Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56
 | 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 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
- 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.
Unnecessary file, it's nothing that cannot be defined with a few words. Diego Grez (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No discussion in over 30 days. No consensus to change anything. Further discussion can be re-started if necessary. TLSuda (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I uploaded extra image last year, and I'm planning to remove either this or the other existing image George Ho (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A newspaper clipping from the mid-19th century. Not sure why the uploader thinks that it is unfree. Clearly {{PD-1923}}. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Might even qualify better for WikiSource - no need for an image of a newspaper clipping w/o pictures. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Image violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. on all articles except Brazilian Football Confederation. TLSuda (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The use in sub-entities of the Brazilian Football Confederation violates WP:NFC#UUI §17. Also violates WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC on all articles except Vito Corleone. TLSuda (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to have an insufficient source information in order to satisfy WP:NFCC#10a. It violates WP:NFCC#8 on all pages except Vito Corleone, WP:NFCC#10c on two pages and WP:NFCC#9 on one page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely not appropriate in Corleone Family and okay on the character article. It also seems it was just added to the film article The Godfather which is inappropriate as there's a second image of the two main characters that is better for this specific case. I would argue there's a good chance it could be used on the actor's page as this is one of his most significant, and in terms of all of film history, one of the industry's most significant roles (as well as it contrasts with his earlier appearances that are freely available). However, that last one is just my opinion, I would get second voices on that. In terms of the sourcing, it's pretty obvious it's from the film, so while the language can be improved, it's not a critical issue. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not see any legitimate justification for a 'fair use' claim regarding this file. We already have a licensed image of Snowden at File:Edward Snowden-2.jpg, and there is no reason to assume that further images could not be obtained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- He is still on the lam and we have generally considered getting new free images of such people impossible. But I agree we dont' need another non-free of him, so this should go. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete As we already have a free image, an unfree one shouldn't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is this listed as unfree? Does it have a copyright notice and renewal? Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- That would have to be checked, as it is post 1923, there's the possibility that it was registered. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- This image should be free. It was given to wikipedia by the copyright holder (which is probably an illusion since if there ever was a copyright for it, it was not renewed). It is from the "Perrone/Caldwell Kvaran - Kvaran & Lockley" archives and used with their permission. I am the twice mentioned Kvaran (also the Caldwell) and if I must I can dig up both Perrone and Lockley. The image should just be "free", and NOT "fair use". In any case, this is a picture mot of the finished work but of the sculptor's clay version and as I far as I know those are never copyrighted. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 in all articles except in Transdev. TLSuda (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Transdev. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, (and above the TOO for even the US). Only use is main company article. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is to remove all covers except the original cover and the Bow Wow Wow cover. TLSuda (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are too many covers here. At least some of them seem to refer to non-notable side products and violate WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The original cover, and in this case, the Bow Wow Wow cover are appropriate - the Bow Wow Wow cover could be notable on its own (that's the version I'm pretty sure most everyone recognizes) so its cover would be reasonable. But the other two are non-notable. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I changed the image of Bow Wow Wow cover art from CD edition to early vinyl edition. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I also removed the album cover of the same name because it's not the cover of the single. I added vinyl single, its replacement. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claimed to be unfree. I'm not convinced that this is the case as it looks like a {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg){kind=link}
Image is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. TLSuda (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is a 1901 newspaper listed as unfree? Looks like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because it's the first image I've ever uploaded, and I'm being ultra-cautious! As I noted in the rationale, (commercial opportunity section) I do think it's out of copyright, but I'm not SURE. Maybe Greece-before-EU-entry had special rules that would apply here? Perhaps someone with more experience than me could change the file to copyright-free status? SteepLearningCurve (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The two logos are acceptable, one is the current one, and the other is PD-textlogo. The two title cards fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are too many unfree logos here. The news operations logos should maybe only be in an article about the news operations, but not in the article about the TV station as a whole. In any case, there shouldn't be two of them in the logo. Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- News title cards absolutely unnecessary. The old logo File:Kcnc-logo-1983.gif - considering just the logo and not the scan artifacts - fails TOO and thus can be remade as a free image. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- There aren't any unfree logos here, they're just improperly tagged {{PD-textlogo}} files. And while it might be helpful to have File:Kcnc-logo-1983.gif remade as a SVG for appearance purposes, as per WP:PD#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain it's not unfree because it's simply a "slavish copy" of an uncopyrightable logo. Note that the CBS logo not only qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}, it's also {{PD-US-no-notice}}. And yes, the title cards should go away. XeroxKleenex (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this CD cover PD-simple (US only)? It seems rather simple to me and seems to be below the threshold of originality. If it is, I will restore the larger version, or find a better (no artifacts) version. TLSuda (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, PD-simple US for sure, not going to be free worldwide since an English band/label (it would be copyrighted there). --MASEM (t) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- If PD-simple US applies, could {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} be used for clarification? --Elegie (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely this is PD-textlogo? the TCM is a standard font, and its just a box and text aside from that. TLSuda (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
