Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

File:Alagoas.jpg

Use of non-free material ought to be minimal. Masem's explanation is convincing, and their advice worth following. That this makes for a less attractive article ("it looked just like this ship" instead of an image) is unfortunate, but unavoidable. The image should not be used in other articles besides the Alagoas article and the article for the class; after all, the ship is an example of the class: the arguments for keeping it in the Alagoas article apply just as well to the article for the class. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2013 (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 is being used on multiple pages with only one page really meeting WP:NFCC#8 Brazilian monitor Alagoas the rest of the uses I removed, however I was reverted.

Werieth (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the only known image of any of the ships in that class of monitors. How does it fail NFCC#8? Because it's not of the other ships in the class? That's nonsense. NFUR's are listed for each article in which it's used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" in each of these articles, considering that all of the ships were similar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the only available image that shows what this class of ships looked like, and clearly satisfies NFCC#8. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It also fails WP:NFCC#3 and the last part of #8. I can see the for identification clause on the article about the specific ship. In other places a link to Brazilian monitor Alagoas would be sufficient. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, such a link would not be sufficient. And the picture is vital to understanding how small and how little freeboard these ships had. So neither of your arguments hold water, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  - I don't think you properly understand what NFCC3 means, Werieth. It proscribes using multiple non-free images in the same article to illustrate one aspect of the subject. What that means in practice, is that you cannot use multiple non-free images in the same article, unless their illustrative purpose is markedly different. So in this case, another non-free photo showing the general size/silhouette/etc. would be unusable, while one showing some detailed aspect of the ship – say her engines, or the interior of the gun turret – would be perfectly acceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    - 1. 3 is two pronged it refers to the number of files in a given article and the number of articles that use a given file, take read through WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      - No, it does not refer to the number of pages a given file is used in. 3b refers to using an entire photo when a closer crop would serve the same illustrative purpose. Again, your interpretation of the NFCC is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you withdraw this request. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      - Here's the complete text of #3:
        Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
        
        Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
      - How is your interpretation even relevant to the quoted text? I looked through NFC as well and saw nothing relevant to the number of articles that can use a given NFU file, provided that each use is documented with a NFUR. Please elucidate, with quotes, support for your position and your reasoning therefrom as I'm just not seeing it, but maybe I missed something.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        See WP:NFC#UUI #6 for a similar case. Werieth (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        OK, that's a bit more relevant, but I still think that you're still reaching as I'd interpret #6 to mean an image that was notable in its own right like a piece of art (boy, that's an unclearly written piece of prose!). But the more critical thing is that we're now into guidelines, not policy, which you seem to have conceded that the current usage actually meets. Am I wrong?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        You can also consider WP:NFCC#1 as a factor. You can replace the files with a link, It looks exactly like Brazilian monitor Alagoas It would achieve the same end result without excessive usage of the file. Take that into consideration with the second part of #8 and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding its omission just creates an additional click to access the visual medium I find it hard to swallow that images of another ship should be used as the primary visual identification on an article. Lets take a look at two British submarines HMS Valiant (S102) and HMS Warspite (S103) both are Valiant-class submarines. However they are not visually identical. and their images cannot be interchanged. If there wasnt an image of HMS Warspite (S103) most people would not just slap an image of HMS Valiant (S102) on the page to make it more visually appealing. Werieth (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        If there was no image of Valiant available, I'd certainly use one of Warspite as they are nearly, but not exactly, identical and most of the important information would be conveyed. Hopefully the main body or the caption would explain any significant differences between the two to provide more exact information for the reader. You seem to think that use on the articles about Alagoas's sisters is decorative, I do not. It's almost as informative for their readers as it is for the Alagoas herself, depending on how many visible differences there were between them. And requiring a reader to click on a link to the image located elsewhere is just silly, IMO, best to give him or her the information contained by the picture upfront as they may not even know that they'd like to know it. You can read the infobox and the description and learn how small these ships were, but you won't viscerally understand it until you see the crewman standing on deck to give the ship proper scale.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        
        It's covered by the phrase "Minimal extent of use", even if it is not called out. If only one use of an image is needed across multiple articles, we don't use multiple copies of the image. As stated, minimum use is both per article and per the entire encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        If that were true then why the provision for multiple uses of the same image? I'd suspect that many of them are used exactly as I've done with the Para-class monitors. I would interpret #3a to mean that I can't use the image on anything not directly relevant to the picture, forex to illustrate an article on Brazilian monitors, but using it to illustrate the class article and all the ships of the class is perfectly acceptable given that sister ships are nearly identical and therefore multiple uses of the same image have informational value, not merely decorative as seems to be the ongoing assumption here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        There are cases where reusing the image is appropriate. For example, if a company and its affliate have separate pages but have the same logo, it should be used in both. Or, for example, if a painting is notable enough for its own article, and is also considered the artist's masterpiece or most representative work, then reusing the painting image in the artist article is reasonable. Here, the claim to reuse is that it's a similar ship and that the reader needs to see it. The first argument is weak in terms of NFC, the latter is very weak that the picture is unclear and doesn't show a lot of detail (I learn more from the text than the image on what is actually going on). So using it for the actual ship is reasonable, but for the other ones, is not. There's also a possible free replacement in creating a 3D rendering representing the ship, so NFCC#1 would also fail there. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        Not this Reductio ad absurdum argument again! Any photo of any object can be replaced by a 2D or 3D rendering, so by that logic every single NFU of an object should be deleted, so it has no place here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        Yes it does. In this case, there's only one existing photograph that we know of, and it is of only one ship. The other ships clearly no longer exist, so it is impossible to take a free photo. The design of the ship is clearly out of copyright (even if it could have been copyrighted, likely not), so a 3D rendering is possible. This is not the case for many non-free because the work itself is copyright and a "free" version is simply a derivative, copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that we were supposed to impart as much information as necessary in single articles, as opposed to making readers click through to multiple articles. This is minimal extent of use. Would you rather that separate and different non-free images be used in each article? (obviously we can't in this case, but it's the general point that I'm trying to make) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No our function as a tertiary source is to summarize information, not present as much information as we can - that's why everything's referenced to let readers learn more as they need. Also, minimial extent is not how much readers have to clickthrough, that's not how NFC is applied. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely missed my point. If we had non-free images for each ship, and each had a NFUR, would we be having this conversation? No, we would not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have images for each ship, and thus we look to minimize use of what we have. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The point of non-free content is to allow us to "support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Having this image—which is the only one known to exist of these obscure monitors—in these articles does exactly that. It's minimally used to the extent possible. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. Since it only represents one of the 5 ships in question, its use is only appropriate in one of those articles. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it represents all five because all five were built to the same design. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The photo is from the 1890s, so there is a possibility that it might have been published somewhere before 1923 in which case it is in the public domain. Of course, this would require verification, which normally means naming a pre-1923 publication (such as a newspaper) containing the image.

