Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Guides and Scouts Movement of Belgium

Closure as there has been no discussion in 30 days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion, if necessary, at a later date. TLSuda (talk) 01:36, 9 April 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.

---

Excessive use of non-free images. Only the infobox image is needed in this article. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 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.

File:Richard Laurence Marquette.jpg

There is no evidence that the image is in the public domain. Although the subject is alive, it would be almost impossible to take a free photo of him due to his incarceration status. Therefore the image seems to pas WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 01:32, 9 April 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.

---

Bringing this here for review because honestly I just don't know. The uploader got this image from "Dark Vomit's True Crime Museum and Prison Art Gallery," a website which apparently attempts to profit from selling items associated with serial killers and other infamous criminals. That site is copyrighted, but it seems highly unlikely to me that they actually own the copyright on Marquette's mug shot any more than they own the text of the page in question. (it's the WP article, word for word. Kind of disturbing to see my work being used in this manner, but that's what we all signed up for)

So, what we have here is a mug shot taken from a page that almost certainly had no right to be using it in the first place. With the subject still being alive we usually must have a free image, but the possibility of that is basically zero as there is no chance this person is getting out of prison alive. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the claims of ownership are very unclear. Reading the arrest history from our article here, it's hard to tell which state but if its either Oregon or North Carolina, neither have something like PD-GovCA that would make mug shots necessarily free as government works. Ergo, unless better evidence can be shown of the source of this image, it should be deleted. I did try Google and Tin Eeye search but found nothing beyond something here but again, no obviously chain of ownership. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

it might just be from Oregon Department of Corrections, I don't think he was ever in North CarolinaWikiOriginal-9 (talk)

The "Betty Wilson" section states that arrest was made in NC. Either way, neither state immediately had PD gov't works, so there's a copyright chain here that's been lost in the file. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters that much, but it just says Betty Wilson was from North Carolina, He was in Oregon at the time and it says "a murder that happened on the other side of the country"WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Your misreading that. Betty Wilson was from NC. When she turned up dead, the obvious first suspect was her abusive husband, but he was still in NC at the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying Marquette was never in NC.WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

---

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:WindowSeat.png

WP:BOLD closure as there has been no opposition in over a week. TLSuda (talk) 01:35, 9 April 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 single album cover {{PD-simple}} or maybe {{PD-text}}? There is nothing, in my opinion that pulls this past the Threshold of Originality. I would even argue that the layout is not creative as it is similar to that of millions of other plane tickets and even concert or event tickets. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argee that this would fail the US test of originality, but not the UK version. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 30 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.

The Velvet Rope World Tour

Consensus is for removal of music video concert shots as they would be replaceable by concert-goers. TLSuda (talk) 01:37, 9 April 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 7 non-free images, at most I see 2-3 Werieth (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be a line on that article drawn between the concert, and the "You" music video which used some footage from the concert. That would also split the NFC respectively between those articles and cut down the # used in either article. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the music video ones are removable, as they are replaceable by non-free (taken from the audience - many will exist). Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 1 April 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:Crossfire (TV show - logo).png

WP:BOLD closure as there has been no opposition in over 7 days. TLSuda (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

If File:Cnn.svg is below the threshold of originality, is not this logo as well? The word crossfire is a font (although not a common one) with a circle around the "O" and two lines, not enough, in my opinion, to be considered creative. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree its free. Ignoring the crosshairs, the Crossfire font is standard, and the crosshairs themselves are not complex geometry. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 48#Jutsu (Naruto) (re Jutsu (Naruto))

All images except Chakra fail WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 01:54, 9 April 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.

---

Reopening the discussion because I am still unsure whether the images are in compliance with WP:NFCC. Do these images satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in the article? I am aware that those uses are very likely to be appropriate under United States fair use law. However, that is not what determines the appropriateness on EN Wikipedia. While those images are clearly nice eye candy in the article, the article would still be understandable without them. I also do not see a category at WP:NFCI those images would fall under that would generally allow such uses of screenshots from a copyrighted TV series. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In the general case, it is reasonable to use a few screenshots/etc. from a work of fiction to describe a concept about the work of fiction iff that aspect of the fiction has been discussed in secondary sources (with limited IAR exceptions). However, in an article like this one, which is 90% from primary sources, the use of such images beg the question (in addition to whether this meets WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:WAF). Arguably the second one, showing the locations on the body, can be recreated in free media (while a work of fiction, the fact that the fictions presents the chakra at these points on the body can be shown on a free image of the human body). The first image, the flow-chart, is something we can't recreate (well, we could redraw it but the concept is definitely copyrighted as a fiction of the show so end result would be non-free). The other images seem unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by the concept is copyrighted? The diagram is a representation of a concept from the show (the interaction between the different types of jutsu and energy) and copyright does not protect an idea, just the expression of that idea. It seems to me the concept of that interaction could be illustrated by a similar illustration which would not be a derivative work of this one (changing the appearance of the arrows etc). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea from the show is novel concept, as opposed to something factual like, say, a diagram of the water cycle which the concept would be uncopyrightable. As such, even if we could recreate it, it would be a derivative work of the original fiction. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am actually not an expert on copyright, but Copyright#Scope says "Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed." As such, if the concept of the chakra generation mechanics is displayed by a new graphic which is sufficiently different from File:Chakra generation in Naruto.png and is an original work trying to explain the concept, then I don't see how that could be considered a derivative work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:20, 2 April 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.

