File talk:Syd Barrett Abbey Road 1975.jpg

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd articles

This file was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Fair use discussion

Subject is dead, and the likelihood of finding a free image of subject at the same period of time is nil. This was a pivotal moment in the band's history...former lead singer and creator shows up years later a shadow of his former self, having a lasting impact on the band member's and their subsequent work. Critical commentary is included in the article, image helps the reader in depicting Syd Barret's decline.

(Above is copied verbatim here for convenience from the di-replaceable fair use disputed tag, which was posted by User:Tarc)

The argument above is irrelevant. The question is not whether the image is nice or would be useful. The image is not iconic and is not the subject of any sort of critical commentary in the article, but is used "only to visually identify elements in the article" (to quote the policy). Absolutely no critical commentary of the image is being made in either article (a caption that reads "Syd Barrett, visiting Abbey Road Studios in July 1975" does not constitute critical commentary). -- Rama (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether a fair use image improves the article and that the article would be weaker without it. I have outlined the reason why it is important. There is commentary about the event and about the song wish it inspired. And no offense, but I do not really put much stock in your opinion. This should be reviewed by an admin different than the nominator. Bias and all. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not reviewing this, for Goodness' sake, I am refuting your arguments.

2) The question is not simply whether a fair use image improves the article. Else, the Fair Use policy would read "anything goes". Rama (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other image of Syd Barrett on Wikipedia, its on his article. Nothing in WP:NFCC demands that an image be the subject of critical commentary, and nothing, so far as I can see, states that a reason for the image's inclusion be given in the image caption. It would take about 2 minutes to expand the caption, if the closing admin decides that such a thing would bolster this argument.

Its inclusion serves a purpose - it demonstrates, quite aptly, the enormous changes in physical appearance that Barrett had undergone. The article gives weight to the band not recognising him, and Waters (his former best friends) being so shocked by the change that he was reduced to tears. Its all very well writing in text that he'd put on weight, shaved his eyebrows and head, and looked a bit odd, but this image is a much more powerful reminder of just how far this once beautiful and erudite man had descended. And frankly, who gets to decide whether or not an image is iconic? You? Look on any Pink Floyd fansite, you'll see this image repeated ad nauseum. Parrot of Doom 17:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of expanding a caption. Fair Use is something that addresses the very nature of the image. A proper usage of Fair Use is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This image here does not constitute the subject of the article, it illustrates the subject of the article. Which is not a good reason to claim Fair Use. Rama (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've got this Iwo Jima thing stuck in there, and you don't understand what the policy is actually saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation of the rules, which from what I've read, includes all manner of assertions which you appear to have invented. I take my cue from what WP:NFCC says, and I'm confident that this image abides by those rules, and not yours. Parrot of Doom 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a very widely used comparison. [1] The policy is clearly stated as WP:NFCI: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". Rama (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCI is not policy. It is a guideline. Parrot of Doom 18:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It's a guideline to implement what? Rama (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is referring to the primacy of WP:NFCC over WP:NFCI. –xeno^talk 18:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be clear about this. NFCC says Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It does NOT say "non free content is used only if it constitutes the subject of the article." If it is impossible to explain in words the shocking change in Syd Barratt's appearance, from the elfin figure who wrote all those trippy numbers to something resembling a peeled boiled egg after a very, very bad weekend, then using the picture significanly increases readers' understanding of the topic. The fact that you do not appear to understand or agree with this, and you misinterpret NFCI in the light of your own version of NFCC does not alter reality.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is fair use for the following reasons:

It is irreplaceable, and there are no similar images of any nature. Barrett was a hermit, and very few, if any, free pictures exist of him after he disappeared in the early 70's. Most of those that do exist (but are also not free) are from the 90s and 2000s. He is now dead, and as such no new images could be made.
It is of significance to the history of the band, not only because he started the band, but because the band would not be what it is without his initial investments and his eventual decent into psychosis. Not only that, but this album was for him (Maybe not entirely, but he certainly provided the inspiration). The fact that he wandered into the studio, having been absent for half a decade, is more than just irony. Plenty of room for critical commentary, of which an entire paragraph of the Wish You Were Here article is dedicated to.
It illustrates something that words alone cannot. That being the drastic change of his appearence over the short years since the band saw him. This continued to inspire the band over the years as well, including an album and movie. His appearence that day is mirrored by Pink's behavior in The Wall.

I think this more than meets the fair use criteria, and any attempt to sell it short of that is the oppression of a truly informative encyclopedia article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]