If it is unfree, then it clearly violates WP:NFC#UUI §6 in the articles which are not about this ship itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

UUI #6 is designed for paintings and similar images where the other article is about the image, not the subject of the image. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Colbert Dinner.JPG

The deletionists have it. Criterion 8 dictates that the image significantly increase the readers' understanding, and in this case that increased understanding would be, according to editors here, the proximity of Colbert and Bush and the black-tie nature of the event. The black tie argument carries the least weight: that it's a gala already suggests the level of formality that seems to require tie-ness. It is argued that the image conveys the proximity and thus the immediate reaction, but that is already indicated in the third sentence of the article. (That such could be expanded on a bit is not of prime concern here--there's a dais and a podium, and that could nail it.) That an FA need an image (if it does) is of no concern here. On the other hand is the question of the quality: is the image of such quality that the things supposedly conveyed by it are in fact conveyed? The nay-sayers say no, and it's hard to disagree with them: the president's face is mostly invisible due to the angle and to a certain blending with the background, and a 17kB picture couldn't easily depict a black-tie flying off the handle, or however it was phrased, anyway. In all, there are no convincing arguments that criterion 8 is applicable here--in principle, it could have been, but given the text in the article and the relative straightforward situation the photo would illustrate, and given the low quality of the snapshot, it is not. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2013 (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 was deleted as noncompliant with NFCC#8 in a previous discussion with little participation. It is relisted following a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 19. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unneeded. All those pictured, we have free images for, so it's not a matter of showing who these people are. If there's some reaction that we're supposed to get (as the FUR suggests), I'm not seeing it, alone or in context, just that Colbert's there and Bush is reacting to something but without any clear means "how" he is doing so. Unless there is significantly more context here, this is inappropriate non-free that fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be having an article on a subject (the dinner) with no pictures. Aren't there _some_ free pictures taken by those attending? I don't agree with Masem that because there exist free pictures of those attending NFCC#1 isn't met. But I'd like to hear how we know free pictures don't exist. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that an article have an image, free or non-free or otherwise. Given that this event is in the past, then we can't assume there can be a free replacement of the dinner itself (though perhaps there is one out there). But that said, there's no need to have a picture of the dinner event when there's nothing of visual impact happening here. We can use free pictures of Colbert, Bush and others to illustrate the article, which provide better context for the reader than this vague non-free screencap from CSpan. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  - There is no requirement to use images, I agree. But that doesn't lead to the notion that we shouldn't have them. First question is to see if free images exist. Second is to figure out if we need an image here. I'd argue yes--it's darn hard to explain what things looked like with just words for something this complex. But let's figure out the first part before we have that discussion--it may well be irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    - There were clearly cameras there ([1], we just need to find decent free images. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Yes, if we can adequetely talk about an article without an image compared to including a non-free, we don't include the non-free. "No image" can be an equivalent for a non-free image if we're just talking talking heads of recognizable people. And just because we know other cameras were there does not assure us a free image can be had, particularly given the elite nature of the event. We would have to make these people release their images for free , which is not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      - Because the broadcast rights are sold commercially, all photography other than the broadcast rights holder is limited to free images (ie Non-Commercial). But free images still require a Fair Use justification on Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        Not sure about any of that. People taking pictures on their own could chose to release them into the public domain if they chose to (or put them under what Wikipedia would consider a free license). But we'd need to find pictures with such a license or get someone to release a picture that way. Given the number of people there, that should be possible I'd think. Hobit (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        And they will be speedily deleted as copyvio. NFCC#1 is about whether a free image is actually available, not whether one could theoretically be created. All copyrighted images will fall into the public domain in 110 years or more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
In any case, we don't need this image. As Masem rightly said, it doesn't actually tell us anything. The faces of the main participants, especially Bush, are so small anything non-trivial in their facial expressions is basically indiscernible. What else does the image show us? Does anybody seriously think we need visual illustration of the colour of the curtains or the design of the flower decoration to understand this event? Somebody on the DRV went so far as to suggest we need this so the reader can see "how close Colbert and the President were". As if that couldn't adequately conveyed through a simple description ("Bush was sitting on the podium just two seats away from Colbert"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- It conveys the formal nature of the occasion and the closeness of Colbert to the President. The image is significant in illustrating the subject of the article, facilitating critical commentary as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. The quality of the image is due to some NFCC requirement. A higher resolution image could be obtained. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  - Agree with Hakweye regarding the role int he article, and note that how close Colbert was to Bush, and how formal the occasion was, play a role in understanding how the reception was so charged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Are you seriously saying a reader couldn't adequately understand the idea that "person A was sitting two meters away from person B" without being shown a photo of it?!? That's just beyond ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      - I do not see "meters" or "metres" in the article at all. NFCC says we have to look at the use in the article, so your example is invalid (besides, I doubt any source would say "X was sitting two metres away from Y", and unless that information had a source, it would not be allowed in an FA). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        You are missing the point: the fact that the seating arrangement isn't even mentioned in the article is even more reason to reject that claim of an NFCC#8 relevance. If it's not even worth discussing in the text, why would it be in need of illustration? My point was that even if it was found worth being treating, it could be treated adequately in text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        I didn't miss the point, sorry to disappoint you. Indeed, I find that having sources not discuss the distance between Colbert and Bush makes it even more important that we illustrate it, so that readers can see for themselves one of the reasons why Bush would have been "ready to blow". There's a difference between saying X is (Redacted) at home, where he can't here you, and saying X is (Redacted) when you are within punching distance and yet at an event where X is bound by societal standards to shake your hand and smile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        This may all be very interesting, but as long as – as you yourself say – reliable sources aren't discussing it, it's OR, and hence not a legitimate consideration for justifying non-free content. Per WP:NFCC#8, non-free content is only used where it is necessary to ensure an adequate understanding of the content of the article. By "content", the criterion refers to legitimate, encyclopedic content, i.e. sourced content. An idea that would constitute illegitimate OR if expressed in text can never be an idea that justifies the use of non-free illustration to get it across to the reader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        No, that is simply wrong. The whole purpose of WP:NFCC#8 is to permit images that enhance our understanding of the article. Seeing it in the image conveys it much more powerfully. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        This is why NFCC#8 is of two parts: first is about aiding comprehension, but the other is if one's understanding of the topic is harmed if the image was not present, and because the scene is an extremely typical formal dinner/speech setup, the picture can be omitted and the topic still understood. Your argument is a serious misunderstanding of NFCC and its allowances. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        Would you have realised that if not for the image? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        "On April 29, 2006, American comedian Stephen Colbert appeared as the featured entertainer at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, which was held in Washington, D.C., at the Hilton Washington hotel. Colbert's performance, consisting of a 16-minute podium speech and a 7-minute video presentation, was broadcast live across the United States on the cable television networks C-SPAN and MSNBC. Standing a few feet from U.S. President George W. Bush,[1] in front of an audience of celebrities, politicians, and members of the White House Press Corps,[2] Colbert delivered a controversial, searing routine targeting the president and the media.[3]" Obviously, yes. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        
        The bit about it being black tie. How did you know that? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
        Because's its the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner? And even if that isn't obvious enough, stating in text it was a "black tie event" is more than sufficient to avoid direct illustration. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Alfa P33 roadster GS.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary on the image and the file has been marked for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:07, 13 November 2013 (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 uses in Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale#Italdesign and Alfa Romeo concept cars might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a difficult time believing that there aren't any of this model that have been kept in museums or car collections that a free image can't be made (I mean, we're talking an Alfa Romeo concept car, not a run-of-the-mill Buick or the like) And in consideration that it's not the main subject of the article, we don't need a non-free to display it. So it is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why it might violate? I dont see any problems using this image, if you cant read it says "30 year old concept car not exsiting anymore, so a free alternative would be almost impossible to obtain" , Its also important in this article which tells very rare car -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The car existed at one point, and while I understand it was a concept car with very limited production, I'd have difficulty believing that all known cars produced from this line are no longer in existence, given how auto fanatics treat such cars with great respect. Which means that unless one can readily demonstrate that there is no existing version of this model, anywhere, it should be possible to get a free image of the car. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Only one car has existed. Its not possible anymore to get new picture of it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFCI, WP:V (unless it becomes the subject of sourced commentary). If there is truth in the assertion that It is thought the body was later removed by Pininfarina and replaced with the Cuneo design ...[2] then (if reliably sourced commentary is added to the artice) it could be kept for use in either article (but not both). In this case, if the car itself exists no more, a new free photo cannot be created. Therefore, we'd be deleting this image (and all alternatives, of which there are some) on the basis that a copyright holder may at some point relicense one of their images for free use. This seems unlikely. -- Trevj (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:EntarteteKunst.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free file is only acceptible to be used on Der Neue Mensch with appropriate NFUR. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Used in Degenerate art, Der Neue Mensch and Otto Freundlich. Violates WP:NFCC#10c in all three articles. In addition, some of the uses might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I put out the option that the age of the work and that it was a program brouchure that its copyright might not have been renewed, making this possibly non-free. However, given that it is also a foreign work, that might affect that too. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That said, it is actually completely fine at Der Neue Mensch - the art pictured on the cover - which has been destroyed so there no chance of a free image, and given the period, unlikely there might be a version of the sculpture without the text of the program on top of it. For this same reason , it might be okay at the artist's page. And furthering this, the cover text is being used to show how such art was made into a scary form in Degenerate art, and thus may be approprite there. Yes, #10c is violated - we need separate rationales and in this case there are very different reasons on each of the three pages. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume that this was first published in 1937 (the year of the exhibition) or shortly prior to that. If that is the case, then it would have been subject to the Copyright Act of 1909. If the copyright was not renewed, then it entered the public domain in 1965 (28 years after publication). If the copyright was renewed, then it would be copyrighted for another 95 years, so assuming the copyright was renewed around 1937, it would still be copyrighted until 2032. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, well, actually if I am not misreading {{PD-US}} we would have to determine whether this was published in the United States at all and when. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean - I'm unsure, but the age of this suggests that if someone did the footwork to see if it is free, that would be great, removing any questions about the use. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the catalogue was published in the US, although we are actually only interested in the cover image. I see no easy way to determine whether some book published in the United States contained a depiction of this cover or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Per [3] prior to 1989 the work would have had to had an explicit copyright notice to fall into the Berne convention, so we would need to see the whole image here. For now, we should treat this as free, but really, this is one of those images that scream that it has a good chance of really being a free image, and while we're playing it safe by treating it as a non-free, we can fix that later. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As this was first published in Germany, no renewal or anything was needed – this is copyrighted for 95 years since publication per Commons:COM:URAA. There is a fair use rationale, but it lacks necessary components and doesn't refer to a unique article, so it is invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Czech Republic FA.png

