Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

File:ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.svg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The local file page has been deleted as this image exists on Commons with a PD licence. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2014 (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 file's license section says it only allows identification and critical commentary, however it is used in user page info boxes which looks like a violation of WP:NFCCP#9 "only in article namespace".--Skyfiler (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is very likely a uncopyrightable image - simple text and shape (the circle). But if it is non-free, yes, it has to be removed from said userboxes. --MASEM (t) 07:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the file, and it's actually a Commons file licensed as PD-ineligible. The non-free templates were added to the local file page of the same image yesterday by Umais Bin Sajjad. So I think it would be best to just delete the local page with the non-free details. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2014 (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:Daktronics logo.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD close as there is no opposition that the image is pd-textlogo.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:25, 28 January 2014 (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.

PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how the United States copyright office would treat this one, but note that the blue figure could be created by merging and/or overlapping some simple geometric shapes (a blue square, a blue semi-circle, a white circle and a white semi-circle), so this might lack the amount of creativity required for copyright protection. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the image is PD-textlogo as the image can be easily recreated with simple shapes. I do not think the logo passes TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 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:Arena Football Logo 1987-2002.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Close as moot. The initiator of this discussion changed the file's license to {{PD-textlogo}}, and therefore it's outside of this page's scope. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:49, 28 January 2014 (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.

It was initially removed from the Arena Football League and restored by the uploader. I'm bringing it here as it appears to fail WP:NFCC#8, since there's no sourced discussion of the logo in the text. Mosmof (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The uploader appeared to just copy/paste the rataionale from the current logo, as it mentioned the sponsorship aspect which is in the new logo but not this old logo. And since the old logo is never discussed in text, it would fail NFC.

I do offer the possibility of this being a uncopyrightable image in the US. If the logo were just the text and goalposts, it would clearly pass as an uncopyrightable image. The football shape is what is tickling creativitiy and I would think that this might fail the TOO test, but I would get more opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I see your response, the best thing might be to move the file to Commons as a free (but trademarked) logo. Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I just recommend waiting to get one or two additional opinions if its free/uncopyrightable in the US. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Masem that the image without the football is PD-textlogo as it fails TOO. But I believe that the football just barely pushes it over. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see the football being any more complex than the "W" in the Best Western logo that's sort of the benchmark for TOO. Mosmof (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (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.

Arthur Dove

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Policy backed consensus to remove three of the listed images. The Intellectual has previously been removed, and Me and the Moon & Nature Symbolized or Reefs are to be removed per WP:NFCC#8.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:18, 27 January 2014 (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 have 5 free files to provide examples of is work do we really need 5 more non-free examples? Werieth (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that Arthur Dove is one of the most important 20th century American modernist painters - yes we need these images. And to make matters worse the above editor who was recently blocked for edit-warring and was warned for his attitude towards these somewhat debatable guidelines - Werieth attempted to DELETE nearly ALL of Dove's images - a few days ago. I'm removing the ugly banner he just placed on the Dove article, it's on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My original and subsequent edits where removing 5-7 non-free files used in a gallery. Which is totally unacceptable under policy. None of your reverts provide any kind of rationality for their inclusion except WP:ILIKEIT. If the works are notable they should warrant individual articles, otherwise we dont need that many non-free examples of his work when we have such a large number of free images to use. Werieth (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

While the article does need more text; that is your erroneous opinion. Reminds me too much of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3 minimal usage isn't my opinion, its policy. We cannot justify 5 additional non-free examples of his work when we have 5 free examples. WP:NOTDIR we don't need to provide samples for each of his works. Take the 5 free and possibly 1-2 non-free examples and use that. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Great paintings and other works of visual art speak for themselves. Clearly you are clueless regarding the merit of visual art - perhaps you might find a new line of editing and leave the visual arts alone...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop your personal attacks now, or I will take you straight to ANI. We are not a directory of art, we dont provide examples of every artists every work. Werieth (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is actually worse than I thought, taking a look at the 5 files:

