Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 47
 | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
There is consensus for the use of only three non-free files in the Battle of Britain film article. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:16, 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 cant see justification for all 7 files for this article. Werieth (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can see justificatoin for 2, maybe 3. The film poster (obviously), the one of the planes in flight to show that real aircraft were used for production, and perhaps the show of the RAF base "under attack" to again discuss authenticity. The other images in production are just excessive, and there's no need to see actors in character. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance Française French Film Festival, Alliance Française de Madras and Alliance Française de San Francisco. Might not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 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 yellow stars in my opinion are ineligible for copyright protection in the United States. I am not sure whether the blue brushstrokes alone are eligible or whether the combined work with the strokes and the stars are. As such, this might not meet TOO. Currently violates WP:NFCC#10c in Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image violates WP:NFCC#8 in three articles. Image violates WP:NFCC#1 in its current use as an image of the star. If the image was used with commentary to show how the Altair star looks through a CHARA inferrerometer, that would not be replaceable. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:06, 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 image might violate WP:NFCC#1, though I am not 100 percent sure about that. The uses in Altair, Altair in fiction and Stars and planetary systems in fiction violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is for infobox image and one example to be kept. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:57, 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.
Do we really need 5 non-free files? I think the bio pic and one example should be enough Werieth (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The bio pic is fine. One example of his work in Mad is clearly warranted but I'm surprised we're not using one of his more detailed scenes (which are described in text). I'm on the wall with the historical figure drawing, since that's a radically different style but that's not really discussed. The self-portrait isn't necesssarily and/or duplicative of the photo. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 22 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 should only be used on Multitasking (iOS) article per WP:NFC#UUI §6. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:50, 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.
Doesn't seem to be necessary in the article IOS 7 since there is a separate article Multitasking (iOS). See for example WP:NFC#UUI §6. Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given we have a multiple free files including a nice portrait shot File:P38128-03-398h.jpg I cannot see justification for 4 non-free works Werieth (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is now on Commons and should be dealt with there before decisions are made here. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:47, 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#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in Sandpainting and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:57, 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 Pakistan. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){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.
As the circles are likely wear and tear on the image, the file is below the threshold of originality and is PD-ineligible. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:41, 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#8, see MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Possibly below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Are the grey circles part of the cover? The cover looks like a paper envelope and the circles appear to be just an impression from the CD inside the cover. If that is the case, then the rest are just words and letters and a small logo that is likely only a de minimis part of the whole cover. As such, the cover seems to be below TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:03, 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.
As the subject is deceased no new photos can be made of the person. Between that and the fact that there are not any images that have compatible copyright easily findable, it is acceptable per WP:NFCI to have this photo. Granted it should be shrunk, and I have tagged it accordingly. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:40, 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.
Nothing unique about this image (no specific textural significance); and plenty of photos of this person exist. Free alternatives are likely to be available.
I guess the intent is WP:NFCI #10, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." but I dispute that it is 'not reasonably likely', given the wide coverage of this person. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 11:09, 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.
Consensus to remove all but Cover and tour photo. Other files belong on articles about their respective subject per WP:NFCC. -- TLSuda (talk) 21:34, 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 article really need 7 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- The cover and tour photo are okay. As the three songs with samples have their own page, the samples on this page are inappropriate. Same goes with the music video of one of those songs. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 4 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 is PD-text as it is a slavish reproduction of the original cover. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:32, 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 book cover is {{PD-text}}, but what about the photo of it? If the photo is copyrightable, then this fails WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The cover is definitely PD. The question is if there's enough 3D-ness in this to qualify for copyright as a photograph; if it is really only 2D, a photograph is a slavish reproduction and gains no new copyright. It definitely would be better to have a user photograph it themselves and use that image, or just scan in the cover, if possible. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 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.
Non-free images that can obviously be replaced by a free image, therefore failing WP:NFCC#1, can be tagged {{di-replaceable fair use}} instead of discussion. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:04, 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 non-free content requirements. It is, in principle, replaceable by a free alternative. The fact that we don't have one is irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 2 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.
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free files that are not used should be tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} as no discussion is necessary. -- TLSuda (talk) 23:02, 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.
Not in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
_logo.jpg){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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8: this magazine cover is not referenced in the article, so it has no contextual significance (and even if the cover was mentioned, not having an image of it in the article would not be a detriment). Rather, the uploader claims the purpose is as primary identification, but the article already has an excellent free image that serves that purpose, so this image also fails WP:NFCC#1. Mbinebri talk ← 13:29, 3 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.
There is consensus to keep the image in two articles: The Treachery of Images and Surrealism. Use on the remaining pages violates WP:NFCC#8. -- TLSuda (talk) 01:19, 4 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/or WP:NFC#UUI §6 on numerous pages. Only seems to pass WP:NFCC in The Treachery of Images. Stefan2 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Does not fail - strong keep, the above reads as an all out assault on important contemporary art...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree it is an iconic Surrealist painting but, because there is a dedicated article about it, there should be no problem linking to this article rather than reproducing the non-free image. I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the Surrealism article! Sionk (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's an important image that should remain in the Surrealism article; as should the Dali...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree it is an iconic Surrealist painting but, because there is a dedicated article about it, there should be no problem linking to this article rather than reproducing the non-free image. I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the Surrealism article! Sionk (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment User:Modernist has advertised this and other recent NFCR and FFD discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#An all out assault on important Imagery. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment that is exactly what you appear to be doing. You appear to be engaged in an assault on visual art. Visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not in an encyclopedia with a free content mission, even with free art. We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary - they are not plastered all over the place - they are used selectively in a few articles; as important examples of the oeuvre each represents. The Warhol is one of the most iconic of his paintings; as is the Magritte and the Dali; as well as others that are targeted here...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Being used in more than one article with practically the same nonfree rationale and no significant discussion in said articles is plastering the image about. Link them instead. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- On articles where the work of art is the subject of critical, significant discussion, sure to gain an appreciation of the work in association with the sourced discussion. But not anywhere else to avoid harm to the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Masem—you say "We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out."[1] I don't think we are indoctrinating readers as to what to appreciate in art. We are familiarizing readers with commonly cited examples of twentieth century art. You call for articles to be "direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance…" This is not always clear. This is often debatable. We can't always tell the reader concisely and definitively why a work of art is considered "important" in twentieth century art. You are making unrealistic and I would argue counterproductive demands. The visual component matters. The reader needs to see the art. The commentary is not necessarily more important than the art. I don't think we should upend the article to provide the reader with an excess of pointless commentary. You are underestimating the importance of seeing the images of the works of art. I'm not an evangelist for any of these works of art. I think the primary aim we have as an encyclopedia providing coverage of the visual arts is simply to apprise the reader of noteworthy examples of the most talked-about art. The commentary itself is not more important than the art. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you can't say why a piece of nonfree art ius important to a school or category of art, the including that piece of art fails NFCC#8, and WP:OR. The reader does not need to see an excessive number of examples to understand broad concepts of art; a few well-selected inline examples cited as well recognized aspects of a school are fine, with links to specific artists and works and external sites to provide the rest. Any other approach violates NFCC and size/accessibility problems. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Masem, get some perspective, please. Above all, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Every policy here is subject to interpretation, and not everything is as simple and clear-cut as you make it sound (which, being new to all this template wrestling, took me a while to realize). There are legal constraints, there is a policy, but nowhere does it say that our free content mission trumps everything else (and it would a very stupid idea to do that in an encyclopaedia). It it totally unacceptable that every policy is ruthlessly enforced in its harshest possible interpretation just because some people here are on a private mission. You (and others here) are wasting everyone'e time, and worse, you are harming Wikipedia with your attitude. Judicious use of NFC (which is what our NFC policy is here to facilitate) means that NFC rationales are written by editors who are knowledgeable in that particular subject, not shot down at random by hobby cops who are totally disinterested in the articles in question. Nettings (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Being a free content encyclopedia is the first primary mission of the Foundation. The Foundation has required non free to be used exceptionally. This does trump anything that made be said in en.wiki. The arguments you and others give for why you should be able to use more violates this, and is more akin to the concepts described in VEGAN.