Non-Admin Closure: Violation of WP:NFCC#10c has been cleared up, no further action required. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:12, 13 November 2013 (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#10c in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It says
"Purpose of use: To appear only on the article Football Association of the Czech Republic and those of its representative teams below
Czech Republic national football team
Czech Republic national under-21 football team
Czech Republic national under-17 football team
Czech Republic women's national football team
Czech Republic national futsal team"

The image cannot be replaced by a free logo, and as such, it doesn't violate the WP:NFCC policy. If it is needed to have a notice per article, it can be easily done. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what the issue is here. They are proper logos for each individual team (and appropriate said articles), but we'd prefer to have seperate rationals for each. Because they are logos, you may want to use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} which is allowable boilerplate rationale for logos. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to rework the page and use the rationale template for each article which uses it. --Mormegil (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Leiabikini.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is use in more than one page violates WP:NFCC#3b and the image should be used solely in Princess Leia's metal bikini. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

There is a recent resurrection of Princess Leia's metal bikini. This image is used in more than one article besides that page, so should the image be used in only one page? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems justified on Bikinis in popular culture, but I don't think it is on Princess Leia. There's a section at the bottom about the bikini which appears to be where the metal bikini article was pulled out from, and that's the only place where the image in the Leia article is discussed, so it is unnecessary on the character page. (I will argue that I don't know if the metal bikini article is really a good idea for a separate topic, and if it was merged back into Leia, then the image would be appropriate there). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Single use within Princess Leia's metal bikini, which looks at a glance to meet the criteria for a sustainable article. Use elsewhere would be in violation of WP:NFCC#3b, where it can be referred to within prose, and wikilinked to Princess Leia's metal bikini. (I also agree with use within Princess Leia, in the case of a merge of the bikini article content.) -- Trevj (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Reese, Derek.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:19, 13 November 2013 (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.

What is the contextual significance of this image? I think its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate (nor, on the same page, the other character shot), in light that a primary group cast photo (non-free) is reasonable, and for this show, does exist such as here). --MASEM (t) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ellison, James.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:20, 13 November 2013 (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. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See above section for File:Reese, Derek.jpg - one non-free cast image would do the same job as two non-frees (as well as capture the other characters listed). --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Luis Buñuel

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free images listed below fail WP:NFCC#3. Multiple of the images below also fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. As with any image that fails any aspect of WP:NFCC, the images have been rightly removed and tagged for deletion (CSD#F5). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE TO CLOSURE: As per the discussion on SlimVirgin’s Talkpage and on my Talkpage, I am recovering my close to cover the individual images discussed as opposed to the entire general discussion. If should be noted and understood, that this does not affect the actual closure of the discussion, it simply gives a broader understanding my my closure.
It is wise at this point to note that per WP:Consensus, consensus is not a vote, nor is there a requirement for number of participants. Consensus is based on merit of discussion in relation to Wikipedia’s policies, guidelines, and editing norms under the umbrella of the WMF’s visions and goals.
First, the consensus of the discussion is that the article itself has too many unnecessary non-free files, and therefore fails WP:NFCC#3a. This applies wholly to the discussion, and individually to the images. There was no discussion if a lesser number of free images would be acceptable with respect to WP:NFCC#3a, simply that the status of non-free files prior to discussion was unacceptable.
File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg : The policy backed consensus is that the file fails WP:NFCC#1 due to its replaceability with simple text. The discussion also contends the image also fails the second piece of WP:NFCC#8 due to a lack of this non-free file would not hinder an average reader from understanding the content of the article.
File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg : The consensus is that this image also fails WP:NFCC#1 as the scene of a chicken/rooster hanging upside down is easily replaced by text or replaced by a free image that could be taken of any chicken/rooster hanging upside down. The image also fails second part WP:NFCC#8 for the same reason as above. There was relevant discussion that non-free content could potentially be acceptable as there is critical commentary of the scene in regards to the surrealism and/or shocking nature of the film. As it stands, a chicken hanging upside down as such could be found in a butcher shop, farm, or chicken house in no way showing surrealism and/or shocking nature.
File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.jpg: The policy-backed consensus is that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 due to lack of critical commentary of the scene itself or this part of the movie itself. Although there is discussion about Filmofono, there is no discussion of the image or scenery itself. Although there was a comment that the image also failed WP:NFCC#1 there was no discussion or explanation of that comment, and therefore no consensus on that failure.
File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.jpg: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is not contextual significance in showing that Buñuel worked with a team, or with specific members. This can be conveyed in referenced text. Per the discussion, the image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it can be replaced by text.
File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.jpg: Consensus again determined the image fails WP:NFCC#8 & WP:NFCC#1 as the image has no contextual significance and can be replaced by text.
File:Le Fantôme de la liberté.jpg: Consensus shows the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image is not necessary to the understanding of the article. and a link to the relevant article at The Phantom of Liberty would suffice to showcase the film. Also, due to there being an article specifically about that film, the poster solely belongs on that article per WP:NFC#UUI#6. There was a comment that the image fails WP:NFCC#1 but no discussion or explanation of its failure and therefore there is no consensus on whether the image fails WP:NFCC#1.
Wikipedia’s Non-Free Content Criteria, found at WP:NFCC, requires that all 10 points of the criteria be met for the ability of an image to be used on Wikipedia. As this policy includes legal considerations, the issues of the files should be fixed. Files that fail WP:NFCC#1 should rightfully be deleted. As they can be replaced, they are completely unnecessary and should be removed from the project. Files that fail WP:NFCC#3a should have their use(s) altered to a point where the usage passes that criteria point. Files that fail WP:NFCC#8 have no contextual significance or critical commentary should be deleted and removed from the project as they are unnecessary use of non free images.
Commentary about editors actions in relation to the discussion have no place in the discussion itself and in the future should be taken to a more appropriate venue. Editors actions, whether in good faith or not, have no bearing on the consensus within the discussion and therefore harm the process of reaching a consensus as behavior, not content, is being discussed.
Per my original closure comments, the files each individually fail one or more aspects of WP:NFCC as well as fail as a group on the article. The policy-backed consensus is the images do not belong in the article and have been removed as such. As this addition is not a reopening of a discussion, merely an explanation of the closure, the discussion is to remain in the archives. If there is new information, or if an image’s situation has changed, a new discussion could appropriately be opened. If there is no new information, the consensus stands as is and there should not be a new discussion in the immediate future. As is my personal process in all of my non-admin closures, any uninvolved admin is open to show evidence where this was inappropriately closed, and I will happily reopen the discussion so that a different uninvolved admin can close the discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:12, 16 November 2013 (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.

