File talk:Boeing-NLT-concept.png

Non-free template[edit]

To answer the deletion template stating This file does not appear to comply with the non-free content criteria, specifically: Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding.

I disagree, as I think

The file does significantly increase the readers' understanding of the subject : it depict an airliner design which did not reach the market, and thus is the only way to illustrate its general configuration and design details.
Its omission would detrimental to that understanding : there is no other way to re-create this illustration, as no engineering data was released which could have permitted to model the aircraft, not even a 3-way view. It also illustrate the fact that Boeing went as far creating a model, not just testing the market response.

Thanks for at least putting the deletion process on hold until this discussion reach a consensus.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A picture is worth a thousand words. Many technical details of the design are not available in text form and this image is (possibly the only one) released to the press for publication. It is essential to a proper understanding of the type, and hence of the topic as a whole. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Only way to illustrate the subject at this point in time as no free images yet exist. No mere text description can give readers the information on aircraft configuration and arrangement than an illustration does. - Ahunt (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A file talk page is not really the best place to discuss (i.e. WP:!Vote) on whether a file meets WP:NFCC. It's OK to contest the speedy deletion tag placed on the article here on this talk page, but further discussion detailed discussion should take place at WP:FFD. Since there appears to be enough of a disagreement over whether this particular use does comply with relevant non-free content use policy, it might be best for the either JJMC89, who added the {{Di-fails NFCC}} tag, or the admin who reviews the tag to move this file to FFD for further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a convoluted process. If it was designed to be hard for commoners to apprehend, it would not be very different.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Files are not all that different from other pages when it comes to deletion. A file may be prodded for deletion, tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for discussion/deletion, and an administrator review is required before the file is deleted. The first two cases are generally reserved for files whose deletion/removal is generally seen as being pretty non-contentious (obvious violations of WP:COPY, WP:IUP or WP:NFCC), while FFD is reserved for cases where more substantial discussion is deemed necessary to establish a consensus. Just as you really wouldn't hold an WP:AFD discussion for an article on its talk page, you really shouldn't hold an FFD discussion for a file on its file talk page. Further discussion about this at FFD might actually be beneficial since FFD's (like other XFD pages) scope is community-wide and any consensus established there is most likely going avoid any concerns about WP:CONLOCAL resulting from anything decided here on this page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow on. Having acceptability discussions outside the subject talk page aims to keep track is a perfectly understandable goal (if I can understand correctly through the policy layers). But then the template:Di-fails NFCC contradicts that by stating If you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted on the talk page--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the wording in the template is sort of serving the same puprpose as a template like {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} in that the file has been tagged for speedy deletion, not nominated for deletion/discussion at FFD. If the file had been prodded for deletion, anyone could simply WP:DEPROD the file (even in bad faith), without any need for an administrator review. A speedy deletion tag is sort of like that except that an administrator will acutally review the file and determine whether deletion is warranted or further discussion is needed, and FFD is basically where further discussion should take place. FDD outcomes (like AFD, ec.) are determined through community consensus. The administrator who reviews the file can (1) delete it because they feel the tagging was correct or (2) decline it because they feel the tagging was incorrect or because they feel this sufficient doubt to warrant further discusison. Administrators who review speedy deletion tags particularly those who tend to deal in files, are supposed the talk page to see if there any comments disputing the tag before deciding what to do.

The wording for this specific template is "If you uploaded this file and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted on the talk page." in which "you" is really only intended to refer to the uploader of the file, and not really anyone else. I believe this primarily done just to discourage edit warring over speedy deletion tags, where you have an uploader removing tags from files they've uploaded only for the tags to be re-added by other editors. I don't think it's specifically intended to prevent others (who aren't administrators) from removing the tags in good faith as explained at the very top of WP:CSD; with files though there may be specific cases like {{rfu}} when it's not considered OK for anyone other than an administrator to do so. Anyway, it's probably best to just leave the tag to be reviewed by an administrator; if, however, the tag is removed by a non-administrator, then that person should clarify why by starting a discussion about the file at FFD to see what the consensus is so as to avoid any appearance of acting like an de-facto administrator.

One thing about file speedy deletion templates that does seem to differ from article speedy deletion templates is that the latter seem to be all set up with "Contest this speedy deletion" buttons which upon clicking will open up an editing window for the corresponding article talk page where a reason can be given. Perhaps this would be something worth adding the file CSD templates to avoid confusion and make it easier for file uploaders to know where and how to contest a CSD tagged added to files they upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what the template says does not convey the purpose which you say it serves. In particular it instructs the general editor that "if this file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it" there are things we should not do, but does not say how to actively pursue the image's retention. You must forgive us for filling in the gap as best we know how, in an attempt to to inform the arbitrating Admin. But I am not sure there is "enough of a disagreement" to warrant throwing more bureaucracy at it; the template poster is not a topic specialist and is unable to judge Criterion 8 knowledgeably; their view stands alone against three highly experienced members of the Aircraft WikiProject and we have all had these discussions dozens of times before. Honestly, there is no case to answer and if it were not for the blanket need for an admin to arbitrate such template placement, one of us would surely have removed it by now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THOUSANDWORDS is generally not considered a valid justification for non-free use and a local consensus established by a WikiProject cannot really take precedence over a community wide-policy like WP:NFCC, particularly a policy that basically is based upon a Wikimedia Foundation resolution. Anyway, I’m not trying to create new hoops to jump through; just point how these issues usually end up being resolved. —- Marchjuly (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However a WikiProject may have more experience of applying NFCC in its area of expertise than others do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, perhaps possibly yes which is why closing admins generally give more weight to the quality of the arguments being made over the quantity being made; at the same time, some members of a WikiProject may also not realize, however, that the concept of fair use and Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy are not one and the same, and that the Wikipedia’s policy has been intentionally developed to be more restrictive than fair use. —- Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste: Notifying others of a discussion is for the most part fine, but please try and avoid WP:CANVASSing when you do. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: where did I did that?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is losing the plot. The template is specifically invoking the value to the reader and Project members are responding to that concern. You may feel that your experience of NFCC et. al. is vastly superior to all of us, but please stay focused. @Marc Lacoste: strictly, you should have advised us in neutral terms and not expressed an opinion in your advisory post. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: I apologize if my post sounded a bit condescending; that wasn't my intent. The admin who eventually reviews things will sort this out. One thing that might help though would be to try and better connect the image with the text about the plane; ideally, this would be by adding sourced commentary specifically about the image to the section. None of the technical details about the plane (at least those currently mentioned in the section) referred to above by you and the others are, at least in my opinion, immediately clear from seeing this image. Of course, different persons may seen different things, but often NFCC#8 issues like this are resolved by trying to assess whether omitting a non-free image will be detrimental to the (general) reader's understanding; so, the stronger the connection between image and text, the more likely its removal is going to be seen as detrimental. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Lacoste: Using Template:Please see is generally a good way to notify a WikiProject, etc. of a discussion it might find relevant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the stronger the connection between image and text: Any example of a good usage?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC) thanks for the advice, didn't know[reply]