Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 46
 | 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
_-_Google_Art_Project_(reduced).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Unilever brands
- 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 took this to WP:OTRSN, but the section was ignored, so I'm taking it here before a potential copyvio is noted. I'm going to quote what I said there:
According to tickets: #2011101710007029, #2011091510017435 and #2011102010007675, respectively from File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg, File:Dove logo.jpg and File:Logo Knorr.jpeg, Unilever Russia released them under a CC license. I like to know if the permission covers only these images or if it can be exanded to our fair-use images File:Dove dove.svg and File:Knorr.svg to stop labelling them as fair-use, or this should be taken to WP:NFR? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
So, are our fair use files not fair use because of this? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would see about others' opinions but I would agree that if the jpgs are in the CC, SVG recreations (as derivative works) would also be free. --MASEM (t) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I've left another note Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Unilever_Brands hoping for someone with more experience than I to give clarification, especially since we would have to license these images under the same licenses as those above (as derivatives) and potentially link to the OTRS ticket. Hopefully there will be response this time. I am inclined to agree with Masem, but if any Admin or OTRS member has concrete evidence, I would support this discussion being closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm an OTRS member. We did in fact receive what appears to be a valid permission & release for the following files:
- File:Dove logo.jpg
- File:ВОССТАНОВЛЕНИЕ И ОБЪЕМ.jpg
- File:Dove_урепляющий.jpg
- File:Dove150mlBeautyFinish.jpg
- File:Dove_150ml8709427.jpg
- File:UN corp dovelogo.jpeg
- File:Logo Knorr.jpeg
- The license specified in the tickets were all Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike v1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0. The email came from a legitimate source and there is no reason to doubt its validity. Feel free to wait for a third opinion. :-) Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As the 2 logos mentioned at the top (Dove, Knorr) are hosted on Commons then, (if the vector versions are concluded to be derivatives under the same free licence) it'd make sense to move them to Commons in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Non-Admin Closure: Image was deleted by admin Mark Arsten, so the discussion is now moot. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 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.
Isn't this {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, I do not know. Copyright can be claimed by organization which, however, is unofficial in terms of any domestic law as was never registered and neither was the logo. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it is PD-ineligible, but the image is originally created in Syria. I cannot find anything about COM:TOO having to do with Syria, so to be on the safe side, I would mark it as {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Syria}}. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if it's too simple to be eligible for copyright. Afterall, it's just a star and three letters - basic geometry and text? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I dont know if Im saying something stupid, but cant it be recreated as a free SVG file?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Even if recreated as an SVG, there remains if the design is copyrightable or not. If this was an image from a US organization, it would clearly be ineligible, but if was created in a country like UK, it would not be, and since we have no clear line of what Syria's copyright law is, we need to play it save. It's still okay to use as a logo for the organization in a non-free manner, but that's probably its only allowed use. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is clearly not copyrightable in the United States and as such free for EN Wikipedias purposes. Why does it matter whether this is eligible for copyright protection in Syria? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Even if recreated as an SVG, there remains if the design is copyrightable or not. If this was an image from a US organization, it would clearly be ineligible, but if was created in a country like UK, it would not be, and since we have no clear line of what Syria's copyright law is, we need to play it save. It's still okay to use as a logo for the organization in a non-free manner, but that's probably its only allowed use. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I dont know if Im saying something stupid, but cant it be recreated as a free SVG file?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:20, 15 November 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove All Nite and Just a Little while as they have their own articles. The inside photo is no longer in the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:10, 22 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.
Does this article really need 6 nonfree files, including 4 sound samples? Werieth (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Two of the songs that have samples have standalone articles, so those are unnecessary. I'm not seeing how the inside photo is any different at showing the albums themes of intimacy and romance as the cover, so that's unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove the image per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:12, 22 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.
Random soundtrack cover used in an anime article is not necessary for identification or commentary. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFCI#1 says that cover art from an item (in this case the album) is appropriate for identification in the context of critical commentary of the item to which the cover belongs. The item to which this cover belongs is Simoun Original Soundtrack 2. If what is present in Simoun (anime)#Audio CDs were considered enough critical commentary about Simoun Original Soundtrack 2, then the cover would likely be appropriate. In my opinion that is not the case, as the only reference to the item is the single sentence "Two original soundtracks were released across two albums titled Simoun Original Soundtrack 1 and Simoun Original Soundtrack 2, released by Victor Entertainment on June 21, 2006 and August 30, 2006". Therefore I would argue the cover image should be removed from Simoun (anime). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Essentially this is the same as MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 8 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to keep original and remove re-release poster. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:14, 22 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.
There are two posters: original and re-release. I tried finding sources discussing both of them, but I have no luck. I think we should keep the original and ditch the re-release that is occupying the infobox. George Ho (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's standard. I'd have tried WP:BOLD in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 6 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.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Essentially simple typefaces and two orange curves, so this seems to be below TOO to me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove the image from Terminology article as it fails WP:NFCC#8. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:24, 22 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 in Terminology of the British Isles. Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:49, 18 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove the image failing multiple criteria of WP:NFCC and WP:NFLISTS. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:27, 22 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.
Source page is copyright protected. No proof that uploader had the right to use it on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 21:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- This should be deleted from Chessington World of Adventures Resort for violation of WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 9 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Although the two images are in the public domain in their source countries, they are not in the public domain in the United States. As En.Wp is based in the US, it is subject to US copyright law. Therefore the two images are non-free images in the US and therefore fail WP:NFLISTS and are to be removed. Note: there is also no fair use information on Maclean's image, and it has been previously tagged for deletion as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:32, 22 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.
The non-free files on this page fail WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which ones are they? All the ones I looked at were from Commons (which part of "Commons the free media depository" don't you understand, Stefan ...).
- I mean it's absolutely fantastic that you're doing all this hard work ferretting out types like our Mickey sneaking in NFC in lists the heathen little hun, but do you think you could let us know which ones they are. No point reiventing the ferret, is there? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Will you please tell us which ones they are? Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have now been through all of these. Most of the images are indeed Commons. The following three are PD not challenged by you
- There are just two non-free files
- In the case of Donald Maclean you challenged the image on 13 January 2014 on the grounds that no Fair Use Rationale (FUR) had been provided for it. It's plainly PD.
- In the case of Lees-Smith you challenged its FUR on 26 January 2014 here and the uploader responded 10 February 2014. You didn't challenge the response, rather this would seem to be your response.
- We thus have in a list of 32 images, just two which are of concern, both of them challeneged by you elsewhere and in neither case very credibly. WP:NFLISTS, the basis you are challenging here, remarks: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section", i.e. to say judicious use of such images, as is surely the case here, is not precluded.
- Will you please explain more clearly what your concerns were here.
- In my opinion you must do this Stefan to maintain good faith with this forum, inceed credibility within it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Those two images you point out are not free for purposes of image policy since they are not copyright free under US law. Thus NFCC must apply to them, and used in limited cases. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that was under review in both cases, reviews initiated by Stefan. Whether they actually are copyright free under US law or not is not the issue. I want an explanation from Stefan as to why he introduced WP:NFLISTS here, which is palpably not an issue. I worked hard protecting Wikipedia from copyright infringement here, and my expenditure of time on it does seem very wasted. I really would appreciate an explanation from Stefan, especially after he ignored two requests to clarify his concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: to get his attention. And NFLISTS is an issue as long as those images are considered non-free on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFLISTS is an issue because the images are used in the "List" section on the page, which contains a list of people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, as I quoted. What don't you understand about the English word "judicious" (seriously is English in fact really the problem here - that you're challenged by nuances of the language interpreting the rule book). The issue here is why why you reintroduced two challenges you had already made here in this way, why you did not respond to requests to clarify which of 32 images were involved? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NFLISTS is an issue because the images are used in the "List" section on the page, which contains a list of people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Stefan2: to get his attention. And NFLISTS is an issue as long as those images are considered non-free on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that was under review in both cases, reviews initiated by Stefan. Whether they actually are copyright free under US law or not is not the issue. I want an explanation from Stefan as to why he introduced WP:NFLISTS here, which is palpably not an issue. I worked hard protecting Wikipedia from copyright infringement here, and my expenditure of time on it does seem very wasted. I really would appreciate an explanation from Stefan, especially after he ignored two requests to clarify his concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Those two images you point out are not free for purposes of image policy since they are not copyright free under US law. Thus NFCC must apply to them, and used in limited cases. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion you must do this Stefan to maintain good faith with this forum, inceed credibility within it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:25, 12 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove from the ice hockey season article per WP:NFC#UUI §14. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:36, 22 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 §14 in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Is the coat of arms in this logo copyrighted? If not, then this seems to be {{PD-logo}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Although you didn't specify which article, I'd certainly not use this logo in 2009–10 Alberta Pandas women's ice hockey season even if it was free content. It is completely out of place there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:29, 14 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is PD-textlogo -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 22 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.