Not a one of them are referenced in the text except for the listing of his works at Arthur Dove#Selected list of works not sure how much more of a flagrant violation of WP:NFCC we can get. Werieth (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop issuing threats...Modernist (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no discussion at all about his painting style or identifying any particular work of his as a core example of his style. We have 5 free images that show a good range of his style, and while there are obvious style differences in the non-frees, without any discussion about this, they are not permissible. (As a note, barring change to copyright law, I believe 3 of theme will fall into the PD within the next two years). --MASEM (t) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added plenty of discussion, re- the paintings; more to come...Modernist (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got justication sufficient to keep "Tanks" and one of either "the Critic" or "The Intellectual", but the other two are still unnecessary per the given text. Also, you will need a non-free of the person for the infobox (which I see there are some though I'm having a difficult problem tracing publication at the immediate time.) Remember: you can use ELs to point to websites which feature the artist's work too; you do need need to show every bit of work the person has done for an encyclopedia article. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no agreement here - the images are fine - no one agreed to the removal of any image...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2014 (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:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There is a consensus, that the image is replaceable. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:52, 28 January 2014 (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 use of File:Tsar Dusan's coin.gif does not meet the NFC criteria: the photograph is replaceable. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a 14th century coin so definitely the design is free, and the copyright is the photographer's with respect to lighting and angle. The question becomes if that coin is readibly available to the public to take photography of in some museum or the like (the free replacement), and that's not clear enough to know. I will say that if it cannot be replaced, its unclear if the file can be used as NFCC (to illustrate the figure minted on coins, as opposed to the coin itself) --MASEM (t) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like all of the coins on the National Bank of Serbia's website are part of their visitors center and the coins are readily available for viewing (see http://www.nbs.rs/export/download/flash/NBS_panorama_04.swf for a panorama of the visitors center). As the coins are readily available to the general public, the image is replaceable and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1 and should be deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagged {{subst:rfu}} for that reason. As this is an old file, we will have to wait for a week until an administrator can take a look at that tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have done that and I usually do, but the last time I did that to an image that is being discussed here, an admin removed the tag with the edit summary: "lets see what happens at WP:NFCR first." -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Since a WP:NFCR discussion can't end with deletion, but just with removal from an article, it seems better to handle deletions through normal criteria such as {{subst:rfu}} instead of depending on WP:CSD#F5, should the file be deemed to be unsuitable for the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2014 (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.

BBC Television Shakespeare

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Consensus is, that the article can carry 9 non-free images. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:45, 28 January 2014 (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 really support 9 non-free images? Werieth (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably yes : there is attempts to source discussion about the set or costume design of the particular works. It probably could be argued that each of the play productions could have its own notable article and there would be no issue at all about a singular image on each of those pages with that discussion; to "penalize" the choice of keeping these in one cohesive article by limited non-free would be a problem. There may be a couple (like the overhead map one, and the image from Tidus) that are less discussed and could be removed, but I do think that how the information is presented, this article can support a larger-than-usual number of non-free. (no more than what is present, of course) --MASEM (t) 16:14, 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:MAG osmani.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#10c in two articles, but not WP:NFCC#10a as a source has been provided. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:31, 28 January 2014 (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 and WP:NFCC#10c in two articles. Also seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a: only source is a deleted Commons file. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The original photo, before the darkening, does appear to be a book, newspaper, or magazine scan, but we'd definitely need that source to affirm its prior publication. What hits I get from GIS seem to all pull from the WP version, but its hard to tell given the number of foreign language hits. The uses on two pages not about him are improper uses even if 10c is met. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The original source listed as http://peperonity.com/go/sites/mview/lal-sabuj/31326094/36687505. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (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:CNNAirport.network.logo.gif

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: No consensus that the image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:35, 27 January 2014 (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.

If File:CNNAirport.svg is correctly marked as a PD-textlogo, then this should be one, too. Otherwise, as a former logo not discussed in the text, it fails WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably no, as the way the plane shape is drawn is different from the commons version, though I'd even argue the commons version is not simple enough to be there. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 22 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.

CNN

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: There is consensus to remove all images except nightscope image per WP:NFCC#8.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:40, 27 January 2014 (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 concerns the following images found in the CNN article:

Since four non-free images is a bit excessive, some should be removed (WP:NFCC#3). Additionally, each image probably also fails WP:NFCC#8:

File:CNN Launch June 1, 1980.jpg: appears to only show that CNN existed. This is unacceptable. Nowhere is the early on-air presentation of CNN discussed, which might justify the usage of the image.
File:CNN Gulf War nightscope January 1991.jpg: the image (a blurry night-vision screenshot with a chyron overlaid) adds little to the discussion of CNN's coverage of the First Gulf War.
File:CNN Breaking News 911.jpg: this is a closer case, but the screenshot adds little to what is already discussed in the text about CNN's breaking coverage of 9/11. The screenshot could be used to discuss how CNN presented the breaking news about 9/11 to the public, but this is not discussed in the article.
File:CNN HD-American Morning 1080.png: this is used next to a discussion of CNN's HD programming. A screenshot really isn't necessary to illustrate that CNN had HD coverage, unless specific changes for HD are discussed in the article (which they are not).