_Pink_Tape_teaser_Image.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like there are already plenty of free images to depict f(x) (band). Unclear to me if the image was being (or is allowed to be) used in Pink Tape like the FUR suggests. hinnk (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, clearly replaceable as demonstrated by existence of free images and also still active. --13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems unclear that the image cannot be replaced with a free image or that a free image could not be generated (WP:NFCC#1); an XBT instrument may not be cheap or readily available but as a useful article a freely image of an XBT would not raise copyright restrictions. Also, it appears that the information in the article is more about the subject of the image than the image itself (WP:NFCC#8.) --Elegie (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- A free schematic can be generated, and it seems this is the type of thing one can find in a museum on nautical sciences or the like. Should be replaceable. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is all but first cover are extraneous, therefore failing WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §2. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, repeating the individual album covers is not useful. This was a set release with the Hindenburg cover on the front, so there's a couple ways to use one and only one image for ID of the set. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the page and the non-free content on it fails WP:NFLISTS and therefore WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Easily needs a image prune. One or two seem appropriate from the major iterations, that's it. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the images of the films should only be used on the films' pages and should be removed from this article. TLSuda (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are unnecessarily many non-free images from films and their filming. We do not need all of them, and the films have their own articles which we could refer to. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Some imagery of the films and filming are going to be appropriate in discussion of his directing style in broad terms (eg like using one or two examples of an artist's non-free work to demonstrate their style while talking about them as a person). Not saying this justifies them all, but... --MASEM (t) 03:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the above linked file count under the PD-logo license? I noticed some similar logos like IBM's and most listed here are of similar quality, and many have "more originality" than the IB logo. What do you all think?
Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like a borderline case. Since borderline cases can go either way, the precautionary principle forces us to treat it as unfree. Examples listed as c:COM:TOO are typically borderline cases as the borderline cases are the ones which are most likely to be appealed to the highest instance. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your assessment seems very subjective. Surely if something like File:Best Western logo.svg can be free, then the IB logo, which is merely simple text, two basic geometric shapes, and a hand outline, should be free, no?--ɱ (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's debatable. Compare with this PDF file. The second logo on the first page is arguably less complex than File:Interactive Brokers Logo (2014).svg, and that logo was deemed to be copyrightable by the United States Copyright Office. According to c:COM:EVIDENCE, you will have to provide evidence that your proposed copyright tag is correct, or it will have to be assumed that it isn't correct. You will have to keep in mind that the examples listed at c:COM:TOO normally are borderline cases and that there may be minor subtleties which determine the outcome of the rulings. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your assessment seems very subjective. Surely if something like File:Best Western logo.svg can be free, then the IB logo, which is merely simple text, two basic geometric shapes, and a hand outline, should be free, no?--ɱ (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free files except headshot have been removed. Headshot is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_August_13#File:CharlesWilliams(US).jpg. Further discussion should take place there. TLSuda (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-free files fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- As he is notable but his works, not so much, one example book cover I think would be fair. But not 3. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The file is used on Flag of Australia, Torres Strait Islander Flag, Torres Strait Islanders, Torres Strait Islands, Indigenous Australians. and I can really only see justifcation for it on Torres Strait Islands and Torres Strait Islander Flag. Werieth (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- While you may not see the justification, like other images you keep removing without discussion, there is a reason for its use in several articles:
- At Flag of Australia, which is an article discussing (not simply listing) all of the Australian flags, it is used in a section that visually compares some of the official Australian flags. The file has a valid FUR for this article and is the subject of commentary.
- At Indigenous Australians the image is used alongside the Australian Aboriginal flag. Indigenous Australians fall into two distinct groups, Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. These groups are represented by different, official flags. Exclusion of the Torres Strait Islander flag misrepresents Torres Strait Islanders by giving readers the impression that all Indigenous Australians are represented by the Australian Aboriginal flag, which is most definitely NOT the case. This is so significant that it is mentioned in the lead.