Is this {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could you let us rookies know where you're coming from there? Thanks. It looks like an ordinary logo to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. As the template states: This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. So it is not copyrightable as Stefan suggests. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see some of the issues involved around this topic. ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers. Thanks for that ww2censor. I'm offline for the rest of the day, but I'll check it out tomorrow. As to where I myself was coming from with the remark is referenced below: in a nutshell, that these debates ought to be discussed at a level understandable by the uploading editor of the image itself, who probably has no prior idea of the issue involved (likely why she's here after all). I have noticed especially that Stefan2 is extremely reluctant to enter into supportive debate about the issues he raises here. There might be any reasons for this (a language fluency problem perhaps?), but he does he have to show good faith by entering into constructive and supportive debate. Obviously the whole thing is impossible if the editor hasn't a clue what he's going on about. And of course this has to be repeated with every fresh case. That might well indeed be tedious, but it's what he takes upon himself in his lonely self-appointed task here.
- In this case the uploader might reasonably ask: meh, so what? Is Stefan2 saying that when a logo can be reproduced with simple geometric shapes it should be? Where does that come from? For example I see that the Pixar logo in Wikipedia is one such. But why can't a low-resolution image of Pixar's logo (perhaps one with it's brilliant reading-lamp motif) be uploaded equally well? I might experiment with that tomorrow to see what what happens. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I've now uploaded the Pixar Production Studio logo at Pixar. Is this acceptable Fair Use? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not in the infobox, as you did as we have the free text-only logo that was there before. But, there's a section on traditions and it would be reasonable there to show how this logo is used in front of all it's theatrical shorts/films since Luxo Jr. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I've now uploaded the Pixar Production Studio logo at Pixar. Is this acceptable Fair Use? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, it certainly is in U.S. The only non-text part of this is the lime green trapezoid in G. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:16, 14 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Non-free poster entered the public domain, and non-free image was replaced by free Commons version. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:48, 22 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.
The non-free images in this article fail WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- The non-frees are absolutely wrong there - though one image (the race poster) is now in the PD as of last month and tagged as such. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's a nice fuzzy one of Janowski in the Commons here commons:File:Dawid Janowski.jpg but I can't get into the article s it conflicts with the Wikipedia file name. Perhaps one of you ladies can take care of that. I mean of course just as a suggestion and nothing else, only if you actually do that sort of thing. Just trying to help. Pixar logo doing well so far BTW. The day not all wasted thus. Last here for a while. Limited time, have to count some pennies ... Hope it helped. Keep up the good work! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, there are two photos with the same name: File:Dawid Janowski.jpg and Commons:File:Dawid Janowski.jpg. The one on English Wikipedia fails WP:NFCC#1 as the one on Commons is free. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the en.wiki local to File:Dawid Janowski profile.jpg, File:Dawid Janowski.jpg should now be the commons.Note that the en.wiki local version is now non-free orphaned, but I have not tagged it as such in case there's a reason to keep it. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The race poster has been PD in the US and therefore for WP for years. Stuff published before 1923 has been free in the US for decades.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's a nice fuzzy one of Janowski in the Commons here commons:File:Dawid Janowski.jpg but I can't get into the article s it conflicts with the Wikipedia file name. Perhaps one of you ladies can take care of that. I mean of course just as a suggestion and nothing else, only if you actually do that sort of thing. Just trying to help. Pixar logo doing well so far BTW. The day not all wasted thus. Last here for a while. Limited time, have to count some pennies ... Hope it helped. Keep up the good work! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:59, 12 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is is below the TOO in the US. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:50, 22 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.
Isn't this simply {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. It is. What made you doubt at all? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think Stefan refers to the fact that the image isn't currently (as of this post) tagged with a free license tag, but should be. I agree that it is below TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would suggest {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} in view of the UK's low threshold of originality. January (talk) 16:33, 18 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.
Replacement of commons images on en.wiki completed, image deleted from en.wiki --MASEM (t) 15:30, 22 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.
TOO not met, and free at Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 22 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.
- 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.
Commons equivalent is considered exempt. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 22 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.
- 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.
Commons considers this logo to have not met TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 22 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.
- 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.
Commons consider this to be free, and a 1913 image would be PD-US? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 22 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.
Section has been marked as a copyvio and reported appropriately along with talk page notification. Please note that we generally don't include text under the concept of "non-free" since there's a different raft of issues to deal with there and generally advice at WP:COPYVIO is better for text-only problems. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 22 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.
Lengthy quote from copyright encyclopedia article doesn't seem to meet our policy, especially: (1) Free equivalent could be created, (2) Respect for commercial opportunities (original author can publish elsewhere). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Ayesha23 (talk) 15:10, 22 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.
- 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 a previous discussion Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Image discussion a question came up about interpretation of policy. Relevant policy Wikipedia:Non-free content: Unacceptable use: 5. An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article. and Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. An editor was arguing that this article [1] includes the image with commentary. However, the article makes no mention of this image and has no commentary about it. There's nothing iconic about it because it's very similar to lots of other images. Free alternatives are available on Commons. [2] USchick (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- USchick could you clarify your position? You say "Free alternatives are available on Commons" but in other edits you're trying to delete the free alternatives on Commons. Did you change your mind about their deletion, or are you advocating we use the free alternatives until or unless you succeed in deleting them, at which time we should switch back to the current image? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I can only go with what we have right now, and right now there are free images available on Commons. USchick (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- The specific image itself is not the subject of critical discussion (the articles say what's happening, but that's not the critical discussion we need), and currently doesn't help the image. If that image, for example, had specifically sparked attention that civilians including children were being hit by the chemical weapons and subsequently outrage at the world at large, that would be one thing. But the attacks have been widely reported and no imagery was needed to highlight these attacks, and thus the image is extraneous. The free images pointed out certainly would do just the same job showing that the attacks affected people from all walks of life that this non-free is doing as well. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Masem: the image was cited by Human Rights Watch as indicative not just of a child victim, but a child victim showing symptoms of a chemical attack. This specific image was identified, by a third party, as evidence that the attack used sarin. I have not seen any image on Commons that shows a child experiencing symptoms specific to sarin like this, and in any case it would be original research to state that they were experiencing sarin symptoms unless a secondary source had also performed the analysis on that image. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- That specific image is not called out as evidence. I do note from this section of their findings that they looked at "publicly posted YouTube videos from the attacked areas" (emphasis on the plural "videos"), and to me, sure, judging the type of chemical attack used would be a reasonable thing to interpret from that, but there's no evidence that that single image was used for this. As such, you can certainly cite the report and say that they say it was sarin, and you don't need an image to show that, because that's what HRW has done for us. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- From the image caption at [3]: "A still image from a youtube video uploaded by opposition activists following the August 21 alleged chemical attack shows a child victim of the attack frothing form the mouth, a medical condition associated with the exposure to nerve agents such as Sarin." This is a caption of the specific image in question. How do you conclude that there's no evidence that that single image was used for this? VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone's unable to find it, the caption and slideshow are in Flash; you'll need to enable Flash if you haven't already to see the captions (see the image's discussion page.