Luis Buñuel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I notice you zapped images in the article on Luis Bunuel with the explanation that "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC. I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here. The Non-free content policy states: "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question. (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." I'd like to make the following points:

Permission to use the file(s) in question was explicitly granted by the copyright holder, and this is explained in the summary for media data on the image file.
As to critical commentary -- this was provided in the caption to the image: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies." This included a reference to an RS. Isn't this "critical commentary" bearing directly on the use of the image?

Finally, wouldn't it have been better to discuss this on the talk page rather than taking unilateral action? Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Im about to go away from the keyboard for a while. If you are in contact with the copyright holder request that they email WP:OTRS and release the file under a free license. A caption or passing reference may be commentary on the image, but its no where near what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file. When I get back Ill do an image by image breakdown with details. But for now the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the copyright holder did email WP about these images over a year ago. Isn't there some record of that? As to critical commentary, I look forward to a better understanding of "what is needed to meet the critical commentary needed to justify a non-free file", along with a reference to MOS or other authoritative source that provides a clear definition of "critical commentary" that invalidates the example I provided above. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont see any records on the file pages about an OTRS ticket. I am not a member so I cannot look up the case. but lets break this down one at a time. We already have one image of Bunuel which is free so additional images need justified. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture of classroom scene from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Other than the image caption there is no reference to the image in the associated text. It is easily described with plain text X character writing Respect the property of others on a chalk board. (This would mean it fails WP:NFCC#1, and the second clause of #8 because there is nothing visually unique or distinguishing about the image that requires it to be in the article.). Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the subject of this article is a filmmaker -- therefore, images from his films are of particular consequence to an understanding of the subject. Films are images. The image of a small child writing a sociopolitical message on a blackboard has meaning over and above any textual description of that image. Using screenshot images as part of an article about a filmmaker is just as meaningful, even essential, as using images of paintings is for an article about a painter. Also, again, the image was accompanied by a caption providing specific commentary from an RS. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments dont hold any water, taking a look at two of the biggest producers J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg there is a total of 1 non-free file between the two. Werieth (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Jburlinson (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed this image claims that "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, before it was deleted, this image included the caption: "The classroom scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan is an ironic statement of Buñuel's Marxist sympathies.[64]:p.59" (The reference is to an RS published by Univ. of Calif. Press.) It was placed in a section of the article covering Bunuel's years in Spain in the early 1930's, the first two paragraphs of which discussed Bunuel's joining the Communist Party. Thus, the image is a significant component of critical commentary relating to Bunuel's political interests and their impact on his art. Integrating the text of the caption into the article without the image will result in a loss of information and value to the reader, who will be deprived of a visual example of Bunuel's ironic style. Jburlinson (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a child writing on a blackboard; there's nothing unique about the visuals themselves, only the scene which you've just described in text. It is appropriate to state the importance of the influence, but you don't need the visual aid as given. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Las Hurdas, Tierra Sin Pan.jpeg

Same issues as the previous file. Looks like an upside down picture of a rooster, something fairly easily described in plain text. Not critical to understanding who Bunuel was as it lacks any significance to who he is. (yes its a shot from one of his major pictures, but not actually anything major). Fails, #1,8 again. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "but not actually anything major". That's one person's subjective opinion. As such, it should be the occasion for a discussion, not a peremptory deletion. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor deleted this file with the claim: "file lacks critical commentary". In the article, the image included this caption: "An early scene from Las Hurdes: Tierra Sin Pan depicts a local wedding custom where the bridegroom tears the head off a rooster suspended by its feet from a scaffold above the main street of town.[64]:p.57" The reference is from an unquestionably reliable source. The image appears in a part of the article that discusses the highly unusual status of the film as a "surrealist documentary", which also includes an extended quote from a well-known film director stating: "Though the material is organized with masterly skill, the very conception of 'art' here seems irrelevant. It is the most profoundly disturbing film I have ever seen." The startling nature of the combined image and its caption supplies meaningful and valuable information to the reader and constitutes "critical commentary". The image reflects Bunuel's unique brand of surrealism, which is discussed in this article and which has been described as: " "visually Spartan and yet spasming with bouts of the irrational." Jburlinson (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you possibly find a better image to help this (I recognize you might be dealing with the limited screenshots that are provided to be used on WP)? Right now, this image looks like an upside down chicken. It doesn't show the elements of the rope or scaffold as to show the shocking nature of this scene, and hence why its use is being questioned, as it doesn't line up well with the quote. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A close up of an upside-down rooster is surrealistic in almost any context. Jburlinson (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But easily described by text. On the other hand the key word "disturbing" is the one that the right imagery will make it more appropriate to include an image. What is "disturbing" about an upside down chicken (without knowing that it is tied up and about to be decapitated?) --MASEM (t) 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The caption explains that it is tied up and about to be decapitated. Disturbing, no? Putting the words together with the image makes it even more disturbing. Jburlinson (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, even with the text, it's hard to call that disturbing. All I'm asking is that if there's a frame in the movie a few seconds before or after that shows the chicken actually hung, or the axe about to come down, or something that is unmistakable the act of decapitating the chicken, then this image would make a lot of sense to include to talk about the disturbing imagery. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying that this particular image is not "critical commentary" but if I supplied one that you believed was more "disturbing", it would be "critical commentary"? That simply boils down to what one person believes is disturbing as opposed to what another believes is disturbing. How does it make one image more or less "critical commentary"? Your argument here contradicts your argument about the other image from Las Hurdes, the child writing a capitalistic slogan on a blackboard, which is explicitly relevant to Bunuel's Marxist philosophy. Jburlinson (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant doesnt make it critical commentary. The chalkboard image is easily described with text. The current image you are use (Just an upside down chicken) is easily described with text. If however there was something visually significant and unique about an image (being "disturbing" in this case, I can cite other examples if needed) that isnt easily described by text alone, there may be justification for the image. However in this case a picture of an upside down chicken is no where close to meeting those criteria. Werieth (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Meeting what criteria? The criteria of "critical commentary"? You mean if the image were more "disturbing" (to you) it would meet the criteria? Is the only issue here that the image isn't "disturbing" enough? Jburlinson (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Critical commentary has several factors, It needs to be visually unique and significant (something an upside down chicken isnt), and those elements need to be discussed in more than a passing way by reliable third party sources. One example I can think of, (which is actually technically invalid, as the group still performs and thus would make the image replaceable) is the unique visual style of Kiss (band) and the facial paint that they use. Or a example of something that is valid would be Virgin Killer where the album cover is notable for the controversy that it caused. Werieth (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have described a scene about the beheading of a chicken as a disturbing scene in text. Okay, for all purposes, that would be sufficient to even run without an image, but I can completely see an allowance for an image here if and only if it showed exactly that, scenes that show something that, by common sense, is visually disturbing without even seeing the caption. A simple upside down chicken would not do it. However, the same chicken, shown hung upside down with an axe about to hit it, would be. It would also be more understandable what's going on without reading the text, while one would need to read the info around to wonder why we were just showing an upside down chicken. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screencap of film produced by Filmofono S.A.jpg