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all, save on the gulf war one, though this is a case of where the image may be better used. "Night vision" shots of Iraq during that time is part of the legacy of coverage of the war, though not necessarily unique to CNN. I don't know if there's a special article discussing the reporting of the war but that's where this image could easily be justified under NFCC#8 (with a bit of sourcing work) --MASEM (t) 20:11, 22 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:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion should be taken to WP:PUF for images that are marked free but are possibly unfree. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:56, 27 January 2014 (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.

Like File:Emblem of the Commonwealth of Nations.jpg this should be a fair use image and not {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and requires FUR for usage. LGA _talk^edits 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files instead of here as the file isn't currently tagged as non-free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:43, 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:Windows 7 Hearts Shooting the moon with perfect score.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it can be replaced by a free image of a scorecard.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:57, 27 January 2014 (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 the scorecard PD-ineligible? If not, this is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC#1 (free scoresheet could be uploaded or screenshot from a free hearts game) and WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded. Since the compoutert version of Hearts is the same as the physical One, we don't need to see what a successful shooting the moon is. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 29 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:Logo henry holt.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD closure as there is no opposition that the image is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:02, 27 January 2014 (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.

PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 04:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the logo is no more complex than File:Jeff Ho logo.png which had its copyright refused. Agree that it is PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:27, 5 January 2014 (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:KPTLlogo2013.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No opposition against changing it to a textlogo. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:01, 28 January 2014 (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 image simple enough to be PD-textlogo? my concern is the two partial circles (red and white). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:15, 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.

Images on History of Doctor Who

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the Doctor Who images fail WP:NFCC or WP:NFLIST (per below) and should be removed from those specific articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:07, 27 January 2014 (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:First Doctor colour.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Second Doctor b.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Third Doctor.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Lungbarrow.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC in the history articles. Cover art is normally only appropriate in the article about the item itself; see the footnote to WP:NFCI §1. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in those two articles as there isn't an individual FUR for each of the articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Eighth Doctor.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Ninth Doctor.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Tenth Doctor b.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Violates WP:NFCC#10c: there is no individual fair use rationale for each article. Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Eleventhdoctornew.jpg

Violates WP:NFLISTS in History of Doctor Who. Consult the character article instead. Stefan2 (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The use of the images are fine on the individual pages, but their use on the broadcast history is inappropriate; as that page is out of universe, images of the new Doctors can be shown via free imagery of the actors that played them with links to the Doctor pages for the in-character poses. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And the Lungborrow cover is only appropriate on the book's article, not the other two. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (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:Rankin-bass-1969.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD close as there is no opposition to the image not being pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:16, 27 January 2014 (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.

Could this logo be considered pd-textlogo? It seems extremely simple, just text, a rectangle 2 circles and a rounded rectangle. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In the US , yes (and I think Rankin-Bass were such). --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That is correct, both of the founders Arthur Rankin, Jr. and Jules Bass were American. It is was an American production company and both conglomerate former owners Warner Bros. and DreamWorks Classics are American companies. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:09, 2 January 2014 (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:WLFM-LP logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is PD-textlogo.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:25, 27 January 2014 (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.

PD-TEXT? Please note that file has definite non-free orphaned revision. Levdr1lp / talk 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

New logo definitely is in PD-text. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Update non-free orphaned revision has been deleted. Levdr1lp / talk 09:51, 9 January 2014 (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 Biography Channel 2000.svg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: consensus is the image is PD-logo-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:29, 27 January 2014 (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.

Looks like a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, should be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 January 2014 (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:OSCmeetings.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image should only be used on First Meetings article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:32, 27 January 2014 (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.

Use outside of First Meetings seems to have little contextual significance (NFCC#8). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Except for the Ender's Game short, the other articles that the image is used in have nearly no notability, and it would better to merge all those into a single article about the collection, reducing the non-free to one. The Ender's Game short could be merged here, or could be expanded on the main Ender's Game book page. Either way, the usage can be cut down completely to one proper use. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Or simply removing the files, which would invite a bit less drama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (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:FaithOfMyFathers.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is only necessary on the article about the book itself. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:38, 27 January 2014 (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.

