are still identifiable at very small size in screenshots, aren't they? George Ho (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Delete both. Hello, everyone. Both images violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 because text alone is enough to fulfill their purpose and they don't improve reader's understanding of the subject even a bit. As for the privacy concerns for the people in the first shot, I find that it is impossible to identify them. However, I do know that those who already know one of the subjects will not fail to identify her, no matter how small the size of the image is. That is, they don't identify; they associate the photo. (This is very simple: Show a picture of a caiman to a person who knows about alligators but not caimans. Ask him what it is. He will respond: Alligator.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Tag them as FFD then. George Ho (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  No. Lisa agrees that the faces in the screenshot are to all intents and purposes unidentifiable, so that removes the grounds for deletion on privacy grounds. As to the images being in violation of #1 and #8, it's probably true to say that for most articles except biographies, the text in the article is enough to fulfil the purpose without any images or other embellishment. However, it's a truism that a picture paints a thousand words. These pictures give a look and feel of a particular website just as a company logo aids identifiability. Without them, you don't get a "feel" of how the "product" is being sold. Copyright rules are sufficiently complex for that sort of argument to give grounds for removing just about all non-free images from the site, including screen grabs and logos from all website/company articles, potentially leaving them on none but biographies of the dead. Such a restrictive interpretation does the reader no service whatsoever, whilst keeping the images puts the copyright holder at no disadvantage; ditto the potential human subjects therein. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Hi, OhC. Everything that you said about the thousands of words and feeling the subject of the article can at best be used to argue for one of the two images, not both. That said, thousands of word is not always good; sometimes it is just wordiness. In this case, the word "sex" says it all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  So what you're getting at is that because the word "sex" appears in the title, you don't need images? Sans blague??? And are you now conceding that one image can be kept? There are exactly 984 words in that article. Looks Like I've just saved the world from the tedium of reading another thousand words of my bloated text. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Irregardless of the content of the website, if there is a notable website (which this appears to be), we generally allow one non-free image for identification akin to cover art, for marketing and branding purposes; the other alternative is to use the site's logo for that, if it has one. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, if that compromise floats everyone's boat, then compromise it is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute; why are Taiwan images used instead of Hong Kong or general main site? George Ho (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• The site was offline for ten days, and the article was written and images (what I considered close substitutes) uploaded during that time. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:04, 19 December 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.

Request for Comment - The Sensorites

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD closure as questions about process have been answered. No further discussion in two weeks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:59, 27 December 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.

---

File:Sensorites.jpg - picture was removed on the basis of a "consensus" of one person see here. The image was not tagged on the page, there was no link placed on the article talk page, or the project talk page, or the up-loaders talk page - in short absolutely NO attempt was made to let anybody know that the image was being discussed. - is this REALLY acceptable? 94.193.96.26 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The file was tagged for review and there where three people in that discussion, not one. It doesnt matter if 1000 people commented, its based off the validity of the policy arguments made. NFCR isnt a vote, and the usefulness of that image does not meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the requirements of WP:NFCR and WP:CONSENSUS were followed in the simple application of WP:NFCC (which is policy). All policy was followed, you simply do not like the outcome, you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless you have new information that was not discussed prior, this discussion should be closed. This page is for the actual discussion of non-free images, and whether or not they meet the criteria set forth in our policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote. my point was, how can you have a proper discussion when the thing is quietly stuck away on a page in a deliberate attempt to get rid of it without anyone knowing about it? - I've seen discussions for page articles where there's actual links on the page itself and/or a talk page - this is rather like opening an AFD and only notifying people you know will agree with you. 94.193.96.26 (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

But as the discussion is about the file, the file and the uploader are the only required places to inform of the discussion. This is the practice of all of the file space. The same is true for WP:FFD & WP:PUF discussions. WP:AFD is of course, much different. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• We should always remember that non-free content is only justified when significant use is being made of that content, such that its added value exceeds the conceptual dilution of copyright value. The main reason it appears to have been deleted here is for lack of such use, particularly the lack of comment on the image. In general though, a screenshot for a TV program (let alone one story in a long, major series, where the characters of that story were unique) has long been accepted here as a suitable case for NFC (assuming of course that we then comply with the details).