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- They're using that image - as well as several others (plus the videos themselves) - to demonstrate that Sarin was used. We don't have to repeat that image to accurately include their assessment of the attack. It's not being used in a critical manner but an analytical manner. It is not necessary to see that to understand the HRW's conclusion - that Sarin was the likely agent used in the attacks. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- From the image caption at [3]: "A still image from a youtube video uploaded by opposition activists following the August 21 alleged chemical attack shows a child victim of the attack frothing form the mouth, a medical condition associated with the exposure to nerve agents such as Sarin." This is a caption of the specific image in question. How do you conclude that there's no evidence that that single image was used for this? VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- That specific image is not called out as evidence. I do note from this section of their findings that they looked at "publicly posted YouTube videos from the attacked areas" (emphasis on the plural "videos"), and to me, sure, judging the type of chemical attack used would be a reasonable thing to interpret from that, but there's no evidence that that single image was used for this. As such, you can certainly cite the report and say that they say it was sarin, and you don't need an image to show that, because that's what HRW has done for us. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Uploader here. I saw four alternative files in commons, Ghouta_Massacre1 through Ghouta_Massacre4. I removed the Ghouta_Massacre1 from the article (see here [4]) because of WP:RS a while back. (Note that WP:RS is grounds for removing the link to the image in that context, not for deleting the image itself.) All four commons files seem to have the same problem of WP:RS. (As an aside, I can't verify that the other four files are actually Creative Commons as tagged: is there something on the Youtube pages that I'm missing, or were those four files mistagged as CC like many of Wikipedia's images?) FWIW I agree with VQuakr but am not an expert on image policy; my only request is that we have one or more editors who are "un-involved"; I know USchick, like myself and VQuakr, are deeply involved in the Syria pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The commons images do appear to be taken from youtube videos that were posted with Commons-compatible licenses. They do not show the effects of sarin like this one, though, so I do not consider them free equivalents. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, again, even if we don't have free images, do we need to see an image of one of the victims frothing at the mouth to understand the statement: "The HRW used civilian photos and videos to determine that Sarin gas was used in the attack" with a source to that report? Or even "Civilian photographs and videos that showed victims frothing at the mouth led the HRW to conclude that Sarin gas was used in the attack"? You don't need to show what the HRW used to make their conclusion to support their statement. That's the issue where we're lacking critical commentary on the image; it's a data point, not a photo of historical significance. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know what it means for someone to froth at the mouth from Sarin, so I found the picture educational; that's why I uploaded it. Is the mouth completely filled with saliva? How foamy is it? How easily could it be confused with normal drooling? A picture is worth a thousand words. That said, if we can get more non-involved editors (like you, presumably) to weigh in and provide consensus, then obviously we can delete it if that's the consensus. To get an idea of where you're coming from, can you give me an example, say from the Holocaust article, of something where you would agree a disturbing image is "necessary" to understand one of the article's statements? To go out on a limb here, is part of the concern the fact that documentary images here are necessarily going to be disturbing? If so, we should probably speak about and address that tradeoff directly, maybe we can find something less disturbing to replace it with. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- First, to be clear - the issue with this image has absolutely nothing with being "disturbing"; WP does not censor information like this, and while we have the principle of least surprise, a reader reading about these chemical weapon attacks should be well aware that it was a possibly gruesome event and there may be imagery in question.
- Now, I was writing my response to all this, but I've come to realize that there's actually a fair use for this photo, and that is based on what you mentioned that you have no idea what a Sarin-affected victim looked like. Given that there is no way in any sense of the word that we could obtain a free equivalent (It would be one thing for me to subject myself to the common cold to get a picture of me affected by it, but in this case??) In light of what you pointed out about commons, then this image has a very appropriate use over at Sarin as an example of the effects on humans (despite the tragic circumstances it was obtained from), and by extension is likely okay on this Syria article (and that in part is what you mentioned about several of the images about the Holocaust which I know have been discussed and kept in the same "is this historically significant" argument. This is also in light of the fact that you had to remove many of the commons images as likely non-free, eliminating free media that would have otherwise shown the attack's affects. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Even if Masem's argument is to be considered, the place to talk about sarin exposure is in an article about sarin exposure, not a specific attack in one particular place. The photo would still have to meet the other criteria of having to be iconic and discussed in the media. One article with no discussion hardly qualifies. Also, frothing at the mouth has to do with asphyxiation, and not necessarily sarin, so that's not a very good reason. When people die, they lose muscle control so all kinds of fluids and bodily functions leak out, do we need to see that in this article as well? I would direct all discussions about post-mortem imagery to autopsy. Just saying. USchick (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Masem on this and USchick also. Blade-of-the-South talk 08:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Even if Masem's argument is to be considered, the place to talk about sarin exposure is in an article about sarin exposure, not a specific attack in one particular place. The photo would still have to meet the other criteria of having to be iconic and discussed in the media. One article with no discussion hardly qualifies. Also, frothing at the mouth has to do with asphyxiation, and not necessarily sarin, so that's not a very good reason. When people die, they lose muscle control so all kinds of fluids and bodily functions leak out, do we need to see that in this article as well? I would direct all discussions about post-mortem imagery to autopsy. Just saying. USchick (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't know what it means for someone to froth at the mouth from Sarin, so I found the picture educational; that's why I uploaded it. Is the mouth completely filled with saliva? How foamy is it? How easily could it be confused with normal drooling? A picture is worth a thousand words. That said, if we can get more non-involved editors (like you, presumably) to weigh in and provide consensus, then obviously we can delete it if that's the consensus. To get an idea of where you're coming from, can you give me an example, say from the Holocaust article, of something where you would agree a disturbing image is "necessary" to understand one of the article's statements? To go out on a limb here, is part of the concern the fact that documentary images here are necessarily going to be disturbing? If so, we should probably speak about and address that tradeoff directly, maybe we can find something less disturbing to replace it with. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete/Remove image. This image could be replaced by a non-free image, and as such fails WP:NFCC#1. As there is no critical commentary of the image itself, it can be replaced. The frothing that is depicted in the image can occur for more than just chemical attacks, including being the result of disease or exhaustion. Because of this, a free image of a person or child frothing could replace this image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project_(reduced).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Keep - this is almost precisely the sort of situation that the WMF took a stance regarding PD-art photographs. The frame is secondary to the main photograph, which is principally of the artwork in question. When the WMF stated they didn't want to take a stand on 3-D objects like coins or medals, that was for objects which were themselves 3-D, not for 2-D artwork which has a frame in the foreground which is incidental (and possibly even de minimis to the original artwork).
That is my interpretation of the way the rules they've laid down. I welcome anyone to prove me wrong by asking for their clarification. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted - upon reevaluating (see Special:PermanentLink/596792800#Close on File:Rogier van der Weyden - The Altar of Our Lady (Miraflores Altar) - Google Art Project (reduced).jpg at NFCR), it appears that I've erred. The version with most of the frame cropped out is already present on this page; the only thing this image shows is the additional frame, so it is definitely not de minimis. This is indeed fair use and it is replaceable. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:58, 23 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.
Why has Stefan2 generated a WP:NFC#UUI §1 objection here when in fact the Upload Wizard for artworks autogenerates a "n.a." field here? It's not hard to see why it does when you consider that free replacements for artworks are rearely available as museums rarely allow photography of their artworks and especially those as exceptionally old and delicate as this work.
I ask the community to protect my time and effort here. What was at stake was a Google Art Project image that was tagged as in need of deframing. The Visual Arts Project accordingly removed the image from the Miraflores Altarpiece article for a full six months or more until I deframed it, not a trivial task because it needed researching as to where the panels end and the frames begin. Nevertheless there should be an image of the panels in their frame to appreciate the work in its entirety and this why I also uploaded a much reduced image of the altarpiece under a Fair Use rationale. I should think I spent at least a couple of hours doing this and it is really irritating to have spend further time justifying it.
I frankly suspect Stefan2 of being deliberately obstructive here and engaging a newbie hit. I do think this is something that really ought to be brought to the attention of administrators. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The painting is not copyrighted as it was made in the mediaeval. All you need to do is to visit the place where the painting is located and take a photo of it. What part of v:Museum photography is it that you don't understand?