- Again I stress the point - notable works of art, or a few nonnotable works of an otherwise notable artist are reasonable non free to include on artist or artwork pages. Every other use is otherwise gratitious without sourced information to justify the reason for inclusion. Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach in using better summary style and moving away from visual galleries towards fewer but more helpful inline images. You dont lose images, you meet the NFC, and meet size and accessibility issues. It just requires rethinking how to break apart information into better bite sized chunks rather than monolithic articles that approach art gallery books. Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The articles in question are of exceptional quality. The visuals are absolutely necessary to illustrate the wealth of information presented there. You cannot compare an article about 40 years of video gaming to one about 3000 years of painting by counting images, and doing so is just ignorant. I am not questioning our mission to create a free encyclopaedia with as much free content as possible. In fact, I'm working towards this goal, like you are. But what some people here are trying to do is to censor important aspects of cultural heritage just because they are non-free. If we do that, we end up with something that might be sort of interesting, but it will not be an encyclopaedia any more. What you need to understand is that nobody here is trying to undermine the free content mission. What I and others strongly object to is to put image policing above all other goals of Wikipedia, to use WP:NFC to censor articles, and to circumvent editorial consensus by abusingly invocating policies which clearly leave some room for interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Part of the problem is that NFC supervision is dominated by people who just follow the recent changes and then come down like a steamhammer on articles which they haven't even read, much less taken an editorial interest in. I agree that we need NFC supervision to maintain the quality and legality of Wikipedia, and I really hate to invoke this "us and them" bullshit between editors and patrollers when we really are all working on the same thing, but you cannot imagine how frustrating it is to deal with random edit-warring and deletion nominations by drive-by users who don't even bother to leave a note on the talk page and frankly don't give a shit about the article they are hacking and slashing at. Besides, I find this attitude of anticipatory obedience really weird. We make free content because we think copyright is not the hottest idea in the world, particularly not for the dissemination of knowledge. That does not mean we do not respect copyright law (doing that would be suicide for WP), so yes to copyright supervision. But to constantly censor ourselves to not show things that we legally could show by fair use - why? I read the spirit of the NFCC, you read the letters (and very selectively). Nettings (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I should add that I appreciate your arguments how to re-structure the articles, and your ideas may even lead to an improvement of the NFC situation as you see it. But such things are editorial decisions, and they need to be discussed among the editorial community of the article in question. So the procedure should be to notify them, guys, I think you have an NFC issue there, can you do something about that, and discuss it and follow editorial consensus. Not single out random images for deletion. There is no blatant NFC violation there that requires immediate action to keep Wikipedia legal. So there is no necessity to disregard or circumvent editorial consensus and use the steamhammer instead, other than an unhealthy fondness for said instrument. Nettings (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- No the articles are not of good quality of text alone because they are written with considering that 3000 years of painting can't be covered in one or two articles. If the text alone was written in a proper summary style like everywhere else, there would be no need to have 300+ images "needed" to illustrate it. 40 or so images to inline to help guide the reader, sure. Illustrations of paintings ate important but these should happen on specific sub pages to avoid unwieldy galleries and excessive nonfree use. Those working on these painting articles are not writing towards the free content mission and website accessibility, and hence why this is a major issue. These articles cannot be written as if this was ASN art textbook where prolific galleries wouilkd be of no question. They have to be written to meet the Foundations goal and making them as accessible as possible. Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—you say "Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points." You are making several errors in reasoning, the primary one being the overlooking of the value of editorial discretion. You would be making a more consequential argument if you were saying that Modernist was pushing a point of view. It is not so much that painting is a "special" topic but that there is latitude for editorial discretion that might not be found at other topics in which the propriety of non-free image-use was under evaluation. Editorial discretion is not something vague, undefined, and of questionable value. When User:Modernist chooses an image to represent some aspect of the visual arts, he is doing so for its ability to apprise the reader of something they need to know. One often repeated refrain is to replace with a free image. The free image may not be the ideal image. The article suffers when we devalue editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- And when others are fairly questioning if that image needs to be shown, that does bring into question editorial discretion, which is not infallable nor immune from policy requirements. I fully respect that some non-free images need to be shown on articles about schools and periods of art history, but NFC requires these to be minimal and with more purposeful selection than just editorial discretion. --MASEM (t) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—you say "Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points." You are making several errors in reasoning, the primary one being the overlooking of the value of editorial discretion. You would be making a more consequential argument if you were saying that Modernist was pushing a point of view. It is not so much that painting is a "special" topic but that there is latitude for editorial discretion that might not be found at other topics in which the propriety of non-free image-use was under evaluation. Editorial discretion is not something vague, undefined, and of questionable value. When User:Modernist chooses an image to represent some aspect of the visual arts, he is doing so for its ability to apprise the reader of something they need to know. One often repeated refrain is to replace with a free image. The free image may not be the ideal image. The article suffers when we devalue editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- No the articles are not of good quality of text alone because they are written with considering that 3000 years of painting can't be covered in one or two articles. If the text alone was written in a proper summary style like everywhere else, there would be no need to have 300+ images "needed" to illustrate it. 40 or so images to inline to help guide the reader, sure. Illustrations of paintings ate important but these should happen on specific sub pages to avoid unwieldy galleries and excessive nonfree use. Those working on these painting articles are not writing towards the free content mission and website accessibility, and hence why this is a major issue. These articles cannot be written as if this was ASN art textbook where prolific galleries wouilkd be of no question. They have to be written to meet the Foundations goal and making them as accessible as possible. Painting isd no special than any other topic on wpto violate the foumndatoons resolution as grtossly as these do particularly when there is a reasonable solution to minimize the reuse of nonfree while allowing nonfree use at the most appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, get some perspective, please. Above all, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Every policy here is subject to interpretation, and not everything is as simple and clear-cut as you make it sound (which, being new to all this template wrestling, took me a while to realize). There are legal constraints, there is a policy, but nowhere does it say that our free content mission trumps everything else (and it would a very stupid idea to do that in an encyclopaedia). It it totally unacceptable that every policy is ruthlessly enforced in its harshest possible interpretation just because some people here are on a private mission. You (and others here) are wasting everyone'e time, and worse, you are harming Wikipedia with your attitude. Judicious use of NFC (which is what our NFC policy is here to facilitate) means that NFC rationales are written by editors who are knowledgeable in that particular subject, not shot down at random by hobby cops who are totally disinterested in the articles in question. Nettings (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you can't say why a piece of nonfree art ius important to a school or category of art, the including that piece of art fails NFCC#8, and WP:OR. The reader does not need to see an excessive number of examples to understand broad concepts of art; a few well-selected inline examples cited as well recognized aspects of a school are fine, with links to specific artists and works and external sites to provide the rest. Any other approach violates NFCC and size/accessibility problems. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Masem—you say "We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out."