Needed in the articles where it's used? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate on the book article but completely inappropriate on the John McCain article. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely needed in the article on the book, as the cover image viscerally illustrates the three generation of military McCains, which is the central subject and theme of the work. Regarding the use in the McCain biographical article, the discussion at the time may be found at Talk:John_McCain/Archive_11#Removal_of_book_cover. The editor arguing for it to be in, Ferrylodge, is now User:Anythingyouwant, so this mention will ping him. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi WTR, Happy New Year. Regardless of whether the fair use rationale is adequate, it is doubtful that this image of the cover of Faith of My Fathers is even protectable by copyright. In other words, it may be eligible for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag, being ineligible for copyright and in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. The image of McCain, as well as the image of his relatives, are both public domain. See here and here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it could be considered nonfree because the arrangement of images can be considered creative enough. But this is not a sure thing. I agree that ignoring the placement, the rest of the elements are pd or uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Image removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (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:Eva Julia Neer.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Acceptable as a non-free image. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:57, 28 January 2014 (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.

copyrighted image located at http://archives.focus.hms.harvard.edu/1995/Dec1_1995/On_the_Quad.html reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with its usage under NFC/fair use. Neer is deceases so NFCC#1 can't apply, and the photo from the Harvard publication isn't a press photo, so NFCC#2 is fine. This is an allowed use. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (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:RadioShack Logo 2013.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Consensus is, that the image is a PD-logo. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:52, 28 January 2014 (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 seems to be a PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, PD-logo for a US company. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (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:CoalChamber.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

File was speedy deleted by January per F7. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:47, 28 January 2014 (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.

Replaceable - a currently active group, free image could be obtained. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I looked to see if maybe there was a major band lineup change that would make an older shot appropriate but these four seem to be the same current four in the band and they are still active. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There are free images of all four members of the band (whilst playing the same gig) at Commons which could easily be made into a single image for the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (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:Fewclick home1.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File was speedy deleted by Mark Arsten per F5. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This violates WP:NFCC#10c as the article isn't, despite the claim in the FUR, specifically dedicated to a discussion about this screenshot. Maybe it is {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, this is a candidate for CSD/AFD (the only external source is Alexa page rankings, and that's not helping). The screenshot, if made by a WP user, however, should be PD-text. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 12 January 2014 (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:Diplo Logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mark as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Malta}}. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:28, 28 January 2014 (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 is too simple, thus ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineligible for copyright in USA, yes. Possibly not in Malta. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (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:Advanced Format 4Kn logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

{{archive top|There is clear consensus, that it's too simple for copyright protection. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)}} Too simple, ineligible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This image consists of simple geometric shapes and text only, so it shouldn't meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. — Dsimic (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree—this does not meet in the threshold for originality needed for copyright. It might still have trademark issues but I have serious reservations about copyrights on such an image. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2014 (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:Odan.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Consensus is, that the image should be removed from the list article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:27, 28 January 2014 (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.

Trill (Star Trek) is now a redirect, this image no longer qualifies for fair use as its only use is a list article. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (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:Living in the Material World LP side one face label.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Consensus is against using the image on the song articles. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:20, 28 January 2014 (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 an image of an album (the CD/LP, not the cover as such) used in four articles about songs from the album. While it's generally held that a single album cover in the article about the song (or a lone single cover in an article about a song) is acceptable, there's never been any consensus that album covers (or scans of LPs) can/should illustrate articles about songs featured. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is no identification image (a cover of a single) for a notable song, the album cover is not an acceptable replacement. These extra uses must be removed. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCI §1 says that images like this may be used in an article about "the item". In this case, "the item" appears to be the LP itself, so this image only belongs in an article about the LP. If no such article exists, or if, as in this case, the article is illustrated by a cover image rather than a picture of the LP, then this image should normally not be used anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, as the uploader, this breaks my heart, JM! Okay ... might as well deal with this face-label issue in its entirety, because I've uploaded a number of similar LP images for use in song articles, and they would all appear to fit this discussion. Pretty sure the following is the complete list:
File:Living in the Material World LP side one face label.jpg, File:Living in the Material World LP side two US face label.jpg, File:Dark Horse LP side 1 face label.jpg, File:Dark Horse LP side 2 face label.jpg, File:Extra Texture album side 2 face label.jpg (misnamed – actually side 1), File:Extra Texture US face label side 2.jpg, File:All Things Must Pass LP face label side 1.jpg, File:All Things Must Pass face label side 2.jpg, File:All Things Must Pass side three face label.jpg, File:All Things Must Pass side four face label.jpg, File:Side one face label for 1973 Ringo LP.jpg, File:Ringo LP side 2 face label.jpg and File:George Harrison 33 & a third album side one face label.jpg. Btw, the Dark Horse side 2 image has been up at FFD for a while.
No point in waiting for you to pick up each one in isolation, I guess. I'm mighty disappointed to see them go, of course. I could argue (and have done elsewhere) that they all appear in articles that are in-depth and substantial: it's not a case of just using non-free content recklessly and turning Wikipedia into some album-image depository. So I really struggle with the rationale that allows song articles with a minimum of text – eg, Wings (Ringo Starr song), It's What You Value and Oh My My (Ringo Starr song) – to each carry a non-free image, just because they were released on a single. The letter-of-the-law aspect aside, those examples should pose a far greater legal threat, you'd think, in that the images are being used for the sake of it, with so little in the way of encyclopaedic content and discussion in the articles.
There might be one or two instances where I'll try to retain an image, if it seems particularly relevant to an article. (I won't make a point of looking to do so, by any means; just want to be straight about the possibility, rather than appearing to have reneged in some way.)
I'll start ditching the images from the articles tomorrow, so that they're orphaned and ripe for speedy deletion. (Poor little blighters ...) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal issue (from the specific standpoint), it's about minimizing non-free. We allow for non-free to identify the topic that is being written about in the article as part of its marketing and branding. But that means the item being used for the cover art has to be what identifies that topic and not something simply related to it. Thus if a song is released as a single, either it has its cover from it being released as a single, or it doesn't. I will note that this use of cover art is a community consensus thing but as you note and something I agree with in opposition to the community choice, most cover art does not really help the topic in question even if it fits the letter of the "law". Unfortunately this is the community's decision on how cover art is handled. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 28 January 2014 (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:Hutchinson Lilley Investmnets Logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No need to discuss - this should right to WP:FFD. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Logo now orphaned. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2014 (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:Vetri VizhaKamal.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obvious violation removed Werieth (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2014 (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: used twice in the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2014 (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:Lt. Col. Goda Varma Raja.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obvious violation removed Werieth (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2014 (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.