Giorgio Borruso

Consensus is the later two images fail WP:NFCC. There is no consensus on the first image. If further discussion on that image is required, the appropriate venue would become WP:FFD. TLSuda (talk) 01:45, 9 April 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 addressing the COI/Spam/advert issues but I have removed three non-free files from the article several times as failing NFCC and have been reverted. There just isnt any sourced critical commentary about the images. Werieth (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the COI issues, I believe the first photo of the Miss Sixty dressing rooms can be used as I do see secondary sources via google books/magazines that discuss that, and that would serve as an example of the style of the work. However, without more expansion of the other projects, the other two images aren't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

However until that information is included in the article, the file should probably be removed. Werieth (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically there is mention of it in the text, but the text begs the question of being a copyvio from reading these other sources. (I can't find it exactly, just that the phrasing is similar to several other texts). But at least that specific example is mentioned in text, so I wouldn't remove it, simply get the editors to improve the text. It would be silly to orphan the image when the use is likely fine and just needs cleanup/improvement, as opposed to the case where there's no obvious justification for use (zero mention in text) and requires the editors to actually show that. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 31 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.

File:IndyCar Series.svg

Consensus is the only acceptable use of the image would be on the season that it was first introduced on. The other uses fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 01:47, 9 April 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 IndyCar Series might violate WP:NFCC#8. There is no reference to this image in the section where it is used. The use in 2009 IndyCar Series season might violate NFCC#8 as well, since I thought the use of a logo of a recurring event in the article of an event of a particular year was only appropriate if that event had it's own variation of the logo. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The only place that that this logo is proper is on the season that first introduced it - that being the 2003 season (checking the article text). It is not proper on the either the broad series article or the 2009 article. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 31 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.

File:Eland90.PNG

Consensus is the image is replaceable and therefore fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 01:50, 9 April 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.

---

Uploader wants a discussion - I see no need to deny him. File was tagged as "di-replaceable fair use" by User:Crisco 1492. I will advise both creator and nominator of this review. Since the object actually exists as it was taken by Google, then it would seen to be replaceable - true it might be difficult and expensive to go to the country with the object, but that does not make it irreplaceable, so my conclusion based on the data available would be delete  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Data from uploader User:Katangais on image page - If I'm going to bother going through this trouble, I want a discussion. Not a notice requesting me to put up this template, and an immediate deletion a week later when the abovementioned period has expired. In fact, if I don't get a satisfactory response from a community member with said authority this time, I will remove the delete template or simply re-upload the image. I've been round and round with this before, admins. @first rule of fair use: No known free alternatives of this image depicting this particular subject matter currently exist. I've been engaged in a battle for two years now to get various photographs of the topic released into public domain and can provide the details if necessary. Please review the rationale I've already posted below - particularly point #4. If or when a free alternative becomes available, this image will be superseded. At the moment, it cannot be replaced except by another non-free image.

The criteria is "could be created", not "has been created". Yes, this means someone has to go to that school and take the picture, but that's a trivial barrier that violates no legal or privacy issues. Being a vehicle and not a work of art, there's no copyrightable issues here that freedom of panorama would enter into. So replaceable fair use is the proper call. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: as long as it is hypothetically possible to create a free alternative someday - never mind the fact that none currently exist - any other images of the topic matter absolutely must go, thereby depriving the article of its sole visual reference for what may be an indefinite period? --Katangais (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fact that the Foundation even states in their resolution that applies to all projects [1] : "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose..." Given that we also consider WP a work in progress, the lack of a non-free image while we wait for a free image is not considered harmful for the project. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to the project at large, perhaps, since the Eland Mk7 article is considered low-importance with regards to everything but South African military history - but I would argue that this remains detrimental to the page in question. Before this hypothetical free alternative (assuming it's ever created, given the dwindling number of intact vehicles available for public viewing) comes into existence, the continued use of a "single small image or extract sufficient for the intended purpose without being excessive" would be preferential to 1) provide visual identification of the topic, which complements the text already detailing technical characteristics better understood by our average reader with the accompaniment of a visual aid, 2) where a public photographer's access to an actual Eland is limited to a single country [South Africa], furthermore, one of only two locations [Swartkops, Tempe] inside said country, and 3) for which there is no known representation under a free license, and no indication that this situation will change any time soon, qualifies as fair use.

Surely you appreciate my predicament. Most vehicles of the designation "Eland Mk7" have now either been converted to scrap or sold to more authoritarian African nations like Benin and Zimbabwe which severely restrict photography of their defence force hardware. Since the SANDF has started pulling Elands from their own museums (see here) because many of the surviving display examples were from a cache marked off as destroyed, there remains only a few in the hands of SA private collectors aside from the ones being used as gate ornaments at Tempe and Swartkops. And of these, only the ones at Tempe can be photographed up close, as the ones in Swartkop are inside a compound.

Believe me, I don't like having to use a non-free image there any more than anybody else in the community. But the presence of a visual aid for this particular article was important enough to me that I've spent the past two years trying to locate free images, and corresponding with veterans and lecturers from all over the world to get something from their photo albums legally released as free images. If there was an easy alternative here, or if it were as simple as "free images are always preferential to non-free images", I'd have found it. There isn't.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked for any Wikipedians who live near the school? Given the wide range of users we have we probably have at least one or two who could go by the school and take a photo. Werieth (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're still stuck that this is, as best can be told, a replaceable free image.