[1] I don't think we are indoctrinating readers as to what to appreciate in art. We are familiarizing readers with commonly cited examples of twentieth century art. You call for articles to be "direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance…" This is not always clear. This is often debatable. We can't always tell the reader concisely and definitively why a work of art is considered "important" in twentieth century art. You are making unrealistic and I would argue counterproductive demands. The visual component matters. The reader needs to see the art. The commentary is not necessarily more important than the art. I don't think we should upend the article to provide the reader with an excess of pointless commentary. You are underestimating the importance of seeing the images of the works of art. I'm not an evangelist for any of these works of art. I think the primary aim we have as an encyclopedia providing coverage of the visual arts is simply to apprise the reader of noteworthy examples of the most talked-about art. The commentary itself is not more important than the art. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- On articles where the work of art is the subject of critical, significant discussion, sure to gain an appreciation of the work in association with the sourced discussion. But not anywhere else to avoid harm to the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Visual art needs to be seen...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Being used in more than one article with practically the same nonfree rationale and no significant discussion in said articles is plastering the image about. Link them instead. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary - they are not plastered all over the place - they are used selectively in a few articles; as important examples of the oeuvre each represents. The Warhol is one of the most iconic of his paintings; as is the Magritte and the Dali; as well as others that are targeted here...Modernist (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not in an encyclopedia with a free content mission, even with free art. We are not a guide to art appreciation, if you cannot provide sourced reason why to plaster art over and over again in articles, it is excessive. Articles on art need to be direct to the point for the reader the understand the importance of the art through texct to avoid us becoming an art textbook where it is the exercise to the reader to figure out. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nettings makes some strong arguments above, about placing an extreme interpretation of the non-free mission above every other priority (including education and editor retention, bearing in mind that the latter is a Foundation priority). He also argues that it is odd to self-censor in order not to provide an image when there is no legal, ethical or editorial problem with it; Nettings calls this "anticipatory obedience." This is a key point that others have raised too. It would be good if you could address it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- First, no one is saying that non-free works of art cannot be used outside of the page about that work of art; as long as the work of art is notable, its image will be in WP somewhere, and can be linked to, and thus the impact on education is negliable. Similarly, there are editors that simply do no understand that we are a free content work first and foremost, and thus if they leave because they can't use non-free (which they will call out as fair use), that's not really any loss we can worry about. We're also not censoring, and that's not a pathway to walk down to try to argue against this. The point that I keep making is that I am not against a limited number of clear examples of non-free works in these various schools; I cannot imagine how one can have an article on surrealism without even included a handful of works like Persistence of Memory , for example. We just don't need dozens as these articles all currently sport. Overwhelming the reader with images on these pages without explaining the progression is less educational than removing all the images in the first place, in terms of being an encyclopedia. And all of this is towards maintaining the non-free requirement. Non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, and we've carved out places for these exceptions, but if we start making exceptions for these exceptions for one area, we will end up in the same aspect that WP:VEGAN talks about, and more and more non-free will be used when it was previously determined to be inappropriate. It is to some degree an exercise in ego-stroking - how free can we make en.wiki - but it is one that we are challenged to always explore by the Foundation. Everything else about en.wiki has been large experiments in groupthink development of a encyclopedic work, this is just an extension of that. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—in the visual arts there is connoisseurship. There is also the attack on connoisseurship. But this is more recent. You say "Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach..."[2] You also say "Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't."[3] The visual arts are unlike most areas in which visual images are used. Specificity of image is related to connoisseurship and the legacy of connoisseurship in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, I stress - as an tertiary educational work, we are not here to help readers appreciate art (as per your connoisseurship idea), but to tell them why this art was appreciated by others in a direct manner. We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field, from which they themselves might come to also appreciate the art. But to show images with the expectation that the reader will come to appreciate it but without stating why it was appreciated goes against our core principles of not being a textbook. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—images of works of visual art are different from images of most other things as concerns their inclusion in our articles. The notion of substituting non-free images for free images is not always workable concerning visual art. A particular image may be ideal for a purpose in an article. Another image may be a very poor substitute. Editorial discretion should be allowed the latitude to construct a logical article. If there is nothing specifically problematic about material in an article we should not be reverting it. From where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"? And you say "We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field". Are you setting up rules for writing about art? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am saying, on an encyclopedia, we don't leave things to the reader's interpretation, we are explicit about what they should know or where they can look to find more. And that's for every field, not just visual art. Take films - I'm sure that people in the Film project would vouch that there are films that must be watched to be appreciated, but they don't floor their articles with images or videos, they simply go to reviewers to say why and how the film should be appreciated instead of leaving that vague for the reader. The same can apply to visual art without question. You cannot claim that visual art is "different" because we have plenty of other visual arts fields that work without excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[4]? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, we are not an art appreciate book. We are not hear to explain to a reader how to appreciate something, but to be direct as to why the work has been appreciated. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—again, from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[5]? If you are deriving it from nowhere you can just say that it is a strongly held feeling. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're wikilawyering to try to find the exact text; I'm applying the intent of the language of what WP:NOT is and applied to non-free policy. Between those two policies, it is clear you can't just through up an image without discussion and say "here, appreciate this art". Non-free images must have strong reason to be used than just a vague hand-wave "oh, the reader will appreciate this image on its own." That's a function other websites and references can do for us, we need to be direct and explicit. And no, I can't point you to any exact langauge but again, remember, policy is not written as law but how it should be interpreted, and this approach to any form of visual art with non-free policy has long been in place. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you suggest substitutes for images you are objecting to in the visual arts? Perhaps you should try to. There is limited substitutability of images in the visuals arts. Well-known paintings tend not to lend themselves to being replaced by other well-known paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about replacement of images, I'm talking about reducing the number of images on the top-level articles in the painting area. In this case, for example, the pipe painting clearly needs to remain on WP for discussion of The Treachery of Images and likely Surrealism. What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article. All elements of Surrealism are covered in Surrealism, so we can obviously have small number (10 or so, as it presently has) there. But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there to represent the school and use the {{main}} link for Surrealism to learn more. None of these images being highlighted here are asked to be deleted, just using them in the places they make the most sense, and reduce the number that are being used in these high level articles based on the understanding there are other places where the school or painting is discussed in more detail and where a few more images can be afforded. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- You say "What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article." We are not trying to "cover every detail". "History of Painting" and "Western Painting" are important articles. There is plenty of leeway for editorial discretion. You say "But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there." How did you decide that we "only need one or two examples"? Such specifics should be decided by editors involved in writing the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about replacement of images, I'm talking about reducing the number of images on the top-level articles in the painting area. In this case, for example, the pipe painting clearly needs to remain on WP for discussion of The Treachery of Images and likely Surrealism. What I am objecting to is having too many example images (particularly non-free) in the higher level articles like History of Painting and Western Painting where there is no practical way to cover every detail of that field in a single article. All elements of Surrealism are covered in Surrealism, so we can obviously have small number (10 or so, as it presently has) there. But in History of Painting, there's no way to cover Surrealism in depth, so you only need one or two examples there to represent the school and use the {{main}} link for Surrealism to learn more. None of these images being highlighted here are asked to be deleted, just using them in the places they make the most sense, and reduce the number that are being used in these high level articles based on the understanding there are other places where the school or painting is discussed in more detail and where a few more images can be afforded. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you suggest substitutes for images you are objecting to in the visual arts? Perhaps you should try to. There is limited substitutability of images in the visuals arts. Well-known paintings tend not to lend themselves to being replaced by other well-known paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're wikilawyering to try to find the exact text; I'm applying the intent of the language of what WP:NOT is and applied to non-free policy. Between those two policies, it is clear you can't just through up an image without discussion and say "here, appreciate this art". Non-free images must have strong reason to be used than just a vague hand-wave "oh, the reader will appreciate this image on its own." That's a function other websites and references can do for us, we need to be direct and explicit. And no, I can't point you to any exact langauge but again, remember, policy is not written as law but how it should be interpreted, and this approach to any form of visual art with non-free policy has long been in place. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—again, from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[5]? If you are deriving it from nowhere you can just say that it is a strongly held feeling. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, we are not an art appreciate book. We are not hear to explain to a reader how to appreciate something, but to be direct as to why the work has been appreciated. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—from where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"[4]? Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am saying, on an encyclopedia, we don't leave things to the reader's interpretation, we are explicit about what they should know or where they can look to find more. And that's for every field, not just visual art. Take films - I'm sure that people in the Film project would vouch that there are films that must be watched to be appreciated, but they don't floor their articles with images or videos, they simply go to reviewers to say why and how the film should be appreciated instead of leaving that vague for the reader. The same can apply to visual art without question. You cannot claim that visual art is "different" because we have plenty of other visual arts fields that work without excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—images of works of visual art are different from images of most other things as concerns their inclusion in our articles. The notion of substituting non-free images for free images is not always workable concerning visual art. A particular image may be ideal for a purpose in an article. Another image may be a very poor substitute. Editorial discretion should be allowed the latitude to construct a logical article. If there is nothing specifically problematic about material in an article we should not be reverting it. From where are you deriving that we must "tell them why this art was appreciated by others"? And you say "We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field". Are you setting up rules for writing about art? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, I stress - as an tertiary educational work, we are not here to help readers appreciate art (as per your connoisseurship idea), but to tell them why this art was appreciated by others in a direct manner. We want to include what art connoisseurs have said about works of art to allow the reader to understand why a work of art or the artist is notable and important to the field, from which they themselves might come to also appreciate the art. But to show images with the expectation that the reader will come to appreciate it but without stating why it was appreciated goes against our core principles of not being a textbook. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—in the visual arts there is connoisseurship. There is also the attack on connoisseurship. But this is more recent. You say "Every other area of WP that deals with modern visual works (film, TV, video games, comics, etc.) Gets this and have adapted how they approach articles in that field to reduce grastitious nonfree. There is no reason the visual arts cannot take the same approach..."[2] You also say "Everyone else does this, so its very difficult to understand why the cvisual arts can't."[3] The visual arts are unlike most areas in which visual images are used. Specificity of image is related to connoisseurship and the legacy of connoisseurship in the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- First, no one is saying that non-free works of art cannot be used outside of the page about that work of art; as long as the work of art is notable, its image will be in WP somewhere, and can be linked to, and thus the impact on education is negliable. Similarly, there are editors that simply do no understand that we are a free content work first and foremost, and thus if they leave because they can't use non-free (which they will call out as fair use), that's not really any loss we can worry about. We're also not censoring, and that's not a pathway to walk down to try to argue against this. The point that I keep making is that I am not against a limited number of clear examples of non-free works in these various schools; I cannot imagine how one can have an article on surrealism without even included a handful of works like Persistence of Memory , for example. We just don't need dozens as these articles all currently sport. Overwhelming the reader with images on these pages without explaining the progression is less educational than removing all the images in the first place, in terms of being an encyclopedia. And all of this is towards maintaining the non-free requirement. Non-free use is supposed to be exceptional, and we've carved out places for these exceptions, but if we start making exceptions for these exceptions for one area, we will end up in the same aspect that WP:VEGAN talks about, and more and more non-free will be used when it was previously determined to be inappropriate. It is to some degree an exercise in ego-stroking - how free can we make en.wiki - but it is one that we are challenged to always explore by the Foundation. Everything else about en.wiki has been large experiments in groupthink development of a encyclopedic work, this is just an extension of that. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nettings makes some strong arguments above, about placing an extreme interpretation of the non-free mission above every other priority (including education and editor retention, bearing in mind that the latter is a Foundation priority). He also argues that it is odd to self-censor in order not to provide an image when there is no legal, ethical or editorial problem with it; Nettings calls this "anticipatory obedience." This is a key point that others have raised too. It would be good if you could address it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Arb break
Rather than getting bogged down in a meta-discussion about free content encyclopedias and art, could we see a list of the articles it's used on and evaluate them individually? Each use is a separate case, it's quite possible that some are warranted and others not. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- As of a few seconds ago it was used on 4 pages:
- History of painting
- Surrealism
- The Treachery of Images
- Western painting
- Werieth (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly okay on Treachery. Most likely okay on Surrealism. Everywhere else is not needed (as in the higher level articles you only need one/two examples of surrealism as a precursor to the main article in light of the larger topic, and there are much better examples like that work there). --MASEM (t) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—why do we "only need one/two examples of surrealism" in articles such as Western painting, History of painting, and 1929 in art? Is Surrealism important? Is "The Persistence of Memory" particularly similar to "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? They are both "Surrealism" but they very different paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because we have a separate article on Surrealism with several fitting examples already and further links to more. In the context of the outline articles of History of Painting and Western Painting, you only need a paragraph of text to explain how surrealism fits into these larger scopes, and just one or two examples to visually show that, since you have an article that goes into much greater detail on the school. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem—why do we "only need one/two examples of surrealism" in articles such as Western painting, History of painting, and 1929 in art? Is Surrealism important? Is "The Persistence of Memory" particularly similar to "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? They are both "Surrealism" but they very different paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A number of images fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. There is no critical commentary that requires a reader to see the image to understand the article. More specifically the two images in the Powers and abilities sections just show exactly what is described, and therefore no image is needed. In the costume section, there is no contextual significance that supports the use of images. The text is enough to describe the costume changes. A reader does not need to see every costume change in an encyclopedic article, rather they could read the comic itself. The remaining for images all simply show what happened in the comic, and therefore it is not necessary to the understanding of the article for there to be an image. -- TLSuda (talk) 01:31, 4 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.