- The fair use rationale is furthermore blatantly wrong. In the fair use rationale, you wrote that the article Miraflores Altarpiece is specifically dedicated as a whole to a discussion of this photograph of the altarpiece, but in the article I do not see any discussion of the photograph of the altarpiece at all – only a discussion of the altarpiece itself. It therefore becomes clear that you haven't read the labelling of the options you selected in the file upload wizard. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- As Sextet points out, there is a question of how readily available this work is to photography. If the museum this work is located has set explicit rules about public photography of this work or the museum as a whole, while a free image is "possible" it would morally wrong to have broken the museum rules to take it. We expect that when free imagery can be made that the user is not breaking any laws or restrictions that may be there to get it. We do need to have confirmation what the museum's policies are for this painting before assuming a free version can be made. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the photographer broke a museum restriction, violated an agreement with the museum, or committed a grave moral offense in taking the photograph, that is an issue for the photographer and the museum to deal with, not Wikipedia (see v:Museum photography). Our task is to evaluate whether or not the frame is copyrighted, and if so, whether or not we can claim fair use on the photograph that includes the frame. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- In either case, WP:NFCC#1 only concerns whether a replacement can be created, not whether you need to follow the law to create a replacement. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the photographer broke a museum restriction, violated an agreement with the museum, or committed a grave moral offense in taking the photograph, that is an issue for the photographer and the museum to deal with, not Wikipedia (see v:Museum photography). Our task is to evaluate whether or not the frame is copyrighted, and if so, whether or not we can claim fair use on the photograph that includes the frame. Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- As Sextet points out, there is a question of how readily available this work is to photography. If the museum this work is located has set explicit rules about public photography of this work or the museum as a whole, while a free image is "possible" it would morally wrong to have broken the museum rules to take it. We expect that when free imagery can be made that the user is not breaking any laws or restrictions that may be there to get it. We do need to have confirmation what the museum's policies are for this painting before assuming a free version can be made. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Your issue here Stefan was over replaceability by a free file (NFC 1). You moved the goalposts with your "blatantly wrong". Let me deal with that first. WP:NFCI specifically allows (at 7) "paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school". In the Upload Wizard I chose "This image is the object of discussion in an article. This is a copyrighted artwork or photograph, and the image itself is the topic of discussion in the article. The discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows". The drop down menu that appeared when this option was chosen included the option "2 dimensional artwork (painting, drawing etc.)" but I couldn't choose that because the whole crux here is the 3D-frame, so I chose the option "something else (please describe in description field on top)" and entered the description "This is an image of the Miraflores Altarpiece. Commons rules require that images of these panels are shown out of their frames (as the photographer may have rights for her image of the frame) and the article thus displays in its lede deframed images of the panels. However these panels were painted with trompe d'oeil frames designed to blend into the frame itself and for completeness there should be an image of the altarpiece as it appears with the panels in their frame."
Where is that blatantly wrong, Stefan? Where have I misread the description fields?
As for NFC 1, that field was autogenerated as "n.a." by the wizard (perhaps you're not familiar with the abbreviation: it means "not applicable").
Regarding your aggressive "what part of?" challenge, I accept that English may not be your first language. But the fact of the matter is that you have used a British idiom which is pointed and aggressive. You are in short implying that I am stupid. I do not see why I should put up with that from a Wikipedia overseer. I ask you to strike the comment and apologise.
Concerning the issue of the frame, the original was probably designed by Rogier and constructed in his workshop. It was specifically designed to complement the 'trompe d'oeil' painted frames in the panels (I've already mentioned how difficult it is actually to discern where the panels and frame begins). Every commentary remarks on this (see for example this) and this is the basis of my wishing to provide an image of the panels in their frame. It is true the existing frame is no longer the original, but it is likely to be substantially a copy of the original and its intent is certainly the same.
Regarding the museum photography resource you suggest challenges me, I glanced at it. I don't quite understand what your point really is, but I did note the bit about not usually being allowed to use flash or a tripod. That might well explain why the Google Art Project image is actually quite poor (not detailed enough to get good images of the archivolt reliefs, which I will have to scan from a reference work when I come to discuss them). I don't know what the Gemaldegalerie policy on photography is, but a this Google search for free images only brings up the Commons images, which we know are probably not free because of the issue of the 3D frames. Flickr photos such as this are "all rights reserved".
I shall look here for your apology. Otherwise I'm done here. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- A question: the 3D frame, as I read the article, was created at the time of these paintings, yes? Or at least by 1850? Unless the frames were made in the last century-ish, the paintings and the frames will be public domain. As such, if photography is allowed, we can expect a Wikipedian editor to licenses a photograph of this as a freely licensed file. The work would be considered a photograph of a 3D work of art (even if the primary art is 2D). And thus in this case, the non-free would not be allowed per NFCC#1. If we can't take photos, or if the frames somehow are still within copyright as 3D art (very doubtful), then the non-free is reasonable to use since we can't expect a free version to be made, and as the subject of discussion of the article, would be just fine as you point out with NFCI. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The error is that the photograph of the painting isn't the subject of critical commentary and the photograph isn't illustrative of a particular technique or school. The photograph doesn't contain anything more illustrative than those examples which you can already find in the article History of photography. When you select an option in the upload wizard where you claim that the photograph of the painting, as opposed to the painting itself, is the subject of critical commentary, then only you are to blame if the fair use rationale ends up completely wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The framing appears to be part of the fixed installation of the painted work, and the point I'm trying to confirm with Sextet is if the framing (here, a 3D work of art atop the painting) was installed prior to ~1923, as to make the painting and the framing all PD. This is being too pendantic on the specifics of the upload wizard (that's a different matter) and trying to fix the license and rationale on this to be proper. It is clear the work is the subject of discussion on its own page. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The error is that the photograph of the painting isn't the subject of critical commentary and the photograph isn't illustrative of a particular technique or school. The photograph doesn't contain anything more illustrative than those examples which you can already find in the article History of photography. When you select an option in the upload wizard where you claim that the photograph of the painting, as opposed to the painting itself, is the subject of critical commentary, then only you are to blame if the fair use rationale ends up completely wrong. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Masem. I don't know when the modern gilded frame dates from. I should imagine after 1850.
Regarding my remark about the Google Art Project image being actually quite poor, I've now established that in fact it's a 15.5MB reduction of the 382 Mb original, so we're talking here about a one thousandth reduction as far as my reduced images is concerned.
Regarding free replacements I can only reiterate that I searched conscientiously for them and there aren't any. Am I expected to hop onto a plane to Berlin and cache one on my mobile? I rather think not. Perhaps an expert opinion (blatantly not Stefan of course) can confirm?
I still frankly think this is a newbie hit from Stefan. Consider all those images from Francis Bacon discussed above. One of those, File:Study for a Self Portrait -Triptych, 1985-86.jpg, was uploaded by User:Ceoil, that éminence grise of the Visual Art Project who originally removed the Miraflores image from its article because of the issue at Commons over its 3D frame and subsequently welcomed me to Wikipedia when I deframed it. In his rationale he simply says non-free versions aren't available, and that's what I would have said too if had known in advance that it was an issue. But I didn't. As I say the "n.a." field was autogenerated by the wizard. At any rate I don't see Ceoil getting hassle from Stefan over it. And why's that I wonder? I should so like to see Stefan lecturing Ceoil on the error of his ways. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- File:Study for a Self Portrait -Triptych, 1985-86.jpg isn't replaceable because Francis Bacon (artist) hasn't been dead for 70 years yet. On the other hand, Rogier van der Weyden died in 1464, which was more than 70 years ago, so File:Rogier van der Weyden - The Altar of Our Lady (Miraflores Altar) - Google Art Project (reduced).jpg is replaceable.
- Taking a photo of a painting in another country is no different to taking a photo of a living person in another country. For example, the article Kim Jong-un isn't allowed to contain any non-free image because someone could go to North Korea and take a photo of him. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- No Stefan. The photograph of the panels in their frames isn't replaceable because the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years yet (50 years whatever). Do concentrate. I may be a bit simple but even I can fathom that. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- This assumes that photography can be taken of the work, and that the frame is also in the public domain. If this is the case, where a free image can be taken, I think there might be an area on Commons that one can request someone with better local access to grab a photo. I'm not 100% sure on this, but remember that WP is a worldwide project and all collaborative. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, if Wikipedia are prepared to fund me with one of their travel grants I'm willing to have a go. For the right money I'm even prepared to have a go in a French museum ...
- Last from me here. Thank you both for your contributions. A Sextet Short of PG(2,57) (talk) 17:47, 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.
- 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.