That said, I have been looking at flickr.com which is not bringing up any immediately images we can use directly on WP as free, but that gives two possible leads: first, you can contact the publishers of these photos and ask if they could change their licensing to work for us - that is, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Barring that, images like this show that there's at least one other tank museum with this vehicle (I see also [2] and [3] (this latter at Pantserskool) so there's more than just this one example. So yes, many are probably torn down but there do appear to be museum pieces out there, and as such, we can expect someone (ideally a resident in South Africa where I believe these are all located) to grab a photo or two (hundred) of the tank(s). But in terms of non-free policy, we clearly can get a photo of one of these that still exist for free.

As an interm solution, since the Eland is based on the Panhard AML, you could use one image of the Panhard as a temporarily leading image, with the clear caption that the Eland is based on the Panhard design to give an idea of what it looks like. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried the "request for photographs" on the site before in a different situation, but regrettably what seems to happen is that years go by before somebody becomes available - and since this is such a unique request I would be appealing to a very narrow margin of Wikipedians. Furthermore, User:Masem, I hate to burst your bubble - but I've seen all those images before. They're out of date. The first one you sourced (apparently showing that there's "at least one other tank museum with this vehicle") came from the South African National Museum of Military History, Johannesburg. As I've indicated in my prior statement, the two examples there have already been yanked by the SANDF. Furthermore, the one on display at Tempe Pantserskool is the same one in the Google Streets photo we're debating. They've simply moved it around the base since that picture was taken. As for the grey one that used to be immediately in front of the gate - check Google Streets, it's been removed since then as well.

I stand by my statement that the number of Elands are dwindling dangerously. The SANDF launched an investigation a few years ago which found that due to an administrative cockup most of the examples sold in the early 2000s to museums or on display at shellholes were from a big cache of ARMSCOR equipment marked off as being scrapped or sent to the tank range as targets. They subsequently began seizing many of the cars previously available for public viewing.

The Eland only vaguely resembles the Panhard AML it replaced; according to Jane's 90% of the working parts are unique to South Africa - if we use an AML photograph, the Eland's main characteristics which make it unique from the former - such as the diesel engine on rails, will be missing and therefore cannot properly help the reader understand some of the most important technical traits described in the text, confounding its intended purpose. At one time this was the main image on that article, and it so frustrated me that I started my campaign to find one for the noddy. Putting it back would place Eland Mk7 back to square one. In light of these circumstances, is it not possible to find an exception agreeable, at least for several months? If a specific entity like Google has an issue with displaying their works here, what if I found an old one from four decades ago with an unknown copyright holder?

As I told User:Dave1185, I'm at the end of my rope with asking people to release their image under a creative Commons licence. So far I've been shot down by scores of vets - both South African and Zimbabwean - and even a lecturer on bush wars from the UK. They clammed up and severed correspondence as soon as I mentioned a Creative Commons license. I followed the instructions here to the letter, made them aware of all the legal implications, requested they send a formal notice to OTRS, and now I've been branded a scam artist. I was hoping the militaria collectors would be more amenable, and have opened correspondence with this site, which documents at least three Mk7s in private hands. So far there's been no response.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as we know at least one of these and is accessible to the public (the one in the Google streetview), we simply can't allow a non-free version of it. It's a shame those other photo owners don't want to relicense under CC terms (and/or lack of response), but we really are tied here; any non-free version is a replaceable. Now, as yet another possible avenue but I didn't see many photos that helped here, is if there are non-free historical photos of the Elands' on the field where the event (including the use of the Elands) can be well documented by sources. For example, the Elands in the midst of combat (since we certainly can't recreate that). That's a stretch and again, it will depend how important the event is. On the Panhard, I realize it is not exactly the same, but as long as the caption is clear ("this is not the Eland but the unit that it was modified from"), the Panhard pictures can still help to indicate size and the general chassic shape. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I suppose in this case finding a Wiki-appropriate image of the subject in action during Operation Savannah or the 1994 Bophuthatswana coup shouldn't be too difficult. It's conceivable to source one to either of these respective articles first, before creating an additional non-free use rationale for Eland Mk7.

@Masem: Your civility and assistance here is much appreciated.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 18:01, 2 April 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.

Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Consensus is the teaser image fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 01:51, 9 April 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 doubt we need both of those unfree files Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, especially the second image (File:Fifty shades teaser.jpg) seems to be unnecessary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As well as this is the teaser poster and not final. We probably shouldn't have both at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That and it has absolutely co context. It doesn't even have a caption. I am going to be uploading a second poster for another film to replace the one in the info box and will be keeping the second poster for the body of the article because there is discussion of the poster and will be creating a marketing section that refers to the second poster and the reasons why it was created. In this article, there is nothing here that justifies the use of the second image and fails minimal use for that reason as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The teaser has been removed, per this discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 4 April 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.