We dont need 14 non-free images of this character Werieth (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's nearly no discussion of any of the images, and they are used primarily decoratively. We don't need to have comic panels to describe a characters superpowers if they are mostly by through and speech intimidation. Delete all but the infobox image for character identification. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The images relate directly to topics discussed within the article, and serve to illustrate those particular areas. Is it more effective to simply mention the "frequently reprinted panel where Satan resurrects Claire Voyant as the Black Widow" but not actually show that panel, or to actually show that panel? Is it more effective to discuss the fact that in the character's brief five appearances in the Golden Age she had four different costumes, and describe the differences but not show them, or to show them? Is it more effective to just discuss the "black widow mark" but never show what it looked like, or to show what it looked like? And so forth. Imagery and words can work together - and should.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)
- Non-free images and text have to work together, but we require more than just saying several different outfits exist or the like. We need critical commentary about the subject of the non-free image to use such. Perhaps this means the panel of her resurrection and of her black widow mark can be kept, but if no one discusses that she had had 5 different outfits during the Golden Age, we cannot use non-free imagary of each outfit. Most of these images fail WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not understanding here, but there is, for instance, an entire section on the Black Widow's various Golden Age costumes, that deals in-depth with their differing appearances, what changes were made from outfit to outfit, that is much more comprehensible with the images actually showing readers those points, than without. There are several mentions of her regenerating Pepito's leg, thus the inclusion of the actual panel where that happens. Instances like this meet the standard of illustrating a topic that is discussed within the article, right? Not trying to do anything wrong here - and yes, I'm the person who added these images - they just seemed to make it a more comprehensible article, and meet the "If it's discussed, it can be illustrated" rule.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)
- We need sourced discussion from third-party sources - not your (or any WP editor's) words, and not just from the primary source, but from third-party sources that have noted the costume change. Otherwise, it is a rather trivial detail that we don't go into detail per WP:UNDUE, and certainly don't use excessive non-free to illustrate. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not saying that third part sources aren't out there, I don't really know, but all most people are aware of, re the Black Widow's Golden Age costume, is that one, frequently reprinted panel of her resurrection. Most people have never read the original stories, which I have, nor do they have digital scans of them, which I do. Therefore most people don't know that what they think of as "the Black Widow's costume" only ever appeared in one brief story. That's a pretty interesting fact that would appeal to serious Golden Age comic book fans, the sorts of people who would predictably be reading an article on the original Black Widow, and certainly the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article on the character. I can send you scans of those stories, if you like, to verify the truth of those costume changes. Or would reading the original stories count as "going to the primary source" or somesuch and therefore be verboten for some reason?
This just seems to me, as a lifelong comic book fan in general and a serious Black Widow fan in particular, a really interesting fact, and the imagery presented really serves to bring it home.(User Talk:DuaneThomas)
- 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 consensus to keep three images in the article. The remaining images fail WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. -- TLSuda (talk) 01:37, 4 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 not seeing justification for 8 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Three non-frees seem reasonable - showing the normal text-editing mode, the visual class version, and the winforms interface (all major modes of editing discussed in the article). All other screenshots are excessive or duplicative. The old logo is not discussed and thus should be removed as well. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PD-logo. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The logo, yes. It is unclear whether the vectorisation is PD, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the vector needs to be redone to assure a free license. It does seem to be a faithful reproduction, but we can be in control of that by having a WPian remake and upload it. (the underlying logo is definitely below TOO and will be uncopyrightable and technically so should this logo, but let's remove that ambiguity). --MASEM (t) 04:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The main problem is that we don't really have any information about the threshold of originality for computer software. Some vectorisations are below the threshold of originality while other vectorisations are not. I don't know how to find out whether any given vectorisation is copyrightable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why if it the logo is recreated by someone that puts it out as a free license (eg someone at the Graphics Lab), that ambiguity is removed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have asked for assistance in recreation at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. As soon as that is taken care of I will happily delet the image with unknown status. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The logo is PD as it is not copyrightable. It's not copyrightable because it's not a literary work. The same applies to most typefaces, and also derivatices without originality. The same also applies to this file. This SVG is a derivative of a public domain typographic work without originality. It does not matter that it uses computer code. Hence why typefaces are generally not copyrightable (despite most now using vector graphics). For example: If I take a perfect photograph of a 2D work in the public domain without originality, the work is now completely represented by computer code. However, that does not mean my JPEG is copyrightable (many are, but not this one). Why? It has almost no original work added to it. I fixed the license and uploaded to Commons. The Haz talk 22:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have asked for assistance in recreation at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. As soon as that is taken care of I will happily delet the image with unknown status. -- TLSuda (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Which is why if it the logo is recreated by someone that puts it out as a free license (eg someone at the Graphics Lab), that ambiguity is removed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The main problem is that we don't really have any information about the threshold of originality for computer software. Some vectorisations are below the threshold of originality while other vectorisations are not. I don't know how to find out whether any given vectorisation is copyrightable or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the vector needs to be redone to assure a free license. It does seem to be a faithful reproduction, but we can be in control of that by having a WPian remake and upload it. (the underlying logo is definitely below TOO and will be uncopyrightable and technically so should this logo, but let's remove that ambiguity). --MASEM (t) 04:57, 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.