Marked as unfree, but isn't this simply {{PD-US-no notice}}? As far as I can tell, newspaper advertisements needed a copyright notice and weren't covered by the newspaper's general copyright notice, and I don't see any copyright notice anywhere on the advertisement. Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 11 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG in articles except Tom Wesselmann.-- TLSuda (talk) 02:44, 2 March 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, WP:NFG and other criteria in numerous articles. Only seems to be needed in the article Tom Wesselmann. Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Does not fail - keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Remove from all but artists article as example of work. The reuse of the same rationale on all uses shows no selective concerns with regards too NFC. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Stefan2, it's an appropriate illustration for Tom Wesselmann but elsewhere it is overused. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep the contextual significance is obvious in each of its usages. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Contextual significance cannot be obvious, include requires sourced discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Masem—what policy language would call for discussion—sourced or otherwise—in the article? I'm going to ask you to please quote that policy language here. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, (in context of the article text), and if that significance is challenged as OR (as here), sourcing must be provided to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—in fact WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "article text"[5]. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're wikilaywering. Contextual significance implies discussion in the text. There is no other way for this to be met, otherwise its a decorative image and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—there is nothing remotely "decorative"[6] about the use of this image, anywhere that it is used. Anyone can read WP:NFCC#8. "Contextual significance" means that in the context of one thing, another thing has significance. In the context of "Pop art" that image has significance by dint of its being an example of Pop art. No particular wording has to be found in the text of the article to justify the inclusion of that image. Can you please tell me what purpose any such wording would serve? If there was something to be added, such wording would serve a purpose. But are we just going to concoct meaningless wording serving no purpose? If policy said we had to do this, I would argue to have policy changed. But policy doesn't even say we have to have "discussion in the text"[7]. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- In every article save for Wesselmann, and perhaps Collage, the image is decorative as either there are plenty of other examples of works that are free, or it is being used without sourced discussion of the work, the normal requirement for contextual significance to be shown. The use in all but those few articles do not given any significance except that which you claim and to that end I call out "citation needed" because I understand the articles perfectly fine without all those examples, hence failing NFCC#8. We are required to minimize the use of non-free images by the Foundation. Not eliminate their usage, surely, but simply be more judicious in their use, and that means to understand where contextual significant really is best done. If you don't like that we have to minimize non-free, you're free to start another wiki encyclopedia that doesn't have a free content mission, because that is a requirement here for us. --MASEM (t) 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The image is not "decorative". It is of course an example of a particular artwork. It is made in a certain way and it has a particular appearance. It is of course made by a particular individual. It is also made at a particular time and in a particular place. You are arguing against its inclusion in certain articles. Well-respected commentators refer to this artwork. You are even suggesting that other artworks can replace this artwork. You say for instance "there are plenty of other examples of works that are free". When you substitute other works for the ideal work for a given use, you run the risk of introducing WP:original research into the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the work is not described as the or a well established example of the type of school (such as Pop Art), and there are free images that are examples for that school, then the non-free is extraneous and decorative. It might represent that school, but we can do that with other free art. On "Collage" the work is actually described in such a manner hence why I think it's fair to keep there, but no where else (outside the artist' page). --MASEM (t) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem The Wesselmann is a well established example of Pop Art; however please show me some examples of free and usable Pop Art. The entire problem with art work after 1923 is that we must be able to show the visual art and fair use seems to be the best solution...Modernist (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that for Pop Art, you cannot illustrate it without non-free examples at the present time since the movement is entirely post-1923 where copyright will come into play. But you don't need 11 examples. The 4 presently inline are reasonable to include as they showcase the various styles that Pop Art encompasses - I would even include the Typewriter Eraser sculpture to show that Pop Art included 3D works. But all other images included in that gallery are presented without comment besides the names of the artists, and thus not appropriate nor needed to include per NFCC#8. A section to provide links to other pop art examples and notable artists falls in line with NFC and provides more useful links for the reader to follow to learn more. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can always add more discussion; the reason it's laid out as it is - is that years ago we agreed that the imagery would simply represent the various aspects of the oeuvre - hence I labeled the Warhol (repetition); which was a distinct aspect of his paintings and prints. With the Wesselmann I tagged it (collage). That was the agreement reached around seven years ago. I agree that the Oldenburg is important as an example of pop art - sculpture...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably important to note that the formalization of NFC and the Foundation Resolution is about a year younger than the age of these articles then, hence why there probably wasn't any issues raised at that time. That might be why there is a large disconnect here. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that begins to clarify our disparate points of view...Modernist (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the work is not described as the or a well established example of the type of school (such as Pop Art), and there are free images that are examples for that school, then the non-free is extraneous and decorative. It might represent that school, but we can do that with other free art. On "Collage" the work is actually described in such a manner hence why I think it's fair to keep there, but no where else (outside the artist' page). --MASEM (t) 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The image is not "decorative". It is of course an example of a particular artwork. It is made in a certain way and it has a particular appearance. It is of course made by a particular individual. It is also made at a particular time and in a particular place. You are arguing against its inclusion in certain articles. Well-respected commentators refer to this artwork. You are even suggesting that other artworks can replace this artwork. You say for instance "there are plenty of other examples of works that are free". When you substitute other works for the ideal work for a given use, you run the risk of introducing WP:original research into the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- In every article save for Wesselmann, and perhaps Collage, the image is decorative as either there are plenty of other examples of works that are free, or it is being used without sourced discussion of the work, the normal requirement for contextual significance to be shown. The use in all but those few articles do not given any significance except that which you claim and to that end I call out "citation needed" because I understand the articles perfectly fine without all those examples, hence failing NFCC#8. We are required to minimize the use of non-free images by the Foundation. Not eliminate their usage, surely, but simply be more judicious in their use, and that means to understand where contextual significant really is best done. If you don't like that we have to minimize non-free, you're free to start another wiki encyclopedia that doesn't have a free content mission, because that is a requirement here for us. --MASEM (t) 08:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—there is nothing remotely "decorative"[6] about the use of this image, anywhere that it is used. Anyone can read WP:NFCC#8. "Contextual significance" means that in the context of one thing, another thing has significance. In the context of "Pop art" that image has significance by dint of its being an example of Pop art. No particular wording has to be found in the text of the article to justify the inclusion of that image. Can you please tell me what purpose any such wording would serve? If there was something to be added, such wording would serve a purpose. But are we just going to concoct meaningless wording serving no purpose? If policy said we had to do this, I would argue to have policy changed. But policy doesn't even say we have to have "discussion in the text"[7]. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're wikilaywering. Contextual significance implies discussion in the text. There is no other way for this to be met, otherwise its a decorative image and should be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—in fact WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "article text"[5]. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, (in context of the article text), and if that significance is challenged as OR (as here), sourcing must be provided to show that. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—what policy language would call for discussion—sourced or otherwise—in the article? I'm going to ask you to please quote that policy language here. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keepin the Tom Wesselmann article - this is being charitable because I can't see this painting mentioned, but it seems to represent a later example of his work. The image should be removed from the general articles about art, because there are non-copyrighted images which can be used for general illustration. Sionk (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sionk—how could there be a need to mention the Tom Wesselmann painting in the Tom Wesselmann article? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The painting is now mentioned in the 5 articles in which it is used, albeit in the captions to the image of the painting. Tweaking is possible. My suggested wording, which I think is supported by the sources I provide, is not thought by me to be the only possible wording that can be derived from these and/or other sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sionk—how could there be a need to mention the Tom Wesselmann painting in the Tom Wesselmann article? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 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.
Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who)
Consensus is the current images fail WP:NFCC#3a as they can be minimalized to two images (File:Regeneration_4-5.gif & File:10's regeneration.jpg). -- TLSuda (talk) 02:56, 2 March 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:Tenth_Planet_2.jpg
- File:Regeneration_4-5.gif
- File:Zero_room.jpg
- File:10's regeneration.jpg
- File:Romana_regeneration.jpg
- File:Master_Regenerates.jpg
- File:Mel_Regenerates.jpg
There are currently seven non-free images being used in this article, which depict the various regenerations of the Doctor and others in Doctor Who. This is most likely a violation of WP:NFCC#3a, since one image or animation of a regeneration is likely enough for the reader to understand the concept. Some of these images do not even seem to convey useful information about regeneration, and fail WP:NFCC#8 as well (for example, File:Zero_room.jpg which depicts little more than the Fifth Doctor floating suspended in a room soon after regenerating). FunPika 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would safely argue two images are appropriate, given the change in SFX between the old and revived series. The animated gif of Fourth-to-Fifth is reasonable here since it shows how they used camera overlays to simulate this back then, while the one of Tenth regerating with the burst of regeneration energy is fair to use for the new series. All the others are simply duplicate of these two themes. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there has been no opposition to the image being PD-text. Will immediately overturn if opposition occurs. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:46, 2 March 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 PD-text? RJaguar3 | u | t 02:41, 31 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.