Plain Dealer front page

Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 as it could be replaced by the byline and an older (Pre-1932) copy of the newspaper. TLSuda (talk) 12:55, 12 April 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:

• File:Plain Dealer front page.png - The image has an invalid rationale and does not pass NFCC#1 as unreplaceable [4]. The masthead from the newspaper has been deemed to be public domain [5] and could be used instead of a non free image of the front page itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• If an image of the front page must be displayed, maybe an image of the front page of an early issue could be used (all pre 1923 issues are in the public domain). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that is an very intelligent and reasonable answer to this. But I do feel the frontpage being used now should be deleted as not passing NFCC#1 even more now as it is reasonable to believe a free version could be used.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A question to ask (but I dont see it obvious at the article) is how important the front page layout is. If there's no commentary on that layout, then the by-line is sufficient (with pre-1923 versions to showcase the origins) --MASEM (t) 22:53, 2 April 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:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg

This thorough discussion has generated a load of text in debate over whether the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC. Taking simple !votes, there seems to be 9 who support inclusion of the image and 8 who oppose inclusion. We remember, though, that consensus is not determined by the number of votes but rather the quality of the argument in relation to Wikipedia policy. I've outlined the general discussion for coverage in the closure.

The oppose discussions center around the belief that the image is replaceable and therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. The opposers feel the image fails this criteria because the subject is still alive and is still a public figure who would have an easily place where a photo could be taken.

The supporters contend that the image is very specific and is crucial to the understanding of the article, especially in the section about Natalia becoming an internet sensation (read meme). The supporters purport that a free image would not be able to be generated as Natalia's uniform has changed drastically multiple times (change of stars and change to Russian federation).

The opposers generally respond that the image is of the specific press conference and that the event itself is not notable itself.. The opposers also point out that the meme is about Natalia in her uniform, and while it may be sparked by the press conference, it is note a meme about the press conference itself.

The supporters further point out that the image is no longer used in the infobox as it is not appropriate there per WP:NFCC. They also point out that the image's use in the internet popularity section has contextual significance that is required under WP:NFCC#8.

The opposition points out that the arguments used to show that the image is not replaceable (her hairstyle, her specific uniform, etc) are not specifically discussed in the article backed by reliable sources. The article states that the footage led to her internet popularity, but this sole statement is not enough to require the image be seen to understand this section or to understand that a video was the spark for a meme.

For this discussion, it is my interpretation that the policy-backed consensus shows that the image does not meet WP:NFCC as the opposition points out that there is not enough contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8) to make the image non-replaceable (WP:NFCC#1). To show full transparency, I deleted the orphan non-free revisions of the image, as an administrative action, in no way changing or participating in this discussion (it would've had to be done either outcome). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:49, 12 April 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 already had a Replaceable Fair Use declined. However, contrary to the assertions on the talk page, the image is being used in the infobox.

Long-standing practice and common sense both show that an image placed in the infobox is there for illustrative purposes, even if we place a token text below it and state "hey, see, I'm just illustrating this text which also happens to be in the infobox."