This is a single image used on a single page (I already dealt with the use on the uploader's page which flat out fails NFCC#9 there. As such this should be brought up at WP:FFD and not NFCR. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 6 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 file depicts a living person, one who is apparently known to the uploader. As a result, it should be possible to obtain a free image of this individual. It is therefore replaceable by free media, and hence not fair use. Yunshui 雲水 16:31, 6 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.
Image deleted by RHaworth. Image does fail WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7 and was correctly deleted. -- TLSuda (talk) 00:10, 8 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.
User:Stefan2 has tagged this file for speedy deletion on the grounds that it makes a false claim on the copyright owners. I've replied at File_talk:Reeva_Steenkamp.jpg as follows:
- This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because...
- First of all the image was first published by The Times of South Africa on 16 February 2013 just two days after Reeva's death in a story about her memorial service. It is clearly marked "File Photo" as a glance at the original page shows and as I made clear in the Fair Use rationale it was provided by her model agency (and subsequently widely reproduced the world over) as a mark of respect as existing photos of Reeva were for the most part glamour shots or otherwise unsuitable. As far as I know it was subsequently bought by Getty Images but that really isn't relevant regarding first publication rights that is the issue here.
- However the speedy deletion criteria here seem to be out of date. WP:NFCI 10 states that "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" meets the criteria for fair use. The only issue thus is the question of replaceability which I deal with in the Fair Use criteria.
- Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least 27 August 2011 when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
- By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.
- Incidentally administrators might care to check that I have already complained rather vigorously on my Talk page about the nominating editor here User:Stefan2, who I believe is stalking and harassing me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I raise the issues I mention here. Specifically are WP:NFCI 10 and WP:NFCI 8b valid or not?
Thank you. Fun place here BTW. Might pitch a tent myself :) Me, I'm Alzheimer but I did have a touch at least of Asperger when I was younger, so we should all get on famously. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- If the photo is now owned or managed by Gettys, a photo agency, any use on our end impacts their commercial opportunities for the photo, and that fails our NFCC#2 requirement. Any other non-press agency photo of her would be fine, but the press agency aspect is the problem here with this one. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well not if it's 0.1 MP file. That surely takes cares of NFCC#2. But that it's copyright is not the issue here. That's the whole point of Fair Use, isn't it Masem, that you acknowledge the work is in copyright but nevertheless claim Fair Use accepting certain restrictions such minimal use and repsect for commercial applications.
- But whar's your take on WP:NFCI 10. Is that valid or not? The only issue there is replaceability. And what of WP:NFCI 8b apparently contradicted by WP:F7? I have to sign off here for today but I'll look back tomorrow. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, our use of NFCC#2 says that even a reduced photo from a press agency is not usable, as the press agency is making money from selling their photos at any size to others. Shrinking it to reduce resolution does not clear the #2 issue. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's Gallo Images, not Getty Images (a different photo agency). The image violates WP:NFC#UUI §7 as there is no sourced critical discussion about the photograph, but only about the person depicted on the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's a crop from gty.im/161658209. Gallo are just their agents in SA. Gallo hold the copyright but the image is owned by Getty. I'll correct your other mistakes tomorrow. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:35, 7 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.
Image is no longer used in that article, and therefore discussion is moot. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:16, 8 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 use in OZ (Ultimate Marvel) might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Album covers on Nyles Lannon
Both images fail WP:NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. Neither image is required to understand the article about the artist and neither album cover is discussed. These are used purely for identification purposes and would only be appropriate on separate notable articles. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:15, 8 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.
Following a merge of two articles about albums into the artist's page, Nyles Lannon now has two non-free files on it: File:Astronomy for Children.jpeg and File:Chemical Friends (album).jpg.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
While I think one image is fine, I am not sure that having both meets the minimal use requirements of NFCC 3. I don't have any preference which image is kept if only one is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 18 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.
There is consensus that the images could meet WP:NFCC if source discussion was given on each article as to the important of the painting, showing justification as to why the image needs to be seen for that article to be understood. In the two weeks since the discussion petered out, the only additional sourced content is a quote from a fellow artist describing a link between art and spirituality. The only article where this point has content is the main Piet Mondrain article. The other articles have the exact same caption, which is not enough to pass WP:NFCC#8 as there is no relevance to that article at hand. As such, the image should be removed from the remaining articles, until such a time when the image would separately pass WP:NFCC#8 on each individual article that it is used on including there being textual content showing why it needs to be seen on that article for that article to be understood. Simply copying and pasting one sourced sentence is not enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. -- TLSuda (talk) 15:04, 8 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 have difficulty seeing justification for 8 articles. Werieth (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Argubaly, this is one of the most recognized examples of modernist and minimialist art. I think one use - in the non-artistic "Minimalist" article - is extraneous but the others seem like a reasonable use. It would be the equivalent of "the Persistence of Memory" is for abstract art. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The paintings are needed in the articles; one of the most important artist of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't this just consist of simple geometric shapes anyway? (The whole image essentially depicts a grid consisting of different rectangles). Would the United States copyright office register this work? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is just a painting just as any other painting would be a painting. I don't think that we (or the "United States copyright office") make any distinctions based on whether or not a painting contains "simple geometric shapes" or "rectangles". Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the determining factor for the USCO is whether something is a painting or not but whether the work possesses a sufficient amount of artistic and creative authorship to justify registration. If I took a brush and painted a blue capital A, that would definitely qualify as a painting, but I doubt it would possess the amount of creative authorship required for registration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's clearly a creative assembly of these shapes which is a test to consider under TOO evaluation. It's not just the fact its made up of simple shapes but if they're creative assembly of them. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that there is an amount of creativity in the assembly of these shapes, so we should keep it as NFC then. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- There's clearly a creative assembly of these shapes which is a test to consider under TOO evaluation. It's not just the fact its made up of simple shapes but if they're creative assembly of them. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the determining factor for the USCO is whether something is a painting or not but whether the work possesses a sufficient amount of artistic and creative authorship to justify registration. If I took a brush and painted a blue capital A, that would definitely qualify as a painting, but I doubt it would possess the amount of creative authorship required for registration. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is just a painting just as any other painting would be a painting. I don't think that we (or the "United States copyright office") make any distinctions based on whether or not a painting contains "simple geometric shapes" or "rectangles". Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't this just consist of simple geometric shapes anyway? (The whole image essentially depicts a grid consisting of different rectangles). Would the United States copyright office register this work? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The paintings are needed in the articles; one of the most important artist of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- We should now look at which uses are appropriate. It seems