A good editor might remedy this situation by working to improve the article so as to make better use of the NFC image. Editors more focussed on bureaucracy and uninterested in an encyclopedia will instead latch onto this merely as an excuse to delete yet another image. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Good thought, except this image is a poor example of the episode. From the previous discussion here, the image shows the back of the heads of the Sensorites and therefore the only significance of the image is that the Doctor met the Sensorites. Nothing that could not be replaced by text. I would support a better image showing the Sensorites, because that would be extremely helpful to the understanding of the article, the plot of the episode and what the heck these things are. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are talking about the likely removal/deletion of a specific single file that has exactly one use, we need to stop using NFCR for that purpose; FFD is explicitly set for that goal. NFCR should be about extaneous uses of a single file, or a problem with one or more files (but of no specificity) on a given page. I think I will start speedy-closing discussions about a single-use single file NFCR for deletion as an inappropriate venue. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely support this and will assist with this as well . -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:25, 12 December 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:The Tilled Field.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Policy-backed consensus holds that image fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in all articles except the painting and artists articles. If there are disagreements about that specific guideline or others, those opinions should be discussed at the appropriate talk page or by opening a WP:RFC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:04, 27 December 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 fails WP:NFC#UUI §6, except in the painting and painter articles. The painter article might fail WP:NFCC#3a overall. In some of the articles, the image fails WP:NFCC#1, as the image just describes an art style, but there are free paintings of the same art style. Stefan2 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Major work by a major artist - Miro's paintings are needed inclusions in several articles; frankly the guidelines need an overhaul...Modernist (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, the visual arts projects needs to conform to WP-wide and Foundation-mandated requirements for minimal non-free use. We are not an art appreciation textbook, we are an encyclopedia, and for purposes of minimizing non-free, links to notable works are perfectly workable solutions instead of galleries of non-frees that are not the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong the delete the image project needs to reform the guidelines...Modernist (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about deletion? The work is notable and has its own page, there's no call for deletion here. Just minimization. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Truth is we need to use this image in more articles not less - because Miro is a major artist and this is one of the very few representative works available to us; we don't have an over abundance of his paintings to work with. We can upload others, for each and every article I suppose; that seems counter-productive, minimal use is served by using the one...Modernist (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We need to minimize non-free, including reuse of the same image when a link would suffice. This is not to say multiple uses aren't allowable - in this case, the clear allowances are on Miro's page and as comparison to the original Garden on the Garden page. But every other use is hard to justify because the work is not identified on its own (with appropriate sourcing) as a key work of Western or 20th Century painting. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2—you say the image "just describes an art style". Describing an art style is I think one of the most important aims in writing about art in an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Masem—what is an "art appreciation textbook"? Is this something distinct from an educational source such as an encyclopedia? Bus stop (talk)

Yes. It is a textbook, and that's one of the things that we are not. I'm not an art major, but from what I've seen of such works and what I know from my experience in other creative arts like the written word and music, art appreciation textbooks go into great deal in how one should interpret works, etc, or to showcase many images of an artist to have the reader understand the style of the artist or the school or the period, but leaving that as exercises to the reader. We need to be more direct as an encyclopedia, and instead of making the reader come to appreciate these things, instead state what secondary sources have stated we should take away from the works, and to that end we don't need endless sets of examples to show this. If the reader needs to know more, we link to external sources that do not have a free content mission that will have countless examples to review. That's the key point - we are not meant to be the end-all for art study but the tip of the iceberg, and so art inclusion on such articles should be minimal particularly if its non-free. (Even with free images, we advice people to avoid huge galleries in article space but point to Commons categories if they want to see more). --MASEM (t) 03:35, 13 December 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:Monterrey-Flash-logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus for use of image which no longer fails WP:NFCC#10c. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:09, 27 December 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.

---

Violates WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#UUI §14 in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that we generally allow a new logo to be used in season articles in which the new logo was introduced (this would be that case even though it is also its first season) then the #10c can be fixed (adding that rationale) and would be appropriate there. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 19 December 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:Pokemon gb ashandpikachu.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that image fails WP:NFCC#1 & #8 in the Overworld article and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:29, 29 December 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.

---

In Overworld, the use violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, as a free screenshot of an overworld from a free game could be created, and Pokémon Yellow's overworld is not discussed in the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a concept that can be represented by a freely created mockup, if there aren't already freely-licensed video games screenshots that show it (for the Overworld article, that is). --MASEM (t) 23:31, 20 December 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.

TimedText:Requiem for a Dream rapid cuts.ogv.en.srt

Non-Admin Closure: This is an issue that editor discussion at WP:NFCR cannot fix. As this is an automated addition, a discussion would need to take place in a more suitable location.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:26, 29 December 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 page violates WP:NFCC#9. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to fix the issue. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that in the TimedText: namespace, the video file is automatically added if the name matches up. That's the software doing that (it happens at commons too), not a user, so arguably there's little we can do about it from NFC wise without getting the devs to adjust the behavior of TimedText: namespace, or assert that such captioning cannot be applied to non-free video files. I'm a little hesistent to force the latter as it is quite possible to have a non-free video where both the imagery and the spoken text (through captions) are both important to see and their timing. As such, I think we have this automatic addition is out of our control (though if someone purposely adds NFC to those TimedText pages, we still deal with it as #9 violations). --MASEM (t) 15:11, 21 December 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:Xeno series logo (2013).png

Non-Admin Closure: Move to appropriate location (WP:PUF) at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 28#File:Xeno series logo (2013).png.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:12, 28 December 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.

---

Uploader claims pd-textlogo, but image seems to be beyond TOO due to brushstrokes and the whitish splotches of paint on the "x". Also the X does not seem uniform in font to the other letters. thoughts? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Invalid {{PD-textlogo}} claim, but this should go to WP:PUF instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 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.