Similar to the previous two, we dont need to know the set of a film to understand the person. Fails NFCC#1,8 Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Viewing the image gives a sense as to the nature of the film productions being discussed at that point of the article. In addition, the image includes text describing the nature of the work done at Filmofono studios. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The caption that accompanies this image is: "Location filming at Filmófono". The image is placed in the section of the article which covers Bunuel's involvement with the Spanish film studio Filmofono. This is an aspect of Bunuel's career that is very little known, even by film enthusiasts who applaud his more famous productions from earlier and later in his creative life. The image, its caption and the text of the article combine to provide the "critical commentary" required by NFC. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Jburlinson (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo of the staff of the MOMA film department, c. 1940.jpg

We dont require a picture of the staff to know that he worked with those people, fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The article discusses the "team" effort of the MOMA department -- a picture of the team is totally appropriate. Once again, this is a subjective situation that should be the occasion of a discussion, not unilateral action. Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A photo of a group of people, where only a few are identified is not needed to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. (If the group were notable as a whole, that might be one things, but there's no indication of this here.) --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image was accompanied by the caption: "The staff of the MoMA film department, c. 1941; Buñuel, first row on left; Iris Barry, first row on right". The image appeared in that part of the article that covered Bunuel's career in the early 1940's, particularly his years working for the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). It includes a picture of Iris Barry, the head of the MOMA film unit and a significant figure in Bunuel's life at that time. She is also discussed in the article. The article makes the point that Bunuel was a member of a team that created anti-fascist propaganda during the war years. Including a picture of the team is relevant to the article, supplies information that cannot be provided by text alone, and is part of the critical commentary concerning Bunuel's war years. Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We have a non-free picture of Iris on her own page, and we don't need to illustrate the MOMA team to understand that Bunuel worked as part of the team with Barry to create propaganda, since you have that discussed by sources. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Screen capture from Los olvidados.jpg

Again almost identical issues was with the first three images. Zero ties to the article text, non-critical image, image is decorative. (Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8) Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The image expands upon points made in the article concerning the violent nature of the protagonists of the film and the caption contains a quote from a well-known film critic that bears directly on the image. It is far from decorative -- it is critical and it is commentary, making it definitely "critical commentary." Jburlinson (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The scene can be described in text - just as the critic's quote has done - and as it is not about the visual style, again, the image does not help here per WP:NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The image included the caption: ""A legless cripple who refuses the children cigarettes is robbed and left to lie on the pavement at some distance from his cart, and yet he is clearly no better than his tormentors." – Film critic André Bazin[130]" The image and the caption combined together have meaning and information content that is of value to the reader which cannot be conveyed as significantly by text alone. This is why people make movies -- the images have value and they have impact. Bunuel was a filmmaker, a maker of images. Therefore, images are of unique importance to an article about him. The image is a significant part of the critical commentary of the article. Jburlinson (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The critic's quote is commenting on characters and how the scene plays out, but not on the direction, where there would be better justification for using visual imagery. Again, reading through the article, this director is not so much praised for the visual aspects or direction of the film, but how he brings in critical commentary to the films, which is better discussed in text than with images. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Le Fantôme de la liberté.jpg

Again just decorative usage as the film has its own article The Phantom of Liberty we can provide a link to it so they can see the poster. Fails WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and see also WP:NFC#UUI#6. @Jburlinson:Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion

In general we dont need 6 non-free files in an article with 8 free files. See WP:NFCC#3. Werieth (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC) above was copied from my talk page Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the above issue from my talk page because Jburlinson isnt seeming to understand WP:NFC. Can someone else help educate the user on why we dont need 6 non-free files for a director who isnt know for anything warranting non-free files? Werieth (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, most of this director's works were famous for political commentary and the like, and not so much for art direction. As such , we don't need visual media to understand the importance of his works; they would be nice to have if they are free (and that claim if there are ORTS tickets to allow this, should be checked out to verify that, as that would help). In contrast, Stanley Kubrick has several noted visual styles to his works that are critically commented on to show how they visually look (not the films, but his directing techniques). Basically, what Werieth's point is here is that you're simply using screencaps from the films to show what the films are while discussing the films, but there's no critical discussion of the visual elements being shown in the screencaps (such as a directing technique or some juxtaposition that reviewers found unique), and as such, they would fail NFCC#8. If you can get them free through ORTS, great, they can be used, but as we minimize non-free - and considering there are free examples already present - additional non-free is not helping here. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bunuel's films are works of art; works of art composed of images. That's what films are. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles written about Bunuel's artistry -- not his political views. Throughout his life, he was associated with surrealism -- an artistic movement. His films are studied not just for his political or social commentary, but for his artistry and the special nature of his image-making. Examples of his images are of critical importance to an understanding and appreciation of his achievement. Saying otherwise is like saying that Goya's paintings don't have much to do with what makes him famous or that Jane Austen's novels are famous for their social criticism and not for their artistry.