- 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 two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 31 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.
- 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) 15:01, 31 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.
Image is not below TOO in the US, therefore is unfree and therefore fails WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 2 March 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#3b and WP:NFCC#8, but possibly below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- If its UK based, it might be considered original enough (US, on the other hand, no). I would keep it non-free.. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 6 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.
- 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.
Old photo, possibly PD but too little information to determine this. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#10a and there is no evidence that it satisfies WP:NFCC#4. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c. Not sure what to do with this. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The uploader has since uploaded a new revision of the file giving this upload summary:
| “ | Changes to licensing information only. I OWN THIS PHOTOGRAPH OF MY GREATGRANDFATHER and I release it into the public domain, as it is an historically accurate photograph of a deceased person that was never previously published. It was taken at Rogers S... | ” |
- Do we accept this as a public domain statement, or do we need OTRS? See also this discussion on my talk page on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. No. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Gentlemen, if I don't own this photograph no one does, and it exists nowhere else on the planet Earth. The founding of the company by two formerly itinerant peddlers (and Yeshiva scholars) cannot be understood without knowing that the father was a highly educated European gentleman, including what he looked like, particularly since he very likely provided the seed money for the stores and eventually started more ambitious stores in a bigger city, Baltimore, himself. This is a UNIQUE copy of a photograph. I own it. I release it for inclusion in an article I wrote. Can anything be clearer than that? Please respond (and be logical, please). --Rbbloom Feb 7 2014 10:39 am.
And let me reiterate: Neither Rogers Studios nor the photographer who was paid to take the photograph exist today, and since the photographer was PAID to take the photograph, it belongs to those who paid him and not his heirs. (If you don't understand this you ought to volunteer somewhere else. And if you're hallucinating voices, go to the nearest emergency room and tell them what you're hearing.)
- 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-free images fail WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, without critical commentary about File:Ace frehley solo album cover.jpg and File:Frehleycometalbum.jpg in the article, those two cover images should be removed from the article per WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:23, 11 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.
Not enough evidence that the image is below TOO, therefore safer to remain NFC. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:31, 2 March 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 {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The logo essentially consists of typefaces. If the red circle in the middle were not present and the logo consisted only of the black and white halves with the words/letters I would say this is {{PD-textlogo}}. The red circle with the numeral appears to be more than a de minimis part of the logo and might push this above TOO, so I'd say we should keep it tagged as NFC. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:15, 11 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.
Further research shows copyright not renewed therefore images are PD-US-not renewed. -- TLSuda (talk) 16:23, 2 March 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.
Does this really need three non-free images? Also, are the disc prints really copyrighted in the first place? Most American logos from that time should be {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-not renewed}}, leaving very few other things which could be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think all of these are in the public domain unless the copyright was renewed during the 28 years of the original protection period. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:47, 10 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.
Consensus is that the current lead image is acceptable in this case because there are no free replacements of that particular ensemble. The remaining non-free images violate WP:NFCC -- TLSuda (talk) 16:07, 2 March 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.
Most or all non-free images in this article fail WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not all, surely. The rationale for the lede image (primary means of visual identification) seem irreproachable. Would you condescend to let us know which of the other images you consider fail WP:NFCC (and why)? Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- All of them seem to fail WP:NFCC. For example, the lead image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable b ythe image on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's quite likely that some of these images have NFCC issues, but you will forgive me I'm sure if I confess to being reluctant to check given your track record our distinguished Secretaries of State for education. I do wish you would explicitly cite your concerns. As for the Commons image, it is used in the article. It is a very old 1975 image and it's a question whether it acts as an effective replacement for the promotional shot some time after 1994. If you're telling me that there are no provisos in the Wikipedia rule book for that sort of thing, then indeed I'm prepared to close up shop here and let you boys (are there girls? just curious) get on with this thing you do here in your own private space (might even retire from editing altogether - been contemplating it). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- All of them seem to fail WP:NFCC. For example, the lead image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable b ythe image on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not all, surely. The rationale for the lede image (primary means of visual identification) seem irreproachable. Would you condescend to let us know which of the other images you consider fail WP:NFCC (and why)? Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a freely licensed image depicting the band members, then File:Dugme 1974.jpg violates WP:NFCC#1, that's particularly true if File:Veljko Despot na snimanju s Bijelim dugmetom, Air Studios, London, 1975..jpg can serve as a replacement for the first image in Bijelo Dugme. File:Dugme 1974.jpg also appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in Bijelo Dugme (as well as in Sarajevo#Music). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- As a note, even if the group is still current, we often allow non-frees of ensemble groups if that ensemble as it was no long exists today - of course assuming free equivalents of this same group are not available. Though there could be other reasons to not use such (some of the better band ensembles with changing members try to vary how the band's style was also presented so that each non-free is not only showing the membership at that time but also the way the band presented themselves; if all you're doing is showing person X in place of person Y for otherwise the same stage presence, that might not be appropriate) --MASEM (t) 16:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, I did read through that. What we would like an opinion on is whether in this case the lede image is acceptable. Yes or no? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since the group is disbanded, and that's considered the default ensemble by sources, then that would be a reasonable non-free to use to identify the group as it is best known. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's more nuanced than Silly Willy on capital punishment, but I take that as a guarded yes. Done here for a while. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the simple answer is : disbanded group means a free replacement is, for all purposes, impossible as to counter the NFCC#1 claim, and as an identifying image of the group it would meet most other NFCC. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's more nuanced than Silly Willy on capital punishment, but I take that as a guarded yes. Done here for a while. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since the group is disbanded, and that's considered the default ensemble by sources, then that would be a reasonable non-free to use to identify the group as it is best known. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, I did read through that. What we would like an opinion on is whether in this case the lede image is acceptable. Yes or no? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:42, 12 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is not required for the understanding of the content. A link could get a reader to the image on the appropriate article. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:55, 2 March 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 in Vaslav Nijinsky. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. An entire section worth 6 paragraphs (or one and half a pages of A4) is dedicated to the subject of this photo and it is not passing mention either. I am not sure there is NFCC#8 problem at hand. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That section would still be understandable if the image were removed from Vaslav Nijinsky#Marriage, so that use of the photo indeed violates NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That degree of understandability is also achieved by deleting every single cover or box image from every single video game article. So, the question is: Is there a precedence of deletion or keeping? But one detrimental effect that I specifically notice is that I didn't know "Romola de Pulszky" was a woman's name. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- The use of this image is not the same as the accepted uses of cover art. Yes, most cover images which are being used for identification of album covers and things like that violate NFCC#8, because the presence of such an image does not significantly increase a readers understanding of the article and it's removal wouldn't be detrimental to readers understanding. However, there is a consensus that cover images are acceptable to visually identify the work in question. The image we are discussing here is not the same as cover art. Btw, we don't need a non-free image for conveying the information that Romola de Pulszky was a woman. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:11, 16 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there is no evidence that the image is not above TOO in the country of origin. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:52, 2 March 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 PD-textlogo? Concern is the triangle thing behind the letter "A" -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, it is definitely PD-textlogo in U.S. But it is seems non-English. But please be sure to check the rules of the country of origin if you wish to transfer it to Commons. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The country of origin is Bangladesh, and that's not listed at COM:TOO, so I have brought discussion here to see if anyone knows. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:29, 14 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.
WP:BOLD closure as withdrawn. Image seems to be non-free content.-- TLSuda (talk) 15:46, 2 March 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 tagged as being PD released by uploader. This is obviously not the case. Is this PD-textlogo or should it be non-free logo? My concerns are the shape under the AFP and the gradient within that shape. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I think this should be tagged as NFC because of the color gradient on the blue logo and the 'shadow-effect' on the letters. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:19, 14 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there is no evidence of being below TOO in country of origin.-- TLSuda (talk) 15:44, 2 March 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 pd-textlogo? I would venture that the checkmarks are either text or a simple shape, but I could be wrong. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The source is from Australia, so it may be below TOO in the US but not Australia. Thoughts? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:54, 14 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there has been no opposition to the image being PD-ineligible. Will immediately overturn if opposition occurs. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:40, 2 March 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 album cover PD-ineligible? It seems to just be a yellow background with the words "Bitch Magnet" and "Umber" -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems to be clearly below TOO. I'd tag it with {{PD-ineligible}} or maybe {{PD-simple}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:26, 14 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there has been no opposition to the image being PD-textlogo. Will immediately overturn if opposition occurs. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:41, 2 March 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.