What's more, this is qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#F7 because it comes from a commercial source, although I've refrained from speedy deleting it because discussion seems like a smoother way to go. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have changed my opinion to supporting inclusion, though only in a limited set of circumstances. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this qualifies are speedy replacable non-free use. I know that it is true that that specific conference is what set things in motion but that was less than a month-some ago, and her looks will not have changed that much - she still holds the office, and last I checked, there's no issue with getting a photo of her in public. Ergo, this fails NFCC#1. I could understand if, for example, she were out of office and would never be in uniform again, but a free photo of her in uniform does the same job as the non-free cap from the video. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose usage I've removed the image. Non-free images of living people are not allowed. This is, in my view, a topic for which there is no room for debate. Some members of the community will debate cases where securing a freely licensed photograph would be nearly impossible (such as a criminal in hiding or behind bars for life), but for a public figure, there's truly no room for argument, as it will always fail NFCC criterion 1. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Magog - so it's not fine in the infobox? What if it were to be outside the infobox? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Masem - it wouldn't be the same with another photo of her - she needs to look exactly the same as in that press conference (in that uniform, with that hairstyle - which she has since shown that she changes both her clothes and hairstyle). Hell, some fan-art even depicted the microphones. The fair-use photo is exactly why she rose to prominence, any other future photo would not be. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(@Masem) I've no comment yet about the rest, however she's since been promoted to a three-star shoulder board, and most of the depictions of her use the two-star shoulder board as that was what she was wearing during the conference. Furthermore, she has stated in a video interview that she soon expects to don a Russian prosecutor uniform, instead of a Ukrainian one (which is what was worn during the press conference). --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still arguably the general aspect of the uniform, and not the specifics of the uniform (given that I've seen much of the art with variations on the uniform left and right. Or lack of various parts of the uniform thereof). It's the combination of her physical appearance plus how that got popularized to the manga-style that borne out the meme, and we can capture that first part with just any free photo of her, the latter with non-derivative fan art from the Commons catagory. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the meme is based on that one image. For en.wiki, first and foremost, she is a person in a seat of major political body, and that's what our focus should be on first, so we should be using a free image of her and cannot use non-free to represent her. Second, while the meme is based on that one initial shot, it clearly has gone beyond just that one shot (I've seen plenty more other photos taken as fandom based ones). And lets go one more step, for Eduard Khil aka the Trololo guy, who's meme came to fame while he was still alive, we don't have any shot of the video he sang in (which is clearly what his visual fame was on), but do have free images. The use of non-free for living persons in articles about those living persons is pretty much a barrier we cannot break per the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to add a screenshot for Trololo in the first place? I would think it qualifies for fair-use. I CTRL-F'd the talk page for photo and image but na-da. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As best as I can tell reviewing the history of the article (created on the dawn of the meme, and up through his death), no, there was no image from the video included, but that's between all the IP trolling (because internet) and lack of comments. But at the same time, there was a free image of him from the start (the same in the infobox presently). Because we had that free image the non-free would never be allowed, unless one can demonstrate his younger personal appearance was notable, which is wasn't. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support use The use of File:Natalia Poklonskaya conference screenshot crop.jpg satisfies all 10 criteria of WP:NFCCP. It or an equivalent image from the same video are vital to the reader's understanding of the topic and it seems important to the dignity of the individual that the authentic image should be used as the lead image rather than some fabrication. Andrew (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support use per arguments of Starship.paint and my own, prior to this. I am fine with moving the image outside infobox, where we should preferably have a free use, obtainable image. However, I stand by the reasoning that this particular image (a still from a specific video) is non-replacable. She is famous not because of her job but because of said video. The importance of this video is discussed in text. It is impossible to travel back in time and obtain a free licensed image from said conference. Arguing that we can one day get a free image from a similar conference is beyond the point; this particular historical conference is of key importance to her biography, and how she looked back then can only be illustrated with a photo from that conference (or even more to the point, with a still from the particular video which made her famous). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support use - here were my arguments to the speedy deletion: "Subject rose to prominence directly due to this video of her first press conference as Prosecutor. No free images are available to demonstrate this press conference except this video. Another picture of her would not be relevant to the specific event (the press conference)." Additional arguments: "The way I see the article has dual thrusts for notability, a) she's a Prosecutor of Crimea, b) she gained Internet fame (which happened to be because of a video of her being the Prosecutor of Crimea). The current fair use picture is very fundamental towards b), and it coincidentally fulfills a) as well, which is pretty awesome. It would be probably impossible for any free-use (or fair-use) photo to accomplish both a) and b)." starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Foundation is pretty clear on this: "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Her "cuteness" still exists in any photo taken of her for the near conceivable future (The presser only a month ago, she hasn't aged past that). If you cannot identify specific elements of her appearance at that press conference that have been noted by secondary sources, then her specific appearance at that conference is not critical enough to violate this point. And no, the fact that that conference triggered fan art is not secondary coverage for our purposes. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• specific elements of her appearance at that press conference like... Bloomberg: "A video clip from the press conference, in which a pale Poklonskaya, with her dark blond hair seemingly uncombed, wears a brand-new uniform with shiny insignia and bats her big blue eyes at questioning reporters..." Stuff: "During the press conference – dressed in a military uniform with her hair loosely tied back..." Nevnov.ru: "The video from the press conference ... she is of course clever, beautiful (blonde hair and blue eyes are so iattractive to the Japanese, because they lack that from nature), wears uniform with epaulets, speaks confidentially, is not afraid of strong and intensive phrases which are immediately taken as quotations... " RT: "The video with her speech ... with Poklonskaya’s big blue eyes and infant-like looks..." New York Post: "her anime looks, glamorous blond hair, elfin face and wide round eyes." Financial Times: "swept-back blonde hair and saucer-like blue eyes, in contrast with her severe blue uniform". You were saying, @Masem:? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• All talking about her in general, not anything specific on that image of the conference; her appearance hasn't changed in the month and all those visual qualities stated still apply, that a free image will be able to show. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well the specifics are the hairstyle and the uniform, both of which are mentioned, both of which she does change. If what benlisquare said is true: she soon expects to don a Russian prosecutor uniform, instead of a Ukrainian one)... what's going to happen? We delete this photo now because she still can wear a Ukrainian uniform, but we restore it once she starts wearing a Russian uniform? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Going off the generated fan art, her fame in the Japanese art community is not because she is in a Ukrainian uniform, or her hair being tied back, or sitting down at the microphones, it is, as quoted above "her anime looks, glamorous blond hair, elfin face and wide round eyes." - that being a consistent part of the artwork generated but with numerous variations on the uniform, hairstyle, and posing. The press conference video should be noted in text as what launched this new popularity, but the image from the video is not required over a possible free one to understand how some see her beauty . --MASEM (t) 13:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it's fair for you concentrate on the eyes and face... they will naturally will remain the same, as will her hair color unless she chooses to dye it. It's the additional fact that the hairstyle and uniform also matter, which some sources have mentioned as above "seemingly uncombed" / "swept-back" and "loosely tied back". The uniform was mentioned enough times as well. I think its clear that a very large majority of the fan art feature the same hairstyle and uniform, and the posing doesn't really matter IMO. The exact color of the uniform between images differs but it is obviously not a wide range. starship.paint "YES!" 08:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose usage Easy di-replaceable non-free media. The person is still alive, and not noted for that specific visual look. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