Above and beyond the appropriateness of any particular image is a larger issue -- which is the procedure that was used to delete multiple images with a single edit with only the barest edit summary which said "file lacks critical commentary and fails WP:NFC". The editor has done this over and over again to many articles, resulting in many disputes and edit wars. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Werieth reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: warned) for an example. There are more. I have asked this editor repeatedly for a clear and explicit instance in policy or guideline that defines the meaning of "critical commentary". In searching through WP "help", it's become clear to me that this term is a highly subjective one. Different people understand it in different ways. There is no one-size-fits-all definition. As a result, WP operates by consensus. Consensus does not mean that one person goes from article to article peremptorily zapping images that don't suit him and then telling every editor who protests that he or she simply "doesn't understand" policy. My guess is that people do understand the policy well enough, they just don't all agree with his interpretation of policy. To say that everyone else needs to be "educated" is insulting.

So, regardless of what happens concerning any particular image here, I hope we can arrive at an understanding of the appropriate procedure to use if someone questions the application of WP:NFC or any other policy. Simply summarily zapping the work of other editors and then wrapping people's knuckles when they protest is not a good way to run this particular railroad. Jburlinson (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Werieth has had problems with how he enforces, but not what he is enforcing. As I've pointed out in several cases above, you may have critical commentary about the scene, but it's not about the visual elements of the scene, and most of the scenes you are showing are not difficult to explain via text (eg the child writing on the blackboard), belying the claim that these are "surreal". If his work is surreal, show us scenes that are considered surreal - that's why, for example, the chicken beheading scene is moving in the right direction, but it would need an image that is clearly surreal (not just a picture of an upside-down chicken). And to stress again - if there was permission to use these images on Wikipedia, someone needs to track if that request was legit as that would remove the issue with those specific images. Unfortunately I don't have ORTS access to confirm that. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the most famous surreal images of all time is Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe (a standard looking pipe with nothing odd or funny about it) with the words "This is not a pipe." (in french). This image from Bunuel's film is in precisely the same vein. An impoverished child who owns virtually nothing beyond the shirt on his back is writing on a blackboard (in Spanish), "Respect the property of others." That's surrealism. Jburlinson (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe your comment illustrates my point about how different people understand the term "critical commentary" differently. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless there's critical commentary about the "visual elements" of a particular image, then any other critical commentary is irrelevant or invalid? For example, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), that would be OK? Jburlinson (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why WP:NFCC#8 requires contextual significance, and that's why we're looking for critical commentary on the visuals themselves, especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image). You've described the scene in text in a manner that is not improved on by the image, and the commentary from the critic injects things about the overall work that one single frame is unable to show (how the cripple is himself considered an antagonist). Again, you've mentioned surreal, and that implies that there's a likelihood of some visual imagery being appropriate, but what you've chosen to show falls far outside of what one would consider surreal. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You say, "especially when we are talking about a director and not the work itself (where I would be more likely to see the usage of the image).". Well, Werieth deleted the image from the article on the film, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Olvidados&diff=579548816&oldid=579539489

Can I at least restore the image to the article on the film? Jburlinson (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No, are you just ignoring the other dozen issues he raised about its usage? Werieth (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this, a tag team? Let him answer for himself. He just got through saying that the image was more appropriate for an article on the film. And I haven't ignored any of the issues he's raised (which don't add up to a dozen, by the way). Jburlinson (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please dont put words in his mouth that he didnt say. He stated that it would be more likely to see the image in the article about the film, not that it was appropriate there. Werieth (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to please let him speak for himself. And again I ask, if I were to caption the image from the film "Los olvidados" with the statement that it makes its impact as a result of "its starkly realistic black-and-white cinematography by the great Gabriel Figueroa" (with suitable citation to an RS), would that would be OK? If not, why not, since it would be directly addressing the visual elements of the image? Jburlinson (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Any image needs to be tied to the text, a caption isnt enough critical commentary to justify a non-free file. Werieth (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Who says? Please identify a clear statement in WP policy that says this. Where does it say that a caption isn't important or can't contribute meaning to an article?In this case, the caption is a direct quote from a famous film critic. That's as "critical commentary" as you can get. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the text does support the information content of the image. Jburlinson (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in other peoples mouths, I never stated that the caption wasnt important or couldnt contribute to the article. What I stated is that a caption does not justify the inclusion of non-free media. WP:NFCC#8 requires Contextual significance, meaning that any image must be tied to the text and that by removing the image its detrimental to the understanding as a whole. If an image is only tied to the article via a caption removal cannot cause a detrimental loss of understanding to the article as a whole. Werieth (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the images are tied to the article and the caption, as explained above. Jburlinson (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't the images remain intact in the article until this discussion is concluded and a consensus is reached on each one? Isn't that the appropriate procedure? Jburlinson (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:10 things -logo.PNG