- At Torres Strait Islanders the flag is used in the infobox as it is the official flag of the people that are the subject of the article. It has a valid FUR for this article and while it is not the subject of critical commentary, it is an important visual indication that Torres Strait Islanders are not represented by the Australian Aboriginal flag. (See my comments about Indigenous Australians above) --AussieLegend (✉) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- NFUR's dont mean that a file is permissible. In the case of Indigenous Australians if it leads to an imbalance the solution is to remove both flags. For the other two cases NFCC#3 comes into play as we can just reference the primary article about the subject. (either the article on the place or more specifically the article about the flag itself. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- We could delete all images to solve problems but we don't. We should be including both images in the article. NFCC#3 doesn't apply:
- "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" - One item can't convey equivalent significant information. We need both.
- "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice" - A portion won't suffice.
- "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" - That's applicable. The image should be resized so it complies, but that's not what we're talking about here.
- Note that NFCC#3 doesn't say anything abut the number of articles that non-free content can be used it. In this case we're using it in the minimum number of articles in which it should be used. NFCC#7 says that non-free content should be used in at least one article but it doesn't specify a maximum. As for "NFUR's dont mean that a file is permissible", WP:NFCCP says "all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" and I don't see how any of the criteria aren't met. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- NFCC#3 applies to multiple uses of the same file across all of WP - it's part of minimizing non-free in en.wiki, so to say that that situation is not covered is false. And also remember that all the criteria has to be met, and that includes ones lke NFCC#1 and NFCC#8; just having the rational present but unreviewed by others doesn't mean the image's use is valid. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- And if you really want to be pendantic: NFCC#1 says that non-free content should be replaced by free content serving the same purpose whenever possible; a link to an article where a non-free image is being used in proper context can be an equivalent replacement for using the non-free image without appropriate context in an article, such as in the case of Flag of Australia (there is no discussion about the visual elements of the flags shown there). --MASEM (t) 13:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- NFCC is a policy with legal considerations and the language used seems clear. NFCC#3 doesn't say anything about minimising the use of individual files across Wikipedia. That seems to be an almost WP:SYNTHy interpretation of the criteria. NFCC specifically says "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content" but it says nothing about minimising the use of the non-free content. That's just something we do. A link is hardly free content. Content is far more than just a link. There's an old saying, "A picture paints a thousand words". When you have two side by side images, you don't need to discuss the intricacies of the images in depth to be able to compare them. NFCC doesn't say you have to discuss the visual elements. If we were required to do that there wouldn't be a single TV series with an image in its infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC. As for your SYNTH claim it refers to Minimal usage and then has sub points to clarify a few things. But Minimal usage refers to exactly that Minimal usage. Using as little as needed on as few pages as needed. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- See example WP:NFC#UUI #14. about the usage of a logo across multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- And WP:NFC#UUI #6. Since the flag has its won article. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC." - That's completely untrue. In fact there are very few TV series articles that don't have non-free images in the infobox. UUI 14 refers to a "logo of a perennial event". That's not relevant to this file. A flag isn't a logo per se. UUI 6 is not how the image is being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth is speaking to TV episodes. TV series are completely allowed to have a single title-card/logo for identifications purposes. And you are allowed to use a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents for the same purpose ("for identification" on such articles meets NFCC#8), but that's the only page where the flag may be used without any additional commentary. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why Werieth is speaking about episodes when I specifically said "TV series". Regarding using a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents, that is exactly how the image is being used in the articles that I addressed so there should be no problem with it in those articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are only one article where we are talking about the region, that is Torres Strait Islands, and the flag is fine there. Further, the flag itself is proper at Torres Strait Islander Flag since that's discussing the flag directly. All other users are not about country/region. It's not even reasonable on Flag of Australia as are the other sub-national flags since they are not the Flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The flag doesn't just represent a region, it represents a specific group of people. Note that it's not the "Torres Strait Islands Flag", it's the "Torres Strait Islander Flag". And, while the flag is not the flag of Australia, it's still a Flag of Australia as prescribed under Section 5 of the Flags Act 1953, which essentially makes it another national flag. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are only one article where we are talking about the region, that is Torres Strait Islands, and the flag is fine there. Further, the flag itself is proper at Torres Strait Islander Flag since that's discussing the flag directly. All other users are not about country/region. It's not even reasonable on Flag of Australia as are the other sub-national flags since they are not the Flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why Werieth is speaking about episodes when I specifically said "TV series". Regarding using a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents, that is exactly how the image is being used in the articles that I addressed so there should be no problem with it in those articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth is speaking to TV episodes. TV series are completely allowed to have a single title-card/logo for identifications purposes. And you are allowed to use a flag image on the page about the country/area/whatever it represents for the same purpose ("for identification" on such articles meets NFCC#8), but that's the only page where the flag may be used without any additional commentary. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC." - That's completely untrue. In fact there are very few TV series articles that don't have non-free images in the infobox. UUI 14 refers to a "logo of a perennial event". That's not relevant to this file. A flag isn't a logo per se. UUI 6 is not how the image is being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- And WP:NFC#UUI #6. Since the flag has its won article. Werieth (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- See example WP:NFC#UUI #14. about the usage of a logo across multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most TV shows have had their screenshots removed for failing WP:NFCC. As for your SYNTH claim it refers to Minimal usage and then has sub points to clarify a few things. But Minimal usage refers to exactly that Minimal usage. Using as little as needed on as few pages as needed. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- "WP:NFCC#3 applies to multiple uses of the same file across all of WP"