- Piet Mondrian#London and New York (1938–1944) - violates WP:NFCC#8: there is no reference to this image in the section
- Modernism#Modernism continues: 1930–1945 - violates WP:NFCC#8: there is no reference to this image in the section
- Abstract art#Abstract art - violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG: removing the image doesn't affect a readers overall understanding of the article in a negative way
- Formalism (art)#Formalism in the 20th century - image constitutes just some eye candy for that section, violates WP:NFCC#8, as the images presence does not significantly increase a readers understanding of the section or the whole article and it would be understandable without the image
- Geometric abstraction - violates WP:NFCC#8: not needed in this article
- Minimalism#Minimal art, minimalism in visual art: just used as an example without any direct reference, nothing more than eye candy, use violates NFCC#8
- Minimalism (visual arts)#History - violates NFCC#8, just used as an example of an artist mentioned in one sentence in this section without any direct reference to the image
- So none of those uses satisfies WP:NFCC and the image should therefore be removed from all articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A gross misunderstanding of visual art; Mondrian; the articles listed above; and wikipedia itself. This is a seriously tired attack on the meaning and the value of painting; and the intention of the foundation to create an encyclopedia; make no mistake the foolishness above is pathetic and totally wrong and a violation of this project...Modernist (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully ask you to refrain from making unfounded assumptions about my motivations for the points I made above. It is not my intention to attack anything. As far as I can tell, WP:NFCC is still policy and all points need to satisfied. I precisely outlined above which points I think the image does not comply with. If you think I misjudged the appropriateness of one or more of the uses of this image, please be more specific about where I might have been wrong. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? What's this quote of yours supposed to mean? - Doesn't this just consist of simple geometric shapes anyway? (The whole image essentially depicts a grid consisting of different rectangles). - why don't you do a consultation here: [6]. Piet Mondrian was an important 20th century artist whose works speak for themselves - see Masem's comments above...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that the images can be kept on those pages as long as you have source discussion to show the art as an important example in each of those articles. The likelihood of finding that sourcing is very very very high, compared to previous discussions on previous works (this work is to Minimalism as like what "Persistence of Memory" is to Surrealism), so that's why I'm sure they can be kept, but that sourcing has to be added. This shouldn't be hard but it needs to be done. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will - when I find the time...Modernist (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend to the closer that we give time for this to happen (I bet you'll be able to use one or two refs in repetition for several of the articles), though maybe if you toss a question to the VArts project that would help (a quick google search shows that I'm not wrong in the sources existing, but just not sure what is best). Also note that it may not be specifically their work but the body of works of Mondrian in the same style that should be considered, with this one as a representative sample to avoid uploading multiple different works from the same series. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will - when I find the time...Modernist (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that the images can be kept on those pages as long as you have source discussion to show the art as an important example in each of those articles. The likelihood of finding that sourcing is very very very high, compared to previous discussions on previous works (this work is to Minimalism as like what "Persistence of Memory" is to Surrealism), so that's why I'm sure they can be kept, but that sourcing has to be added. This shouldn't be hard but it needs to be done. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me? What's this quote of yours supposed to mean? - Doesn't this just consist of simple geometric shapes anyway? (The whole image essentially depicts a grid consisting of different rectangles). - why don't you do a consultation here: [6]. Piet Mondrian was an important 20th century artist whose works speak for themselves - see Masem's comments above...Modernist (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully ask you to refrain from making unfounded assumptions about my motivations for the points I made above. It is not my intention to attack anything. As far as I can tell, WP:NFCC is still policy and all points need to satisfied. I precisely outlined above which points I think the image does not comply with. If you think I misjudged the appropriateness of one or more of the uses of this image, please be more specific about where I might have been wrong. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A gross misunderstanding of visual art; Mondrian; the articles listed above; and wikipedia itself. This is a seriously tired attack on the meaning and the value of painting; and the intention of the foundation to create an encyclopedia; make no mistake the foolishness above is pathetic and totally wrong and a violation of this project...Modernist (talk) 14:02, 23 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 opposition to the image being PD-simple as it is only text and fonts. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:53, 8 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 below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 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.
File:Screenshot of Windows Mobile 6.5.3.jpg violates WP:NFCC#3 as it is not needed for two non-free images of almost the exact image to be in an article. The other listed files fail WP:NFCC#3 & 8 as the image is only used for identification purposes and should remain on its main article. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:49, 8 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 article really need 10 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- What number do you claim WP:NFC limits an article to? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Andy stop stalking me. I never said that there was a hard limit, but rather that that only a very small number of articles can actually justify that number of images. (right now less than 100 articles). Requesting a review and outside opinion, is exactly what this board is for. Werieth (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to topic ban me from NFCR, then you know where ANI is.
- Your comment is an obvious, and context-free, implication that "10 is too many". This might be your opinion, but it's not supported by policy. Our policy is based on whether individual images are justified according to our criteria, not by counting them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Since you are unfamiliar with WP:NFCC Ill spell out the different issues (at least from where I see it).
- Andy stop stalking me. I never said that there was a hard limit, but rather that that only a very small number of articles can actually justify that number of images. (right now less than 100 articles). Requesting a review and outside opinion, is exactly what this board is for. Werieth (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also used on Windows Mobile 2003 does it need to be included in both articles?
- Also used in Pocket PC 2002 does it need to be included in both articles?
- Almost identical image to File:Winmo65.PNG, does the article need both?
.png){kind=link}
- Also used in Windows Mobile 6.1 does it need to be included in both articles?
- Also used in two other articles HTC Touch Diamond,TouchFLO 3D is it appropriate in those articles and is it needed in this one?
- Also used on Windows Mobile 5.0 does it need to be included in both articles?
- Used in a total of 8 articles. Is its inclusion justified?
- Almost identical image to File:Screenshot of Windows Mobile 6.5.3.jpg, does the article need both? and is also used in Windows Mobile 6.5
- We also need to factor in the overall picture, NFCC#3, do we really need that many images? Given the wide range of issues and non-clear way forward I felt it was appropriate to review the usage of non-free media, both as a whole and individual file usage on this article. Since you have a history of not understanding NFCC, and haven't bothered to even look at the issues before making veiled personal insults, Further input by Andy will be ignored. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- "does it need to be included in both articles?" just isn't a question of policy. We judge by whether it contributes substantially (i.e. enough to justify NFC) to each place that it's used. For File:Screenshot of Windows Mobile 6.5.3.jpg / File:Winmo65.PNG you might even have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another example where you show your lack of understanding about policy. NFCC#3 (minimal usage) limits the usage of files across multiple articles. Werieth (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- To quote WP:NFCCP#3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."
- This is a limitation on multiple distinct items being used to illustrate one point. It is not a limit on how many times the same file can be used across multiple instances.