Used in three articles, but fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles and WP:NFCC#8 in two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2014 (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:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments9 people in discussion

To be removed from all articles except the one on the work itself: Campbell's Soup Cans. The fair use rationales for other articles were defective, e.g. "The image is only being used for informational purposes to depict the most important art work in the article" – if it is the most important work in the article why is it not discussed in detail but shown in a simple gallery at the bottom of the article? Pop art already displays another painting by Warhol so this image wasn't needed there either. The minimal extent of use criterion applies as well, i.e. if the work is important in the context of other articles, please link to the main article where the picture may well be displayed. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2014 (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 Campbell's Soup Cans. Also fails WP:NFG in multiple articles. Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove all but from article in work itself. The fact most of the uses share the exactly same rationale shows little effort to selectively puck the images use. It certainly fails on the product article about Campbell's soup. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So modify the rationales and remove from the product article...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That won't fix the issue. The image simply doesn't need to be seen in so many articles when a link will do. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all. The article about the artwork itself is a very obvious exception, where it is the main subject. Sionk (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that no policy suggests that an artwork be singled out for..critique as a prerequisite to its image being included in an article. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a vendetta against works of contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Bus stop - Try Point 7. I don't see a vendetta, but these are non-free images and they shouldn't be used ...erm ...freely. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sionk—I think you are linking to the following: "7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Yet you said: "Agree with Stefan2 and Masem, the image is being mis-used in Wikipedia articles where the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." The policy language that you are now pointing to does not support your original assertion. In the future I think that you and Masem and Stefan should stop linking to policy codes and instead quote policy language. You are not a machine and I am not a machine. We should be speaking in plain English, quoting policy language where necessary. The language in policy that you are quoting makes an allowance for the inclusion of "images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Therefore this image belongs in articles where it serves to illustrate "a particular technique or school." Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Per your quoted bit, to be used in articles on particular schools, there needs to be critical commentary in that art as a representative sample of that school. Without commentary it can't be used. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Masem—the policy language does not say that the work of art has to be "singled out for…critique". Sionk's complaint is that "the artwork isn't singled out for any critique at all." But the policy language days nothing about any artwork being "singled out for…critique". Policy language allows for the use of "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Editors can debate if an artwork illustrates a particular technique or school. But if editorial WP:consensus concludes that an image is illustrative of a particular technique or school—that should probably be sufficient for inclusion. Policy language says nothing about concocting wording in article space relating to an artwork, as a justification for inclusion of its image. The Warhol "Campbells Soup Cans" are included in articles where they illustrate a school, namely Pop art. For instance, under "Pop art", at the 20th-century Western painting, the "Campbells Soup Cans" illustrate this movement. Our policy language is supportive of this use. And the language already in the article relates to the "Campbells Soup Cans": "Earlier in the fall of 1962 a historically important and ground-breaking New Painting of Common Objects exhibition of Pop art, curated by Walter Hopps at the Pasadena Art Museum sent shock waves across the Western United States. Campbell's Soup Cans (sometimes referred to as 32 Campbell's Soup Cans) is the title of an Andy Warhol work of art (see gallery) that was produced in 1962. It consists of thirty-two canvases, each measuring 20 inches in height x 16 inches in width (50.8 x 40.6 cm) and each consisting of a painting of a Campbell's Soup can—one of each canned soup variety the company offered at the time. The individual paintings were produced with a semi-mechanised silkscreen process, using a non-painterly style. They helped usher in Pop art as a major art movement that relied on themes from popular culture. These works by Andy Warhol are repetitive and they are made in a non-painterly commercial manner." The relevance of the text goes on and on. Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You just quoted policy that requires critical commentary to include an image, so to say it doesn't exist is bogus. Consensus of editors cannot include an image of nonfree claimed as an important work without sourcing, otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art. Okay, yesd Warhol is mentioned as a leader in the school so one example is appropriate, but already exists a Warhol painting in the body so the one in the gallery is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello? They all have Fair Use Rationales and are allowed and encouraged to be used by the WMF. The foundation has rules and all of these images are in perfect sync with those guidelines. Maybe you Sionk should read them...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The extra uses fail the goal of minimal nonfree use set by the Foundation. One use of a famous painting on an article about the painting or the artist, if the work is not that notable, is in line. Plastering the same image on other articles without critical discussion is not, which is the case here, though a link is just fine. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Masem—you say "…otherwise that is original research. Now in the Pop art article there is mention of the 32 can painting, but bnothing of its relevance to Pop art."[1] What would its "relevance [be] to Pop art"? It is Pop art. It is an example of Pop art. Bus stop (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some curious elements to the history of this file. It went into use in 2011, but the current description page show that the file was uploaded on April 2013. I am curious if any of the pages that were using the prior file got lost in the switchover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In 2011, after the image was changed from File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA reduced 80%.jpg to File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg the first was deleted as orphaned. So unless someone deleted the use of the prior one without adding the current one (which was probably uploaded around 2011, but resized in April 2013), there should not be any issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. Why does the file history only show April 2013?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Old versions of nonfree images where a newer version has been uploaded are routinely revdeleted, hence why this version is only showing the last uploaded version. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Masem What does revdeleted mean?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion - Removing specific changes from a file's history. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why that was necessary to merely shrink a file. Why not just save over it so the revision history exists. The file that was likely created in 2011 was probably only different than the current in terms of resolution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That is what was done. A smaller version of the filed was uploaded at the same location, and later the old larger version - still stored in the file history - was revdeled. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense and is it possible for me to request an unrevdelete. It is something that does not make sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Here's what I can tell:

Original image uploaded in 2007 but at huge size.
You, Tony, uploaded an 80% reduction of this image to a separate file in 2008.
Despite this, the only change in either file as indicative of use was additional rationales oin this file by Modernist about 2011.
Shortly after this, your version was deleted as an orphan, I suspect Modernist did the rerplacement.
Somewhere about then, this original was reduced to a smaller size.
In 2013, the sizse was determined to be too large and was reduced.
After that, the two old versions of this file were deleted, --MASEM (t) 07:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the thinking of a revdelete to eliminate all existence of version of non-free work determined to be too large?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, more for any previous version of a file that is considered redundant when a newer version of the same image is in place. Earlier versions at larger sizes are the most common, but other things like uncropped images or color corrections may be revdeleted too. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion here for something like a "visual arts mediator" to be chosen, someone familiar with the image policies who will help to seek consensus positions when these issues arise. Any comments would be welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read quite a few of the discussions here in order to make sense of a few deletion nominations and NFCRs in my own contributions, I'd say this is a great idea. I find this NFC bickering about seminal modern art paintings very discouraging (not to say ignorant), and there definitely needs to be someone to stand up for the editorial side of things.Nettings (talk) 14:07, 31 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:Alex Katz's 1970 painting of his son 'Vincent with Open Mouth'.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Using non-free images in galleries or as mere illustrations is not in line with the non-free content criteria. As no efforts have been made to describe the importance of this particular work in any article (including Alex Katz) I had to delete it completely. The rationale for inclusion in Alex Katz read "for information, education and analysis", none of which was present in the article as of this revision. Likewise, the inclusion in other articles was not merited per NFC (minimal extent of use, contextual significance, and use in galleries (no explanation has been made in any article why this particular painting is required to understand the styles and development of Pop art or the history of Western painting). De728631 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2014 (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 except in Alex Katz. Fails WP:NFG in numerous articles. Potentially fails WP:NFCC in Alex Katz: this is somewhat similar to WP:NFC#UUI §8 & §9. Stefan2 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