Does the outline fade preclude this logo from being PD-textlogo in the US? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's a rather stock photoshop effect, and we let normal drop shadows pass US Fair Use, so I'd say okay. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 14 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.
No evidence that the work of art was not copyrighted or that copyright was not renewed. US FoP only applies to buildings, not works of art, so therefore the images are copyright. As all images are currently at Commons, further steps should be taken there. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:38, 2 March 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 a 60-ton sculpture, a work for hire, owned by Los Angeles Mall Civic Center. Is it copyrightable? George Ho (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. It is a work of art installed in a fixed location, and is not clear of "freedom of panorama" that would be allowed for buildings under US law. So the work has a copyright, and the photograph of a 3D work will have a copyright. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It was made in 1975, so copyright still applies, even without notice? George Ho (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You would have to be 100% sure it lacked notice (for art like this it would not necessarily be on the sculpture), and that it wasn't registered for copyright (the more likely option for works of art). That would be the only way to presume this fell into the public domain. As long as either of these situations were met, it has a copyright term of 28 + 67 years. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I searched the author and the work; I found neither in catalogs of Copyright Entries. As for notice, I'm no longer sure it is necessary. The sculpture underwent repairs in 2000s, so would copyright still apply? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt that repairs and maintenance on a fixed work of art is going to create a new copyright term, so we're still talking about the period of time - at its installation - that copyright notification was required to assure copyright protection. I do not know off hand of the electronic version of the copyright database goes far enough back to find this or not (it might, but again, not sure). Basically we need to be reasonably sure that there's no copyright notice or attempt to renew from the point of installation + 28 years to consider it free. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I searched the author and the work; I found neither in catalogs of Copyright Entries. As for notice, I'm no longer sure it is necessary. The sculpture underwent repairs in 2000s, so would copyright still apply? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You would have to be 100% sure it lacked notice (for art like this it would not necessarily be on the sculpture), and that it wasn't registered for copyright (the more likely option for works of art). That would be the only way to presume this fell into the public domain. As long as either of these situations were met, it has a copyright term of 28 + 67 years. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It was made in 1975, so copyright still applies, even without notice? George Ho (talk) 01:31, 16 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.
Fixed WP:NFCC#10c in SAG article, and removed from June 1933 article as a WP:NFCC#8 violation -- TLSuda (talk) 15:33, 2 March 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.
Does this meet WP:TOO or not? Violates WP:NFCC#10c in June 1933. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not with the drama masks on it. That's creative enough in the US. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in that case this actually violates 10c in Screen Actors Guild as well, as the rationale currently present on the file page is not compliant with WP:NFURG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- The rationale should be fixed (in fact, this is a point where the pre-made non-free logo rationale would make sense), but the use on the SAG page is clearly okay as the primary logo used for identification of the group. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, in that case this actually violates 10c in Screen Actors Guild as well, as the rationale currently present on the file page is not compliant with WP:NFURG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:25, 16 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.
- 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 in American Jews violates WP:NFCC#10c. Both, the use in American Jews and the use in Jewish philosophy violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:16, 16 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.
- 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 in Visa requirements for British Nationals (Overseas). Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 17 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.
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Image violates WP:NFCC#3 as it should only be used once on a page. Anything more is unnecessary decoration. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:22, 2 March 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.
Non-free files should only be used once on the same page. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- 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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this {{PD-ineligible}}? Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion it is. Just simple shapes (trapezoids, triangle) and some letters. The golden thing appears to be a sticker and probably doesn't affect copyrightability. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:27, 22 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.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this {{PD-text}}, or is the choice of colours creative? Stefan2 (talk) 14:02, 18 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.
- 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 three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 18 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in all but Bay County article. Currently there is no evidence for when the seal was designed, so the copyright status is not completely clear. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:45, 2 March 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder whether this is even copyrighted in the first place or not. It is probably not a work made on behalf of the United States government (which would make it PD), but if it was a work made in duty for the county/state, would that make it also PD? (I guess not, but I am not sure.) It might also be PD due to expired copyright. (Is this from 1857?) -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The PD-USGov only applies to work from the federal gov't, none of the state or local governments under it. At least one state does have similar "all work done is PD" (California) but I'm pretty confident Michigan is not one of those. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- That said, many seals are {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} and/or {{PD-US-1989}}. The problem is that uploaders often fail to specify when the seals were designed, so we have to assume that they are unfree. The year that you see in the image is when the county was founded and is not necessarily the same year as when the seal was made. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- The PD-USGov only applies to work from the federal gov't, none of the state or local governments under it. At least one state does have similar "all work done is PD" (California) but I'm pretty confident Michigan is not one of those. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 18 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.
Two non-free images fail WP:NFCC and were rightly removed. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:41, 2 March 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 non-free images on this page fail WP:NFTABLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Of five images, three are Commons and just two are non-free.
WP:NFTABLE redirects to WP:NFC. Relevant section says
- In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section."
This is judicious, and note also "Complete lists based on factual data, such as List of highest-grossing films, are appropriate to include". Also WP:IAR, WP:BURO etc. Ayesha23 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not how it reads or applies, even if there's only two non-free. There is no NFCC#8 metric here that can be met. In additional you have articles for each pilot pictures, so there's no need for any images in this table to start with. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- How this little cabal of self-indulgent mutually supportive editors interpret advice is their own private little affair. But the fact of the matter is that the advice quoted does say "judicious" and that doesn't imply a black and white blanket proscription. It's just an encyclopedia as User:Risker lately at Arbcom would observe. If it weren't for the good faith contributions of countless individuals spending a little of their time contributing to Wikipedia (in contrast to this group who evidently spend all their time policing it), there would be nothing to police, and indeed plausible extrapolations suggest in a few more years there really won't be. Of course I don't know the motivations of the contributor here, but I would guess it is someone who wants to keep alive the memory of brave servicemen in past conflicts, and I think that is wholly admirable. Your interventions wholly not. Get a life. Ayesha23 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- We're not a memorial, we're an encyclopedia. There's no reason it illustrate a navigation list with non-free, that's absolutely not judicious use, particularly when there are standalone articles where the pictures are 100% appropriate. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't patronise me with your unsolicited views on what constitutes an encyclopedia. My remark, shared by many veterans of this project, was that it is just an encyclopedia i.e. that these minute discussions (which incidentally border on self-parody in your group's discussion of the Mondrian image above) are trivial and unproductive. What is at stake is whether non-free images can be used in lists, not whether images can be used at all, still less whether a given article is within the scope of an encyclopedia (but of course this one is). Not frankly of major import, especially when the guidance makes it clear that they may be used in complete lists, as this one seeks to be, and in general may be used judiciously, and moreover, as Pintas points out below, there are established precedents already for this kind of topic in any case. Frankly I think you all need to get out more often. Ayesha23 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary there's every reason to supply a navigation list with images. The article List of World War II flying aces is just one such. Those images as it happens would appear to be mainly (or entirely) from Commons, but there can be little doubt that many of them in fact shouldn't be there (they my be PD in their country of origin but they almost certainly will not be in the US). Properly speaking they should have been uploaded as Fair Use images. As for List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany, that is no different from List of World War II flying aces in its aim to provide a complete list and thus is appropriate to include as the guidance remarks (citing List of highest-grossing films). Moreover 2 out of 5 is judicious (less than half). The issues you are raising are entirely vexatious and non-constructive. Ayesha's views above on your group seem to me right on the money. Fantes 007 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Spot checking the images on the general list of flying ace show most come from Deutsches Bundesarchiv and directly was done in partnership with Commons; yes, they might not be PD in the US but because they gave those works to Commons, that means they are being used under a free license and thus we don't consider them non-free. And we only use non-free image when it is the subject of discussion or depicting the subject of discussion; lists contain no such discussion while the bio articles do so, so this is not considered judicious use by any means. If it were the case that, say, 1 out of 100 entries in a list could only be depicted by non-free while the other 99 by free, that might be a started point, but the lack of standardized image use in this specific list puts it far outside this allowance. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, the sense of judicious meant here is prudent. And you're blustering because you've been caught out in your confident assertion that these lists and articles aren't appropriate (thank you User:Fantes). Seriously Masem, get out more often. Ayesha23 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, we're telling you what practice is, and using non-free on list articles is in nearly all cases not appropriate. The images do not help the reader to identify anything with the person on the list article, while they do do that on the actual biographical article about the person. Thus, non-free use here flat-out fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, the sense of judicious meant here is prudent. And you're blustering because you've been caught out in your confident assertion that these lists and articles aren't appropriate (thank you User:Fantes). Seriously Masem, get out more often. Ayesha23 (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Remove Clear failure of WP:NFCC#3a since the non-frees are appropriate, and are used, in their own articles. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Behind the curve here, Black Kite. They were removed by User:Werieth on the ground they don't have a User Rationale (which is what should have been done in the first place without wasting editors' time here). The issue was WP:NFG. Ayesha23 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unimportant, really; if they fail NFCC in this article (which they do), it's fairly irrelevant if they fail NFG or not. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Behind the curve here, Black Kite. They were removed by User:Werieth on the ground they don't have a User Rationale (which is what should have been done in the first place without wasting editors' time here). The issue was WP:NFG. Ayesha23 (talk) 10:56, 22 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.