- No Beta, it doesn't. Please stop making policies up to suit your own biases. You've been told this repeatedly beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure who you are talking to. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously I'm talking to you. Why are you mis-representing (yet again) WP:NFCC#3? We consider each use of media independently. If they meet our criteria, they are acceptable. It does not matter if they are used elsewhere, where or how often they are used elsewhere, nor even if they are being used incorrectly elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Werieth. Andy, if you intend on addressing
Weriethanyone as "Beta" (apparently meaning User:Betacommand) you had better come with some sort of evidence, and not a sideways comment in a thread Werieth happens to have started. Your accusations are undermining of the discussion. Drop it, and take it up elsewhere if you must. This is NOT the appropriate place for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually with the indentation I think he's called me Beta which is even stranger... --MASEM (t) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed you are correct. How bizarre. I guess we need a category for users who have been accused of being Betacommand. I've been accused, and apparently now you have too Masem. We need Category:Users who have been accused of being Betacommand. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- To avoid the category becoming so large as to be unmanageable it should be diffusing and have appropriate subcategories Thincat (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've warned Andy for making false accusations. We do not need to turn what was a decent discussion into a drama board. If he continues this process, he will eventually be blocked. Case closed. TLSuda (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure who you are talking to. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- NFCC is a policy with legal considerations and the language used seems clear. NFCC#3 doesn't say anything about minimising the use of individual files across Wikipedia. That seems to be an almost WP:SYNTHy interpretation of the criteria. NFCC specifically says "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content" but it says nothing about minimising the use of the non-free content. That's just something we do. A link is hardly free content. Content is far more than just a link. There's an old saying, "A picture paints a thousand words". When you have two side by side images, you don't need to discuss the intricacies of the images in depth to be able to compare them. NFCC doesn't say you have to discuss the visual elements. If we were required to do that there wouldn't be a single TV series with an image in its infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- We could delete all images to solve problems but we don't. We should be including both images in the article. NFCC#3 doesn't apply:
- NFUR's dont mean that a file is permissible. In the case of Indigenous Australians if it leads to an imbalance the solution is to remove both flags. For the other two cases NFCC#3 comes into play as we can just reference the primary article about the subject. (either the article on the place or more specifically the article about the flag itself. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- All the listed uses seem fair enough to me. Legal exposure could easily be minimised by including the name of the creator Bernard Namok and date of creation 1992 on the file page.[1] It should also appear on List of Australian flags, and its current omission could be considered offensive. User:Werieth seems to be responsible for the omission and edit warring over this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to List of Australian flags we had an NFCR, which determined that it was unacceptable. Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 51#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg.3B File:Autriservice.gif.3B File:ASeaCadetsFlag.png.3B File:Boxingkangaroo.svg. Please stop violating policy by re-adding it. Werieth (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The NFCR did not "determine that it was unacceptable", it determined that one specific use of it, in one particular article, at one particular time was unacceptable. That is no evidence that the content itself was unacceptable anywhere, as you are now claiming. Specifically the policy cited was NFCC#8, which requires contextual significance and discussion of the media. There is no reason why such could not be added to any relevant article, even if it wasn't there at the time of review. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can you not read? I was specifically responding to Graeme Bartlett's comment about its usage on List of Australian flags. I wasnt making a general claim about the other current usages, just the case that Graeme re-added in violation of the previous WP:NFCR. Werieth (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably not a good idea to question other editors that way when you've made the same mistake above, talking about TV episodes when I specifically referred to the TV series. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This thread is a microcosm of why WP:NFCC is a miserable failure. One little image, of a flag that is openly displayed in all sorts of places, creates an enormous amount of headache, followed by insults and accusations flying, warnings being placed on user talk pages, and more. All over one image. <facepalm> --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Endless debate is better than endless edit warring. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree MASEM. I seem to be jumping into the deep end here, but here I go. I have contributed to List of Australian flags before, and probably will in the future. However I cannot see a reason why the flag image should be excluded. The flag its self is a national level flag (considered equal to the Australian National Flag) but only represents descendants of torres strait islanders. The image may have copyright, but has anyone of the editors emailed the owner to seek unadulterated permission of use? The way flag image copyright rules are governed on WP is a little confusing is some way's, using -File:Naval Ensign of Australia.svg- as an example. The image's author is marked as 'unknown' though the designer's were the members of the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board under Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll (Slight side-track, my bad). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- It does seem rather silly to exclude the flag when there are so many other flags reproduced on the same page. It detracts from the quality of the encyclopaedia when readers have to question why a particular flag is excluded, especially when the flag is available on Wikipedia and is used in other articles. "Minimizing non-free uses" is not the same as excluding non-free uses. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removing non-free uses when they duplicate a more proper use elsewhere is one of our goals. And sometimes it is the problem with how the page is constructed that force the non-free inclusion that is the problem - for example there is no need to illustrate the non-national flags in Flag of Australia since, well, they aren't the flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- While they aren't "the" flag of Australia, they are official flags of Australia as prescribed under Section 5 of the Flags Act 1953, which essentially makes them another national flag. On certain occasions both the Aboriginal flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag fly alongside "the" flag of Australia. It's clear that, despite lack of a single "s" in the title, the flags are the subject of the article. Because there are so many official flags, all need to be displayed so that their differences to the flag can be demonstrated. It's not possible to do that with prose, at least not without making the article huge. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removing non-free uses when they duplicate a more proper use elsewhere is one of our goals. And sometimes it is the problem with how the page is constructed that force the non-free inclusion that is the problem - for example there is no need to illustrate the non-national flags in Flag of Australia since, well, they aren't the flag of Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- It does seem rather silly to exclude the flag when there are so many other flags reproduced on the same page. It detracts from the quality of the encyclopaedia when readers have to question why a particular flag is excluded, especially when the flag is available on Wikipedia and is used in other articles. "Minimizing non-free uses" is not the same as excluding non-free uses. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree MASEM. I seem to be jumping into the deep end here, but here I go. I have contributed to List of Australian flags before, and probably will in the future. However I cannot see a reason why the flag image should be excluded. The flag its self is a national level flag (considered equal to the Australian National Flag) but only represents descendants of torres strait islanders. The image may have copyright, but has anyone of the editors emailed the owner to seek unadulterated permission of use? The way flag image copyright rules are governed on WP is a little confusing is some way's, using -File:Naval Ensign of Australia.svg- as an example. The image's author is marked as 'unknown' though the designer's were the members of the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board under Vice Admiral Sir Alan McNicoll (Slight side-track, my bad). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This should be taken to FFD since it is a single file with a single use. (reason to delete is correct, though) --MASEM (t) 21:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCCP 2, 3a, and 8. Completely unnecessary use in Cleveland Browns. Levdr1lp / talk 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The FUR says that "This file is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 (US)". If this is correct, then the copyright tag should be changed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The website for the project has a clear CC-by-SA 3.0 license tag. It should be marked that way. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When there image fails WP:NFCC#1 it should be tagged simply with {{di-replaceable fair use}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per criteria 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, images of living people shouldn't have a non free criteria since someone who has taken an image of him could be convinced to license it under a free license. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image appears on news sites query non free status http://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/michael-dawson/ Tmol42 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
image appears in news media claimed free image source is video of subject clearly / blatantly in different clothing etc see http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/465431/Danny-Rose-Tottenham-are-going-backwards Tmol42 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
image copied from non free source see http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/8866952/tottenhams-danny-rose-grateful-to-andre-villas-boas-for-chance-to-impress Tmol42 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. No opposition to re-opening if further discussion is necessary or editors can be WP:BOLD. TLSuda (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This likely can be re-licensed under Template:PD-logo.--ɱ (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. No opposition to re-opening if further discussion is necessary or editors can be WP:BOLD. TLSuda (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No need for two posters. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the second poster is discussed in the text (noting how the US marketing changed the racial aspect of the original poster). Whether this needs that second poster might be a tougher question, but this is a case that outright removal of a second poster image isn't obvious. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@TLSuda:'s idea seems to have gained the most consensus and be the closest to policy. As per NFCC #3a we can convey the equivalent information to identify the product in one image, as Masem notes towards the end. Since the consensus is to remove the picture from the article, this automatically subjects the image to NFCC #7, and someone will need to follow through with the appropriate process for that image. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg is a combination of two non-free images,[2][3] which is not reflected in the FUR. AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/graphics/news3/DanceMoms_S2V1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/graphics/news3/DanceMoms_S2V2.jpg){kind=link}
- I have replaced it with a more detailed FUR that metions boths covers. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