An image such as this is easily justifiable for inclusion in the articles in which it is presently found. Strong keep Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Only appropriate use in Alex Katz (as a representative work of his of discussion). Not needed in the broader Painting articles as a undiscussed example. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—wouldn't this painting be justified for inclusion in the article Pop art? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The painting, much less Alex Katz, is not even discussed in Pop Art save for the image caption; if the work could be described as a preeminent example of pop art (like the Warhol image), then there may be reason to use as an inline example, but right now, that as well as the other images in the Pop art gallery fail NFCC. The current set of images used inline - with the addition of the rubber stamp sculpture as an inline to demonstrated 3D pop art as I've previous argued for, is sufficient to set what the examples of pop are are, while the links to the various pop art artists are there for the reader to learn more and find more images. You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art, but we definitely should be providing ways for readers to find more examples via the artist links. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—you have not suggested a free image for substitution, and you say "You just don't need this particular painting on Pop art to understand pop art". In my opinion the other images in the article are fairly dissimilar to the one under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do I need to suggest a free replacement? My argument standands that 5 images (the 4 presently in inline locations, and the 5th of the rubber stamp sculpture moved into an inline) is a sufficient number of images to represent the otherwise diverse nature of Pop Art while respecting non-free content. Since it is nearly universally the case that all examples of Pop Art are going to be post-1923 and thus likely under copyright, there's no possible free examples, but what I'm saying is that removing this and the other gallery images do no require a free replacement, as "no image" is considered an acceptable replacement for non-free in such cases. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—our aim at this article is to educate the reader about Pop art. How are you helping that aim by arguing for the removal of this image? We are including images that exemplify Pop art and yet you are arguing for the removal of one of those images. Editorial discretion should play a role in determining what images are found in an article such as this. Other editors feel that the image should be in the article. Are you an editor involved in writing this article? Do you feel that the remaining images in the article serve the same purpose that the image under discussion serves? I think they are quite different from the image you are proposing for removal. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the article discusses Katz or that work as representative example of pop art, ergo, you can't use it in that article as an example of pop art. Pop art is a hugely diverse school of art, so there is no way you can represent the entire school in one article without severely violating NFC. Instead, you go by how the article points out the modern, bold styles and reuse of everyday objects that formed the basis of pop art, show the handful of examples (5, as I've pointed, which is a fair representation) and provide links for artists for the reader to learn more. That meets NFC policy without taking way from the given text. Editorial discretion does not override NFC policy when it is challenged by others. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—I believe that we are permitted to use non-free images under certain circumstances, and you have not quoted any language from policy showing otherwise. As this is an article about a movement in the visual arts, it follows that representative examples of that "style" (using the word loosely) should be included in the article. This is well within our purpose as creators of educational material. The images in the article are partially the product of editorial discretion. Have you been involved in writing the "Pop art" article? Or are you simply demanding that an image be removed? Please quote language from policy if you feel that you would be justified in removing the image under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wikilaywering again asking for exact policy language, when policy does not work on apply exact language but how it is applied. I have pointed out many many many times how NFC is practically enforced and how it applies here; critically commentary is nearly required in all cases. It doesn't matter if I was involved in writing the article - if I read it and see that it uses too many non-free to get its point across, that is a problem. The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—you say "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement, and a handful (5) of representative examples is all that is necessarily to give that impression. Not 11, and those excess ones (which include this one) should be removed from this." Please quote from the "Pop art" article: where does it say that "The Pop art article explains that the idea of using elements of popular culture in high art is the core of the movement"? Do you see "elements of popular culture" in this image? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nor do I see text explaining why this style is considered pop art, still making it an invalid example to be used. If this is an example of a different style of pop art, there is no text on this page to explain why this is considered pop art so the image would be improper to use. Now, just doing a curosity check, I can easily find a few sources (eg [2]) that explain that Katz' "deadpan evocation of flat, bright figures had an everyday quality that linked them to commercial art and popular culture"; adding this text and additional to explain that pop art is not just incorporating pop culture but containing that commerical art "quality" would be justification to include the Katz as an additional exactly and to contrast with the other current inline pop art examples that are clearly showing elements of the popular culture. This is why contextual significance is important, so that there's no doubt for the inclusion of a picture. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 10 January 2014 (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:Paul Smart and Hilary Smart.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Concerns for second rationale have been resolved. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:56, 2 February 2014 (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.