- We should of course observe it. In this case though, each image is being used to illustrate a separate aspect of the subject's history and they are visually distinct enough to justify and require this. One case where that isn't being upheld though is File:Screenshot of Windows Mobile 6.5.3.jpg / File:Winmo65.PNG, as noted above, as these are visually very similar and convey little that is distinct. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- With most of these non-free, there is one page that the image is perfectly suited for and that there is likely no question of meeting all ten NFCC points - that's on the actual picture of the software application (not the OS). When you have second and third uses, the question becomes if that use is really needed on those additional pages when a link to the first page (where there's no issue of the NFC use) is considered okay. This concept is, in practice, tied with #3 in general about minimizing non-free overall on WP, not just within the limit of one article. So yes, multiple uses of screenshots of software is going to be questioned.
- For this particular article, the additional screens are a problem. Scanning through the section I only see one or two statements overall that discuss the visual appearance of the software (one statement, for example, compares the correpsondiong version to WinXP, that's a fair reason to keep). You cannot document changes in UI with images without text to go along with it, otherwise the images simply are decorative to the text. Even if you add more, you don't necessary need all those images - I thin there's only 3 that have a reasonable chance of being kept: the 2000 screen, the 2002 screen, and the 6(.0) screen, as those are the three major points of departures in UI compared to their respective previous version. (The 6.5 screen can stay in the infobox). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yet another example where you show your lack of understanding about policy. NFCC#3 (minimal usage) limits the usage of files across multiple articles. Werieth (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- "does it need to be included in both articles?" just isn't a question of policy. We judge by whether it contributes substantially (i.e. enough to justify NFC) to each place that it's used. For File:Screenshot of Windows Mobile 6.5.3.jpg / File:Winmo65.PNG you might even have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- We also need to factor in the overall picture, NFCC#3, do we really need that many images? Given the wide range of issues and non-clear way forward I felt it was appropriate to review the usage of non-free media, both as a whole and individual file usage on this article. Since you have a history of not understanding NFCC, and haven't bothered to even look at the issues before making veiled personal insults, Further input by Andy will be ignored. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 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.
Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 on Æon Flux and WP:NFCC#3 as there is another non-free file that shows the same information. The image should be deleted. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:36, 8 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 file has a fair use rationale for a section of Æon Flux the series, which covers the film Æon Flux (film). However the image is not necessary to help a reader because the section links to the article about the film, and in that article there is already another movie poster, File:Aeon flux poster.jpg. This contradicts NFCC #3b - minimum number of items. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct - we don't need the promo poster in the article on the cartoon series and separate from the one on the film page. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 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.
WP:BOLD closure as there is no opposition to PD-simple. Will revert if opposition occurs. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:24, 8 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 cd cover pd-simple? My only concern would be the "come with me" at the bottom right, but that seems to be a standard font (see the m & e in come and me. Thoughts? -- TLSuda (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's a standard font. Definitely PD-simple. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 25 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 the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be deleted. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:22, 8 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 image shows a download in progress and the fair use rationale is that it is for identification and critical commentary. However, the task of identification is more realistically carried out by the logo used on the article (File:GetRightLogo.jpg). There does not appear to be any critical commentary in the article. This image fails NFCC #3a (minimal number of items) and #8 (helping the understanding of the topic). Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the image violates NFCC#8 in GetRight. The elements visible in the screenshot are all common GUI widgets, so it should be possible to add a textual description if necessary. A screenshot could perhaps be appropriate if there were specific (preferably properly sourced) discussion about the programs GUI. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that there's nothing super-special on the UI that it needs a screenshot for. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 26 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The use of the said article's Non-free license is questionable as there could be an alternative of own photo or grab of another ones photo that is under creative commons license or other licenses similar which does not require an all rights reserved image made originally by Samsung to be used in the first place.GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It's not out yet, and was only presented at a trade show presumably open only to accredited media and industry members, who would be unlikely to post free content images. Thus, once it is released, the image must be removed, because it would become possible for an owner to make a free content image. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- At the same time, what is so unique about the design that we need to see it with non-free? It looks like every other phone out there. --MASEM (t) 06:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Considering that the phone has not been released indicates that the image would qualify under the criteria for fair use. In my opinion, the image is important enough to the article to justify the necessity of its inclusion. Once the phone is released however, the image would no longer qualify and should then be replaced with a free alternative. I suggest using the
|Other information =optional parameter of template {{Non-free use rationale}} to describe the temporary nature of this file, making it clear that a free alternative is preferred and will be used when it becomes available, and the fair use image subsequently deleted.—John Cline (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC) - I'd keep it, temporarily. When the phone is released, the Fair-Use Image should be deleted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Found a CC-BY image of it at Flickr (and does not appear Flickrwashed, just in case): [7], so this needs to go. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Already uploaded by me yesterday as Samsung Galaxy S5.jpg - was mysteriously removed by an IP address from the article. --RaviC (talk) 09:49, 27 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 the image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be deleted. -- TLSuda (talk) 14:14, 8 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 image has been resized to be approximately 0.1 megapixels, in line with NFCC 3b (low res) but it's illegible. Would it be reasonable to have a higher resolution version, not 1,434 × 2,053 as the higher res earlier revision of the image is, but perhaps about 558 × 800 (which I find legible)? I think this would be justifiable under NFCC. This isn't exactly the correct place for this discussion, but I feel that anyone who comments here is likely to have a good understanding of the guidelines surrounding fair use. James086Talk 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am still trying to make my mind up on FfDing the file. It has an invalid discription, and its rationale for usage is weaker than a wet tissue. It has numerous NFCC issues. Werieth (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Give me a second while I fix this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The document seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 and shouldn't be in the article at all. By removing it, the entire file will be deletable per WP:CSD#F5, making the resolution question irrelevant. This is a literary work, so a pixel resolution is irrelevant – the size is measured in words, not pixels. A reduction would mean removal of some words, not some pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I fixed some of the issues raised by Werieth. James086 When this was reduced to the size that it is now, it did become illegible but I didn't raise my concerns anywhere because I thought I couldn't do anything about it. I do feel that resizing this to a point in which the writings on the document could be legilable will increase the EV of this photograph much more. I'd appreciate any effort towards this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- re: NFCC 8, now that you mention it, it makes sense that an eviction notice would look like this. I wouldn't expect much different, so why we need to see the original is questionable. James086Talk 23:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I fixed some of the issues raised by Werieth. James086 When this was reduced to the size that it is now, it did become illegible but I didn't raise my concerns anywhere because I thought I couldn't do anything about it. I do feel that resizing this to a point in which the writings on the document could be legilable will increase the EV of this photograph much more. I'd appreciate any effort towards this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:47, 28 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.
Ive removed and given a final warning, If it continues take it to ANI and have them blocked Werieth (talk) 17:03, 8 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 page violates WP:NFCC#9 and a user keeps restoring the violation. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 8 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.