While that fixes the FUR,the image itself would seem to contravene NFCC#3a by combining multiple items of non-free content when a single one would serve the same purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)- I've just realised that the FUR for this doesn't provide a source for the second image and the source links directly to the source image for Volume 1. It should link to the page on which the image is located. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Arguable this is a reasonable use: if the only way this season was distributed on home media was as two parts (and no box set is known to be incoming), then showing both covers is reasonable, and the use of a user-created montage that acknowledges this would be fine. But, I do beg the question if both covers are really needed, since the imagery is nearly the same (same color scheme, same actress, slightly different posing), so there's more the NFCC#3a minimization question to be asked. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- We use home media cover art in TV season infoboxes to identify the seasons, not the media itself, so I can't see a reason to ever use two images in these articles when one will do, especially as there's barely justification for one. The two cover art images have been used by the uploader to justify the inclusion of original research into the article so it's problematic in that regard as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The reason I uploaded both covers is because the season is in two parts. If you need a reference to other articles that use this format please have a look.
- Teen Wolf (season 3), Meet the Vamps — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Davis2003 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meet the Vamps is not a TV season article. Teen Wolf (season 3) actually uses two separate images, which violates WP:NFCC#3a. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know that, it was just a reference. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meet the Vamps is not a TV season article. Teen Wolf (season 3) actually uses two separate images, which violates WP:NFCC#3a. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- We use home media cover art in TV season infoboxes to identify the seasons, not the media itself, so I can't see a reason to ever use two images in these articles when one will do, especially as there's barely justification for one. The two cover art images have been used by the uploader to justify the inclusion of original research into the article so it's problematic in that regard as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend:@De728631:@B.Davis2003:@Masem: Is there any reason we cannot use a different promotional image instead of two covers? It seems to me this image at Amazon or one similar would be sufficient to identify the season, and would limit it to just one image. I think we should consider this idea for situations like this, especially since instant video is becoming increasingly popular, and the imagery is similar/same. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why not - it's clearly meant to be in the same "flavor" as the way the DVD covers are presented, so its the same branding/marketing approach. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was a long-standing convention that we use DVD cover art but that has now been extended to cover Blu-ray. I see no reason why the convention shouldn't be extended again to include instant video images. The main criteria is an image (preferably only one if non-free) that represents the season and this image satisfies that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is not the situation in this case, but I would argue that if we had a similar conditions where the home media release had two different but commonly-branded covers (eg two non-free images) and the digital release through iTunes was a significantly different image that we should still default to the home release, since 1) most people will be seeing that version than the digital, at least at the present time and 2) the home media release nearly always trails the digital release nowadays and thus reflects changes in branding that might have happened during release. But I can't even think of such a case. This case for Dance Moms provides an ample opportunity to cut down one non-free without losing any branding message. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- It was a long-standing convention that we use DVD cover art but that has now been extended to cover Blu-ray. I see no reason why the convention shouldn't be extended again to include instant video images. The main criteria is an image (preferably only one if non-free) that represents the season and this image satisfies that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why not - it's clearly meant to be in the same "flavor" as the way the DVD covers are presented, so its the same branding/marketing approach. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Consistency. That is something that I've been told we should maintain through out the articles, and having a dvd home release on one season article and then having a digital home release on another article makes for inconsistency. At this stage I feel that both images should be represented as the second season is presented in two parts, with the covers having different colour schemes and different character positions. B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, the two covers have the same color scheme (save for the top bar). And as more TV shows forego the physical media release for the digital on, we're not going to be able to stay consistent with what image is used to ID the product. As long as the intended branding is there (which is in this case) and the cover is otherwise not discussed, we should go with the version that minimizes non-free. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The colour schemes are different. VOL 1 is gold, with the cast wearing gold. VOL 2 is silver, with the cast wearing silver. The season is split up into two parts, and the images provided depicts both volumes. If you want Non Free ones, then someone should source for it. I have put these covers up because it depicts the season and their two volumes. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there are clear differences, but the layout, the logo, the predominance of the host (whomever that woman is, I assume) over the competitors, all on a clean white set - that's the branding message there, irregardless of the color bar change or the outfit differences. And the digital release cover continues the same theme. For our purposes, one image serves the same academic purpose as two. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The colour schemes are different. VOL 1 is gold, with the cast wearing gold. VOL 2 is silver, with the cast wearing silver. The season is split up into two parts, and the images provided depicts both volumes. If you want Non Free ones, then someone should source for it. I have put these covers up because it depicts the season and their two volumes. B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is additional covers are not necessary per WP:NFCC#3a. TLSuda (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that we need nine different covers. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- None of the song covers appear notable, so the additional covers are over excessive. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image should only be used on Óscar Romero per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c and/or WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. In the EXIF, it says "CNS file photo". What exactly is CNS? Is CNS one organisation of the kind which is mentioned in WP:NFC#UUI §7? Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- CNS appears to be http://www.catholicnews.com , a newspaper/website, but not a press agency, so no NFCC#2 issues. Agreed that only one use can be justified (on the page about that person). --MASEM (t) 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See WP:NFCC#3a: we don't need need two pictures of similar islands here. I'm not convinced that we even need one image, as referring to Total Drama Island (which contains one of the images) should be sufficient. Stefan2 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §19: the teams are sub-entities of the Football Association of Malaysia. Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17 on multiple pages. This should only be used in University of Pittsburgh. Stefan2 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, only needed on the mains school article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The logo is only justifiable for the main article, because the other articles cover subdivisions and campuses of the same institution. Green Giant (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The two extra logos are not needed here. Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- See no discussion of such historic logos, so appropriate to remove. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not convinced that the two extra covers are needed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Aussie cover definitely is not needed. The X Factor is near the edge, but for now for me would fail as the single is just at the cusp of its own notability. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is image should not be used twice in same article per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Used twice in the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The overall article San Antonio Spurs has historical logo problems. I see no justification for any of the logos in the history section. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note that some of the images in the article San Antonio Spurs are listed at WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incorrect non-free claim: this is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, fixed it. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now incorrectly tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. You also removed the source information and description from the FUR template. Please don't do that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seems to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- So why bring it up here? I've changed it, it's obvious PD-logo. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now incorrectly tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} instead of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. You also removed the source information and description from the FUR template. Please don't do that. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is {{PD-textlogo}}. TLSuda (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Obvious PD-logo, fixed. XeroxKleenex (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Offending non-free images have been removed with the exception of one. There seems to be some consensus that the Guernica piece can stay as long as there is appropriate content supporting its inclusion. If further discussion is necessary, a separate discussion should be opened about that one. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section contains some free images, so it is clear that free images of this kind exist. The non-free images should therefore be removed from the section for violation of WP:NFCC#1. The section additionally violates WP:NFG (non-free images are used in a gallery), WP:NFCC#3a (there are too many non-free images) and WP:NFCC#8 (there is no sourced critical discussion about all of the images). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree generally with you, though because that era does cross the period where works would and would not be in copyright, I can see having a few examples that are non-free if they "fill out" the space properly. The problem stems from the fact that there's too many images period (free and non-free) on that page; the galleries completely unnecessary given each period has more discussion in a separate article, which if done right would reduce non-free appropriately. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is WP:NFC#UUI §6 which implies that you should link to articles about paintings instead of including dozens of them. Some of the paintings have articles, for example Guernica (painting). It should be possible to find sufficiently many paintings which have their own articles so that use of non-free images can be avoided completely in this section by simply linking to those articles. Even linking to the articles about painters should do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm removing 3 images - Guernica stays - established after long discussion - this is one of the most important paintings of the 20th century and belongs in the article...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is still no tangible evidence that the article Guernica (painting) doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Until such evidence has been provided, the image has to be assumed to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was agreed and determined that Guernica remain included in the article. See the discussion here: [4]...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreements should be honored; and there is this discussion from 2008 as well:[5]...Modernist (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, consensus can change, however, I have not yet reviewed these previous discussions in detail yet for this case. Just that even thought it was discussed before, the situation might have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are currently eight images in that gallery. I don't see that as an issue right now. I think there is an evolution in style at this point in history that you can see very well demonstrated on this page. One almost doesn't even have to read, but scroll to get a quick education on changing styles for this period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Three of the eight paintings in the gallery are non-free, and that's a problem. The apparent justification for their inclusion is becuase the painter's name or the school is mentioned in the text but not the painting itself. (This is where Guernica should be fine , it's discussed in depth). I'm not expecting paragraphs on each painting, but a sourced statement like "X's Y is an example of (school)", so that we know other sources have