Did I upload this unfree image correct? It is used in two articles. Are both uses OK in this case? Wirenote (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You need a second rationale for the Hilary Smart page use, but the usage in both is otherwise okay since both men are deceased. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 6 January 2014 (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:Civil Affairs Branch Insignia.gif

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is PD-USGov. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:57, 2 February 2014 (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 pretty sure that this is actually PD-USGov, but I'd like another pair of eyes before I make the change. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it to me. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 6 January 2014 (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:LCN TV logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image violates WP:NFCC with its duplicate use in one article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:05, 1 February 2014 (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.

Used twice in the same article, but only the infobox use is policy-compliant. Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The non-free images should be removed from the table per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:09, 15 January 2014 (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:Hotchkiss gun team.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is PD-1923 being that it was published in 1922. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:03, 1 February 2014 (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.

If this is from 1922, then there is a fair chance that it was published before 1923 in which case the non-free copyright tag should be changed into {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some info about The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine can be found here, but I am not sure whether that's Volume III or not. If the book contained the photograph, it means the image was indeed published in 1922. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:36, 16 January 2014 (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:Ontario Hansard 1953.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is in the public domain in the US due to being below the TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:57, 1 February 2014 (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.

Claimed to be copyrighted in the United States, but likely below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I too don't see anything in this work that could make it eligible for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:28, 15 January 2014 (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:WitchesofEastEndSeason1Poster.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in one article, now is only used in the main article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:55, 1 February 2014 (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. Also fails WP:NFCC#8 in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that those two uses are unnecessary, but note that both uses "might" be appropriate per WP:NFCI#1 iff the text present in those two articles is considered enough critical commentary about the season. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:35, 15 January 2014 (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:Legends of the Hidden Temple (assembling monkey).jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC and is therefore suitable for inclusion in the current article.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:02, 1 February 2014 (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.

(Yes, I know this image is only being used on one article, but I'm not sure I want it deleted, so I am listing it here. If the consensus is to remove it, then this image will be garbage collected along with other orphaned images.)

I would like a second opinion as to whether this meets WP:NFCC#8 in Legends of the Hidden Temple. I'm not aware of a reliable secondary source discussing the graphical presentation of the final round (which would give this contextual significance). Other elements (the Mayan setting, the obstacles), could be described by text alone, and another free image already illustrates the structure of the Hidden Temple. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is the only non-title screenshot, and that particular event is one of the signature events, I think the image is acceptable. Werieth (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Werieth here. The show is notable for that final round (running through the temple), but unfortunately due to age, a broader shot of the overall set - which would be better - would lose relevancy of the types of tasks they have. So this is a suitable replacement and appropriate NFC use. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (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:Astley Cooper School (crest).jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is above the TOO, and is therefore still copyright. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:00, 1 February 2014 (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.

Unsure whether this meets WP:TOO or not. Without the small deer emblem, I'd be almost certain it didn't meet TOO, but perhaps the emblem pushes it above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the school's in England, which has a lower originality threshold than the US, I would say it is considered creative enough for copyright. It would be a different case if it was a US school. --MASEM (t) 18:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case the file should be tagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The drawing of the animal is definitely too complex for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Could the use of the animal image in this file be considered de minimis then? I guess not, since the animal forms a quite recognizable part of the image. So the image should perhaps just be left 'as is'. Maybe the file redirects should be eliminated, though that is probably not really an issue. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No way that's de minimus use. Image redirects are fine. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (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:2007 stamps of Niger.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Non-Admin Closure: Deleted previously by user Mark Arsten.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:58, 1 February 2014 (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.

Newly orphaned image replaced by free one. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Orphaned; other non-free images available in the original article. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2014 (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:1997 Kids' Choice Awards logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (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:1998 Kids' Choice Awards logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2014 (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:1999 Kids' Choice Awards logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2014 (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:Kids Choice Awards 2000 logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (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:2001 Kids' Choice Awards logo.png

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (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:Kcalogo2003.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (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:Kcalogo2005.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (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:Kcalogo2006.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (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:KCAlogo2007.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (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:Kcalogo2008.PNG

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (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:Kca10-logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (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:2012 KCA logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2014 (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:Logo for the 2013 Kids Choice Awards.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2014 (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 other criteria in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2014 (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:Kcaph.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Files removed, 10c not an issue for this notice board Werieth (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2014 (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) 16:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why WP:NFCC#NFCC10 should ever be reason to delete an image, rather than simply fixing the issue (not the rationale, merely its correct recording)

However whilst I might see this meeting NFCC for Nickelodeon Philippines Kids' Choice Awards (where it isn't currently used (removed here), but IMHO could be) it fails WP:NFCC#NFCC8 for Nickelodeon (Philippines), the only place it is currently in use. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2014 (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.