Doctor Who Book images
- 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.
Following Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 27#File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 24#File:Doctor Who and the Daleks.jpg, I felt I should raise the aspect of the practice of using an image of the book in general, since almost all episode articles have such an image. Is it correct to say that these images are not allowed - in which case they should all be removed - or are there cases where it is allowed? 94.194.111.16 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- In general, non-free covers of secondary media (novelizations or soundtracks of films or television shows), if the secondary work is not notable enough to support its own standalone article, should not be included, unless there is discussion specifically about the cover art. In cases where the work could be notable for a standalone article but the editors have opted to include the secondary work on the main topic page (for better comprehension of the overall title, perhaps), and the cover is sufficiently different from the cover for the main work, we would generally allow the cover art of the secondary work to be fair to the choice to keep things as one article. Now, in terms of Doctor Who books from the spot checking of the serials with novelizations, yeah, most of those fall into the unallowable category. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs further discussion.--evrik (talk) 02:31, 24 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.
There is not enough evidence to show that the cover is below the threshold of originality, therefore it is safer to stay non-free. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:37, 2 March 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 album cover copyrightable? It's a red box of a sly smiley face. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd edge on it being so. While its "simple geometric shapes" they are clearly arranged for more artist expression. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Especially in the USA? --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- If it was in the UK, it would definitely be copyrighted, and there's a good chance the US would see it that way, this is one to play it safe as copyrighted until proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Especially in the USA? --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Possibly copyrightable, but also possibly not. It may be safer to assume that it is copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 19 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#1. Image deleted as orphaned fair use.-- TLSuda (talk) 03:35, 2 March 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.
Fair use for Chris Christie
The image serves two purposes: to show a depiction of a young Chris Christie (1995) and to describe his political campaign for the 1995 State Assembly campaign. Both are biographically relevant, and there are no free images available for either.
- It includes a photo featuring a young Chris Christie not available elsewhere, thus having biographical value
- It graphically illustrates the political position of the subject at the time
- It is a historically significant flyer of a notable politician
- It is a low resolution image
- It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable illustrative value.
I would appreciate a review of the FU criteria. Thank you. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- A 1995 photo is not really going to be considered that drastically different from his present appearance, nor as important because his profession was not one where his visual appearance was importance (unlike, say, actors). When you consider this, considering the photo aspect is not critical, the rest of what the poster is showing is easily described by text about his political campaign at that time and the image would be inappropriate. If it were the case that this specific campaign flyer was the subject of discussion that might be reason to include it, but otherwise this would likely fail NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate your comments and now I better understand the FU criteria. Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Masem:Question, if I have a copy of the flyer in my possession and I scan it and upload it, would that make a difference? Is a scan of a flyer that was given freely to people during a campaign a non-free image? Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, it would not matter if you uploaded it or not. As a 1995 US work, it automatically has copyright protection (presumably to the Christie campaign office) that won't expire for several decades. Your scan would make it a better quality to use here but it doesn't change that fact it's copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Masem:Question, if I have a copy of the flyer in my possession and I scan it and upload it, would that make a difference? Is a scan of a flyer that was given freely to people during a campaign a non-free image? Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate your comments and now I better understand the FU criteria. Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 20 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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in Padmapur, Rayagada article. WP:NFCC#10c concerns addressed. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:33, 2 March 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:NFG in Padmapur, Rayagada and WP:NFCC#10c in Nagbhushan Patnaik. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just needs the rationale fixed to be used in his bio article and removing from the Padmapur article to bring it down to one completely-allowable use. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per Masem above. Fantes 007 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have had a request from User talk:Hpsatapathy on my Talk page that these files should be reconsidered. I can't help because the issues appear to be techical violations of Wikipedia guidance, rather than substantial breaches of copyright law. This is plainly a contructive and good faith editor who should be supported. Please be sure that he receives constructive guidance (not merely templated text in the case of User:Stefan2's interventions: I do frankly question whether Stefan2 has the necessary grasp of English to assess contextual significance in the first place). Fantes 007 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Per Masem above. Fantes 007 (talk) 21:01, 20 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.
Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 in Luftwaffe and Erich Hippke articles. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:22, 2 March 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 am bringing this file up for consideration because I believe it fails WP:NFCC#8 in Luftwaffe, but is also somewhat questionable in Erich Hippke and Sigmund Rascher. It also fails 10c for all three of those articles, but that's a relatively easy fix, so I'm not particularly concerned on that account. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- On the two bio articles, it is reasonably fair - we appear to lack other NFC for them, and we generally allow one non-free of a deceased person, and considering both are notable for their participation in that and that cropping wouldn't give us a clear image, they're fine. We don't need it in Luftwaffe; a link to the human experiments page would be appropriate there. The #10c issue is of cours trivial to fix. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Using it to identify Rascher makes sense, but Hippke isn't in the photograph--he's just the mastermind behind the experiments (I missed that the first few times I read the file description myself). VernoWhitney (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I made the same mistake. Rascher and the current human experimentation article are completely fair, but the other two fall well short since they're going to link to one these anyway. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Using it to identify Rascher makes sense, but Hippke isn't in the photograph--he's just the mastermind behind the experiments (I missed that the first few times I read the file description myself). VernoWhitney (talk) 04:28, 21 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.
Consensus is image is acceptable for use in 2013–14 Faysal Bank T20 Cup. -- TLSuda (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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 §14 in 2013–14 Faysal Bank T20 Cup. Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The logo appears to be specifically for the 2014 cup (note the small number 2014 on the horizontal orange stroke), so this seems to be acceptable in 2013–14 Faysal Bank T20 Cup (if that is the season referred to by the year in the logo). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment - given that other cup seasons do not always use a logo - we've previously deemed it okay to (re)use a logo for a recurring event on the first occurrence of the event when the logo is introduced but not thereafter. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hm. If this logo only is for this year's cup, then maybe it shouldn't be in Faysal Bank T20 Cup instead, since that article is about all years. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment - given that other cup seasons do not always use a logo - we've previously deemed it okay to (re)use a logo for a recurring event on the first occurrence of the event when the logo is introduced but not thereafter. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 22 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.
- 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#8 in Pokémon (anime). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:46, 22 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.
- 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#8 in Naruto#CDs. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:52, 22 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.
Discussions on the questionable single image and its single use should be at FFD since deletion is the desired outcome. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 March 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.
Fail WP:NFCC#8. A pant suit isnt tough to visualize. Plus it is giving undue weight to the opinion of just one unnotable critic. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:26, 1 March 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.
Discussions on the questionable use of a single image in its single use should be at FFD. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 1 March 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 don't see how the inclusion of this non-free image in the article Heather Mills serves any useful purpose, let alone how it is irreplaceable per WP:NFCC#8. She's a model and has modeled for many photographs, this is merely one of them. Sandstein 20:02, 1 March 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.