See my comment above at "10:29, 4 April 2014" starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose usage It's perfectly clear that it fails our exemption doctrine policy. Keepers are essentially trying to suggest the image is the subject of commentary, but it's promoted for visual identification. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Support in "Internet popularity" section per Magog below, which does seem to sensible to me on reflection. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose usage Replaceable, not part of commentary and does seem to be simply used for illustrative purposes.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support usage. Absolutely impossible to replace. The screenshot illustrates the video that was responsible for Poklonskaya's rise to prominence. Where can you find a replacement? Can you go back in time and take a picture? (And you would have to stand right behind the Argumenty Nedeli 's camera cause Poklonskaya for sure looked completely different from another angle.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If the only fanart that arose from that conference was that specific pose and arrangement - (Something akin to the "McKayla is not impressed pose) and no other posing, that may be an argument. But it's clear that the video was only a spark for the fan community to see her appearance, and since has drawn her in all sorts of different ways, and as such, the importance of seeing the original conference image is no longer important over having any free image of her in person to show her looks and how some consider that art-worthy. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose usage. Frankly, I do not see any way a photo of a living person can be kept as a fairuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  To lllustrate an event, not a person herself. (Criteria: "no free equivalent", "contextual significance".) The event is discussed in the article. Also, you can't understand the fan art / why people are drawing her like that without seeing a screenshot of the original video. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  This is not what the policy says.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Further, the article is about her, not the event. If the press conference alone was notable, that would be different, but it's clear this person that has the notability, not the event. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: Can you point me to where the policy says a photo of a living person can be kept per fair use? As far as know it can't be used in the infobox, but elsewhere it can. I'm sure I have seen many examples of such usage in music articles. (There are unfree band photos used per fair use.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  From WP:FAIRUSE: "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." is listed as an example of unacceptable usage. Photos of living persons in articles about them (with some exceptions, like retired persons, are speedy deletion material, and I do delete such images on a daily basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  But what you cited is not an absolute prohibition under all circumstances. If someone takes another photo, the free replacement can be used in the infobox, but not to illustrate the press conference and show the origin of the fan art. There's no image that would "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  No. If the article were about the press conference the photo indeed might be considered as non-replaceable. In this case, the photo is replaceable. Everybody can go to Simferopol and take a picture. She is a public figure.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  It's replaceable for the purpose of identifying the person (i.e. for the infobox), but for illustrating the part about the press conference and the fan art it's irreplaceable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose usage. It's a woman in an outfit with some microphones. Not strikingly difficult to visualize. And who cares about fanart? We're not showing any in the article so I doubt readers will care. Just wait until a free image pops up. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like we are including fanart. Wasn't loading for me. Still disagree with inclusion of this image. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support usage. The press conference, and the video image(s) arising from it, are a key element in her notability. The article is considerably poorer without this image, and the fanart is rendered pretty meaningless. GrindtXX (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose usage There are no grounds to keep this image, and it fails NFCC #1 and #8 as others have said it is replaceable with free content and this given image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of her and the omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. She will at some point give another press conference, take a camera along and take a picture, she will walk from her car to her office or will be out shopping one day take a picture then. There are however strong Licensing policy reasons why it must be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 09:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support usage - from someone who spends hours searching for free images, Her image may be irreplaceable..free images are not easy to come by, especially of "crimean people" I support using this image until one can be found, and then this image should be removed completely. I honestly prefer an actual image to a fanart being used..--Stemoc (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin note: This vote is logically insupportable. If you believe there could be a conceivable situation in which this image would be no longer needed and could be replaced by a free one, once such a free one has been found, then you cannot possibly support keeping it, under the WP:NFCC rules. If it could be replaced, even just hypothetically, then it cannot be used now. Absolutely no wiggle-room in the rules here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • By that logic there shouldn't be fair-use images of Beyonce Knowles, but there are 12 of them. Despite the plethora of free images of Beyonce available. —  dainomite   15:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It all depends on what such images are being used for. If they are used for illustrating something that is inseparable from that particular visual work itself (e.g. how Beyonce styled her appearance in one particular music video), then by the very nature of the topic there is no conceivable way how that point could be illustrated with anything other than a screenshot from that video. In the present case, the only logically supportable claim in support of using the Poklonskaya screenshot is if you argue that only seeing her in that particular, first press conference could possibly help the reader understand how that public perception of her was created in the eyes of those internet fans. However, some here above have argued that you could just as well understand that public perception if you saw her in some hypothetical other photograph made on some future occasion (where her looks and style would probably still be the same). That's the question to be decided. What I was pointing out was that Stemoc was accepting the premise of that hypothetical replaceability; once he does that, his "keep" !vote becomes automatically invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Sometime back, a NFC image was deleted from the article of Lee Thompson Young as users complained that he was a young actor and thus there are a lot of free images of him out there so there was no need to use an non-free...that was 9 months ago, he still doesn't have a picture on his profile because there are NO FREE ALTERNATIVES available, even though he was a known actor, he didn't go out in public much and thus his article to this day remains without an image just because someone thought it would be easy to find a free image..I reiterate, we continue to use the current image on her page (I'm not saying it should be used as her image in the infobox) for "identification purposes" at the very least...who knows, we might get a free image of her in a year or two--Stemoc (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Completely different scenario. We have determined that when a person dies, we don't suddenly rush out to add a non-free of the person on the claim that free content can no longer be made. We said that about a 6 month period is reasonable time for a possible search to occur as well as to give enough time for the family/friends to mourn and then possibly approach them about a free image. Now that we're 6 months+ out and no free is present there, then its reasonable to use non-free at that point. Natalia's situation is 100% different - she's alive, she's a public figure, so NFCC#1 takes priority. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Eh, based on a lot of the delete !votes here one could argue that since Beyonce is alive and very much in the public eye a free one could be found. And it's doubtful that without the images "the omission would be detrimental to understanding" of the article. —  dainomite   15:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
          • If the argument was that the only image of Natalia that made her meme famous was the shot of her at the press conference, that would be one thing, but its clear that the press conference video was only the spark that led to larger interest in her in any photogenic quality. As such, to understand why she's being drawn in fan art does not require the non-free of the press conference , but any free image of her where her facial features are clear. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Except its not just her facial features but the uniform and setting from the press conference, neither of which are replaceable. —  dainomite   16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Given that the fan art's only commonality is her and generally in a form of formal military dress but not specifically the Ukraine outfit (lots of creative variation in color and style - and aware that young women in military garb is a very common feature of anime/manga), even sometimes without the jacket, it's pretty clear the fan art is not solely based on the press conference appearance. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Not specifically the ukraine outfit? Being that you're discussing the commons category right now I find that statement... interesting, because I would've assumed you have seen all the files contained in it. All 20 images of fan-art in the commons category depicts her IN her Ukrainian outfit, which she's no longer wearing because it was announced that she will be wearing the one from the russian federation, another reason why her in this file is non-replaceable. —  dainomite   17:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • Some have more stylistic differences than others; further, that's not the whole of the imagery associated with her (not to use as a reference but to capture the meme status [6] is an appropriate link in this context). Further, I very much doubt her perceived beauty would changes as a result of changing her uniform - again, it's not the specific Ukraine uniform here, but, bluntly, a cute woman in a military outfit, and I know enough about the Japanese culture that this triggers all the right fanboyisms. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose use First off, the blanket statement "Non-free images of living people are not allowed" (and variations there of) is incorrect. In fact NFCC does not even reference living people at all (unless I missed something but I just checked again). They are allowed in certain circumstances, typically a screenshot of something significant in a television series or film. Having said that, I don't see how this is one of those circumstances. The fan art was generated because of her appearance, well it is easy to determine her appearance with a free use image, and a free use image is creatable, thus the image does not meet NFCC#1. The only reasonable arguement would be that it is contextually significant to the understanding of the article, and I don't see how using another image would be detrimental to that understanding (from NFCC#8).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  A free use image is not creatable. 1. She looks different in other photos / videos. 2. She is now a Russian prosecutor and has a different uniform. It's impossible to recreate the look. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Really, she looks different? How does she look different? What difference does the uniform make? You don't have to recreate exactly what she looked like on that day to understand where the inspiration came from. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Except if you look at the fan-art of her they are all of her in her Ukrainian prosecutors uniform from the press conference. —  dainomite   19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  I am going to repeat myself. You don't have to recreate exactly what she looked like on that day to understand where the inspiration came from. Quite honestly I have no idea what a Ukrainian uniform looks like compared to a Russian uniform. It would make no difference if she was in plain clothes in the picture, I can still understand where the inspiration came from with a free picture of her (regardless of uniform or hair style) and text saying she was at a press conference. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support usage - I'm going to blast everyone here and support usage on my own deletion nomination. But only in the Internet popularity section; I had not previously been aware of the meme surrounding her. The image definitely is worthy of illustrating that section. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, actually I think that's quite right and I've changed my vote above accordingly. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This is an invalid argument. The meme is about her and her in the uniform specifically, not about the press conference; that was only the event that triggered her rise in the meme community. There is no need to use non-free to show her at the conference when there is the possibility of a free image of her - in uniform, in fact - that will due the same job in regards to both how she looks and her meme nature. There is not enough support to call the conference event notabilty enough to require an image from that specifically for a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The meme was sparked by her appearance in this video. Reproducing that exact appearance for a free shot is unlikely. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Sparked but not limited to. That's the important aspect here. It's here, not the conference itself, that propigated it. Counter example: File:Bush mission accomplished.jpg in Mission Accomplished speech - this setting cannot be recreated but it is the setting - Bush on the carrier with the banner behind him - that is what is notable here and everyone remembers. That's not the case with Natalia. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support usage - The image in question documents a specific event that has become notable in itself. NFCC 8 supports this use.--agr (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The even is not notable (the normal english version of the word, not the en.wiki version); she is, the conference video only sparked the world's interest in her. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support usage and agree with Coat of Many Colours, Magog the Ogre and ArnoldReinhold. Masem, ("not notable"??) you're asserting yet another one of your opinions as if it was policy. Here also, we should let consensus decide such subjective and opinionated issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:18, 12 April 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:Simon Shaw-Miller portrait.jpg