identified that properly and thus making sense to represent at this higher-level article. One has to remember that subarticle can go into more details on specifics, and what's surprising is that some of them don't, for example Neue_Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) has all of two painting images in it. This is where one have more freedom to include more non-free to describe the movement in more detail. This is an example of how the structure of the articles needs to be fixed to keep using all the examples but use them in the best, most specific places rather than front-loading the high-level articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can see where much of what you say makes sense, however I am still not clear what is the exact problem with the NF images are, even having three. Please be specific as I think you may have a point, just that I am not seeing it right now. Is it your point that there is a more suitable location for the NF images and that this page is not it or that the amount alone is just wrong? The last sentence is a bit confusing to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- For the most part, that is a good summary. Guernica is talked about and seems appropriate, but the others are not identified as critical examples of these types of styles. As notable works, or major examples of the specific artists, there's a better location for these to clearly be had for meeting NFCC#8 contextual significant, and only the most significant examples should bubble up to the higher level articles (for example Dali's Persistence of Memory is clearly one of those as a prime example of surrealism so not only would NFC of it own its own article and on Dali's, but it can clearly be shown as the ur example of Surrealism, and would be a good representation of that on the overall History of Painting article. The 3 non-frees in this case, I don't see that type of importance given. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the 3 NF images yesterday - Max Beckmann, Stuart Davis And Georgia O'Keeffe and all remaining images are PD, with the exception of the Picasso. If I re-add those artists I will certainly include detailed written descriptives giving context as to why they are included...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- For the most part, that is a good summary. Guernica is talked about and seems appropriate, but the others are not identified as critical examples of these types of styles. As notable works, or major examples of the specific artists, there's a better location for these to clearly be had for meeting NFCC#8 contextual significant, and only the most significant examples should bubble up to the higher level articles (for example Dali's Persistence of Memory is clearly one of those as a prime example of surrealism so not only would NFC of it own its own article and on Dali's, but it can clearly be shown as the ur example of Surrealism, and would be a good representation of that on the overall History of Painting article. The 3 non-frees in this case, I don't see that type of importance given. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can see where much of what you say makes sense, however I am still not clear what is the exact problem with the NF images are, even having three. Please be specific as I think you may have a point, just that I am not seeing it right now. Is it your point that there is a more suitable location for the NF images and that this page is not it or that the amount alone is just wrong? The last sentence is a bit confusing to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Three of the eight paintings in the gallery are non-free, and that's a problem. The apparent justification for their inclusion is becuase the painter's name or the school is mentioned in the text but not the painting itself. (This is where Guernica should be fine , it's discussed in depth). I'm not expecting paragraphs on each painting, but a sourced statement like "X's Y is an example of (school)", so that we know other sources have identified that properly and thus making sense to represent at this higher-level article. One has to remember that subarticle can go into more details on specifics, and what's surprising is that some of them don't, for example Neue_Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) has all of two painting images in it. This is where one have more freedom to include more non-free to describe the movement in more detail. This is an example of how the structure of the articles needs to be fixed to keep using all the examples but use them in the best, most specific places rather than front-loading the high-level articles. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are currently eight images in that gallery. I don't see that as an issue right now. I think there is an evolution in style at this point in history that you can see very well demonstrated on this page. One almost doesn't even have to read, but scroll to get a quick education on changing styles for this period.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was agreed and determined that Guernica remain included in the article. See the discussion here: [4]...Modernist (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is still no tangible evidence that the article Guernica (painting) doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Until such evidence has been provided, the image has to be assumed to violate WP:NFC#UUI §6. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm removing 3 images - Guernica stays - established after long discussion - this is one of the most important paintings of the 20th century and belongs in the article...Modernist (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is WP:NFC#UUI §6 which implies that you should link to articles about paintings instead of including dozens of them. Some of the paintings have articles, for example Guernica (painting). It should be possible to find sufficiently many paintings which have their own articles so that use of non-free images can be avoided completely in this section by simply linking to those articles. Even linking to the articles about painters should do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review&oldid=368589689#File:PicassoGuernica.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_4#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of the non-free files violate WP:NFCC#10c and should be removed from the page per WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#9 in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests/Affiliations and memberships according to the file usage section, but I can't find the image on that page, and I can't figure out how to remove it from there either. Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was in there (in the Toastmaster boxes at the bottom of the list) but the templates for the user boxes were changed last week to remove the image (per NFC issues.). The file page had probably needed purging to update the use list (which is not generated fresh on just a normal page load). The file page is now only reporting the main TM page for the logo use (Which is fine). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.