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that logo need not be replaced and images of actors can be used as cast in dramas appear as themselves. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:57, 13 November 2013 (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 the promo ad of 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series). Shall I replace the stand-alone logo for the promo ad? George Ho (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the promo ad is going to be copyrighted (2009, means it automatically has copyright), there's no reason to do this, and you should leave the title card. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the logo copyrighted also? Anyway, the promo ad has cast in it. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The logo, with that paint-like effect, is copyrightable, so yeah, I see where you're going with the cast too. The only thing to consider is that, particularly with sit-coms in which the actors appear as themselves, that one can also likely construct the case like from free images. This might be a larger question to ask at the TV project, but non-free, either works. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Bluegreen Corporation Logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Unused image was deleted. No further discussion needed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Also horrible quality. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The file is not in use; it is out of date. I am tagging for F5 deletion. The new logo is at File:Bluegreen Corporation Logo.png -- Diannaa (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

The Amityville Horror

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus to remove non-free files from article. Two have already been deleted, and one has been moved to the appropriate article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

There are too many non-free images. Someone re-added back the poster of the 1979 film. George Ho (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Amityville brolin lutz.jpg does not seem important. Stated purpose is "Provide a visual identification of parties involved in the Amityville saga, the surrounding controversy and film depictions." But there's nothing useful or relevant to visually being able to identify them. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
All the covers and posters - save for the lead one, are inappropriate and should go (especially the one that is used to justify the claim that one version of the book stated these were real events). I would argue the two images that appear taken from an old broadcast are unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There is specific discussion of the File:Amityville poster.jpg image itself in the article. That content could move to The Amityville Horror (1979 film) where that image is already in-use (it's the specific article about this film rather than the main article about this subject) to solve the NFC concern. But I do not think think that is appropriate, as the image content-discussion is about several films and also other content later in article that is not really about any of them. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article is about the book, and the events that inspired the book - the book just happened to spawn several films. Thus the film poster is unnecessary to understand the topic about the book. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Many images removed except the poster. What about the audio file, File:Pecoraro.ogg? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Unnecessary. For one, its 42s long, that's over the max 30s we allow for sound samples. Second, its just the guy speaking, there's nothing special able hearing him talk, and if any of the specific language is important, it can be transcribed to text and the original program used as a reference for that. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  - Let's wait for one week after such removals. George Ho (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Clowdy

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is secondary screenshot fails WP:NFCC#3a and should therefore be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

There are two screenshots, but we only need one. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We do generally allow one screenshot showing the main landing page for the service, and others require discussion for that, which is absent here; definitely remove the second. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neither of those two screenshots is really needed, so both violate NFCC#8. The site consists of an arrangement of some common elements (thumbnails etc) in a common way and that arrangement can easily be described with text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Wii Menu

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is only the top screenshot is permitted by WP:NFCC and all other non-free files should be used only on the appropriate articles or deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:03, 13 November 2013 (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 11 non-free files Werieth (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just the one at the top should be enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, the few channels that have their own article will likely have their image there. No need on the Wii menu page. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  - Each image should be considered based on its own merits. For example, the section for "disc channel" contains text that relates specifically to the image and would be unintelligible without the image. It explains how the display changes when discs are inserted. There is no separate article for "disc channel", and a search for that term leads to this section of the Wii article. Jburlinson (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    - You just described what happens on screen when the user inserts the disc, rendering the image unnecessary in favor of free text. We don't need to illustrate every aspect of the Wii menu programs with non-free images. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of those image appear to be in violation of WP:NFCC#8. They are not needed for a readers understanding of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The section for "disk channel" contains the statement: "If no disc is inserted in the drive, the channel displays the image on the right." What follows is a description of how the display changes when a disc is inserted. If there is no "image on the right", the quoted statement will need to be re-written to describe the image in text in order for this part of the section to make any sense at all. Jburlinson (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing the text and removing the image is exactly what should be done per WP:NFCC#1. The image provides nothing that cannot be adequately described via text. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoever does the re-write will need to do a darn good job in order to come up with alternative text of "acceptable quality" sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. I look forward to reading it. Jburlinson (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, we don't have to explain how the program works visually or the like, particularly if there are no sources that go into detail about it. The Disc Channel is simply a glorified loading screen that knows if you put in a GC or Wii disc before booting to that game. That's it. You don't need to explain how the graphics change when this happens. You're confusing visual learning with a manual, which we are not. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the image from the article and trimmed the text. The reader only needs to know that the Disc Channel is for loading games from discs. Describing what the person will see (or should do) when inserting a disc is unnecessary, as Wikipedia is not a manual. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:YahooAnswersGreenSmiley.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is obvious PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Looks like a PD-textlogo to me. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The United States copyright office would very likely reject copyright registration for this one as lacking sufficient original and artistic authorship and possessing only de minimis creativity. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:University system georgia logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. Obvious non-free file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This seems to be PD-textlogo, but I'm unsure about how the text is in a circle. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Public domain. Fails TOO. See [4] (circular arrangement of Chinese characters insufficient for TOO). RJaguar3 | u | t 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep as fair use Artwork in the middle looks comparable to the image at the bottom of page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf which is too complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:YahooYamster.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 and should be deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:09, 13 November 2013 (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. It is worth noting that the section discussing the mascot relies entirely on primary sources. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the use serves only an identification purpose, which is not normally permitted in sections. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:GeorgiaTech logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. Nominated for deletion as non-free SVG. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this image PD-textlogo or are the triangle spires too much? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file. SVG files often need permission from the person who created the SVG file (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), and it is currently unknown who created the SVG file. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:SPSUlogo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. Withdrawn. Nominated for deletion as non-free SVG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is PD-textlogo, yes? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file. SVG files often need permission from the person who created the SVG file (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), and it is currently unknown who created the SVG file. Therefore, delete for violation of WP:NFCC#1, as someone else could make a different SVG version of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Savannah State University Logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. Withdrawn. Nominated for deletion as non-free SVG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:28, 13 November 2013 (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.

Are the semi circles in the upper windows too much to be under the threshold of originality? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file. SVG files often need permission from the person who created the SVG file (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), and it is currently unknown who created the SVG file. It is also very dubious that the logo itself is simple enough, due to the example at the bottom of page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf --Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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