There has been no evidence of permission for this image. If permission arises, we can undelete the file at a later time. TLSuda (talk) 12:50, 12 April 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 doubt that Shaw-Miller is the owner of the copyright of this image. He didn't take it himself. It is a Birkbeck, University of London publicity photograph from before he moved to Bristol. Here is the original source: http://www.webcitation.org/6Bp93jpMJ (archived from a now dead Birkbeck page). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say lets wait for a reaction from the OTRS people. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

An email was sent and received at OTRS, but it was not released under any license, nor was an official copyright-holder mentioned. I've asked for more information and I will follow up. TLSuda (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:53, 5 April 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:USAir dividendmiles.png

PD-textlogo. TLSuda (talk) 12:52, 12 April 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.

---

May be a {{PD-logo}}; if not, it violates WP:NFCC#8 in US Airways. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the US airways logo is free (uncopyrightable) this will be too and can be moved to Commons. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 6 April 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.

Windows Vista

Use of images fail WP:NFCC. Consensus to keep infobox image, Longhorn logo and GUI comparison. TLSuda (talk) 20:58, 14 April 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 11 non-free files for this article? Werieth (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see justification for three: the main infobox screenshot (standard use), the Longhorn logo (well sourced as the working name for Vista), and the GUI option comparison. The individual feature screens all have separate articles and thus not needed here. The two build versions show no significant apparent visual differences nor am I see discussion of them at all that need imagery to see. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 7 April 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:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg

WP:BOLD closure as discussion has been opened for over 30 days with no comment. There is no prejudice to reopening the discussion at a later date if necessary. TLSuda (talk) 21:06, 15 April 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 found a black-and-white version of the logo in the 1920 work Story of the Knights of Columbus Pilgrimage by P. H. Kelly. I wonder (1) whether the image contained in this file is {{PD-US}} or (2) whether it is a derivative work of a {{PD-US}} image that is not sufficiently creative to obtain its own copyright. (In any event, the SVG will likely have to be remade.) RJaguar3 | u | t 20:54, 15 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.

History of the graphical user interface

WP:BOLD close as there has been no discussion in 30 days. No opposition to opening a new discussion, but if any files are only single article use, those discussions should be taken to WP:FFD. I would also recommend that more specific discussion take place from the nominator to get the discussion started. TLSuda (talk) 22:03, 17 April 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 21 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:19, 17 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.

File:James C. Nance portrait.jpg

If you ever have questions about the permission, WP:OTRS/N is the place to go. I've checked it, and everything looks fine, so I've updated the file. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Is the tagging of this file as non-free correct? The source link in the rationale points to a ticket in OTRS, which I cannot access. Can somebody confirm whether the ticket states this image has been released under a free license? If that is the case, then it should be tagged with an appropriate license tag instead of as NFC. If not, it should be removed from the legislature articles and it should be checked whether this image is in compliance with WP:NFCC#4. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:17, 18 April 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:18 Year Old Virgin.jpg

Image has rationale. No need for further discussion at this time. TLSuda (talk) 16:08, 18 April 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.

---

No rationale for 18-Year-Old Virgin, but should probably have one. Eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD F6. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at the history? It was vandalised several times, so I have reverted it to the last good version. ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history. It does have a rationale now, so it should be okay. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 18 April 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:Bade Achhe Lagte Hai.jpg

Image violates WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except the show itself. TLSuda (talk) 22:36, 20 April 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.

---

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in 11th Indian Telly Awards, List of accolades received by Bade Achhe Lagte Hain and People's Choice Awards India. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup, the title card is fine on the article about the show itself, but nowhere else. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 12 April 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:Indian Telly Awards logo.jpg

Image violates WP:NFCC#8 in all articles except 11th Indian Telly Awards. TLSuda (talk) 22:41, 20 April 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 Indian Telly Awards appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, as this logo is specifically for the 11th award. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Going by the Oscars or Emmys, the image on Indian Telly Awards should be the image of the award, not the title card of one of the ceremonies, so this assessment is correct. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 12 April 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.

Just a Little While

The consensus is for the cover art and one sound clip to be used in the article is all that meets the criteria of WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 19:00, 21 April 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 tried to trim down the non-free media usage in this article, there are currently 7 non-free files. (5 images, and 2 sound clips) Several of the files are trivial, and one is used across multiple articles and is missing a NFUR. Werieth (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I only see two valid NFC uses - the single cover art, and one sound clip. The Super Bowl nipplegate picture is unnecessary to understand the song (though obvious it is important to the song), and there's almost no discussion of the music video that requires 3 images of it (we don't need images of "Janet filming herself" to understand that concept). The promo art is just a picture of Janet, and as not a true alternate cover, fails NFCC inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 14 April 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.

Damita Jo (album)

Consensus is the first promo poster and the first two sound clips are acceptable but the rest are not permitted. TLSuda (talk) 13:51, 22 April 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 tried to trim down the non-free media usage in this article, there are currently 7 non-free files. (3 images, and 4 sound clips) Several of the files are trivial, and one is used across multiple articles and two are missing a NFUR. Werieth (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The second promo poster is not needed. The image of the Super Bowl performance is not required to understand how this album had problems due to that. I would keep the first two sound clips - appropriately discussed under the album's Composition, but the other two are from singles with separate articles and do not need to be here. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 14 April 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.

Mail (application)

Consensus is only for the one non-free image. Note the second logo is considered free. TLSuda (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Can we really justify 5 non-free files in this article? Werieth (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say File:Apple Mail.png is the only appropriate non-free image in the article. The others appear to violate WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:09, 15 April 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.

Feedback (song)

Consensus is to remove cyborg cover and the live music video shot. TLSuda (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not seeing the justification for the 4 images that are being used. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

First cover art is fine, and the music video (not the live performance) is fine as the video is critically discussed. The "cyborg" cover is not required, nor the live music video shot. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 14 April 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:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg

Image fails WP:NFCC#1 & WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 14:05, 22 April 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 file replaceable? Werieth (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, if the site still looks like that (which seems likely), then yes, this is replaceable, as one can travel there and take a photo of it. Secondly, the use in Mehrgarh appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:05, 15 April 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:Challengefilm2.jpg

This should be taken to FFD since its the only use of that image. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It is not needed to add image to illustrate plot. Tito☸Dutta 04:52, 22 April 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:Challengefilm1.jpg

This should be taken to FFD since its the only use of that image. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

It is not needed to add image to illustrate plot. Tito☸Dutta 04:52, 22 April 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.