Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

File:Boy Scouts of America universal emblem.svg

Reduced to single usage Werieth (talk) 14:35, 24 August 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 violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 and/or WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly okay on the organization page, I'd be less worried on the History of BSA about it, but all other uses are improper. Logos only go on pages directly about the organization, not sub-topics of it. (though again, History, I'd consider okay) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Keep as is. It adds context to each of the pages on which it is placed. --evrik (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. --evrik (talk) 19:57, 5 June 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:Roger Craig Smith@Planes premiere.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 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.

Nymf (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as "replaceable". --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 22 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:ThreeMenWalkingII.JPG

Please be more specific if you have issues, these uses look OK Werieth (talk) 18:46, 26 August 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.


Some of the uses seem to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:56, 7 July 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:A.S.D. Cerea.jpg

removed from article Werieth (talk) 18:51, 26 August 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.


Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in A.S.D. Cerea 1912. Possibly PD due to expired copyright. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:53, 9 July 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:ABC Spark logo.jpg

Removed violation Werieth (talk) 18:55, 26 August 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.


Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ABC Family. Seems to be below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:58, 9 July 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:ANT1 logo.png

Removed per NFG Werieth (talk) 18:52, 26 August 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.


Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:57, 9 July 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:OldAnt1.png

Removed per NFG Werieth (talk) 18:53, 26 August 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.


Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:02, 9 July 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:ANZ-brand.svg

Removed violation Werieth (talk) 18:57, 26 August 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.


Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in ANZ Bank New Zealand. Appears to not meet WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:08, 9 July 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.

Adagio (Sweetbox album)

Only one image is being used Werieth (talk) 19:01, 26 August 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 non-free covers used in this article, both in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Adagio JP.jpg and File:Sweetbox Adagio RS.jpg. I think one of those covers should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. I don't know which of the two is more appropriate to keep, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 11 July 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.

Addicted (Sweetbox album)

Only one image is currently being used Werieth (talk) 19:03, 26 August 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 non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted RS.jpg and File:Addicted KE.jpeg. Again, I think one of the two should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 July 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.

Addicted (Sweetbox song)

only one image is being used now Werieth (talk) 19:03, 26 August 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 non-free covers used in the infobox, namely File:Sweetbox Addicted SE.jpg and File:Addicted SE.jpg. One of them should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:06, 11 July 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:KTVU 2 logo.PNG

Image deleted Werieth (talk) 19:04, 26 August 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.


Currently tagged as non-free. Probably copyright-ineligible as WP:TOO isn't satisfied. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:17, 13 July 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:John Patrick Bedell Washoe County Jail photo.JPEG

Removed Werieth (talk) 19:06, 26 August 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 use of this image in 2010 Pentagon shooting seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. The image seems to merely serve an identification purpose in that section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:25, 13 July 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:The Matrix of the seal of the University of St Andrews.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 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 image is duplicated at Commons, the item shown being of a sufficient age that it is in public domain. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect the user who copied it there from this wiki was mistaken, as the upload was their very first edit to that wiki. I am nominating the copy on Commons for deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Tagged as "replaceable fair use". The fair use rationale appears to state that the seal is in the public domain because of age. The seal looks old, so the claim seems reasonable. In that case, it violates WP:NFCC#1 as anyone else could take a photo of the same seal. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just so I understand - a photo of a PD sculpture is copyrightable even though a photo of a non-PD sculpture is not since it is a derivative work? VQuakr (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's the 3d to 2d transition that creates the new copyright - there's enough in the 3D-ness of the PD work that lighting and shadows created by the photographer are considered to be copyrightable elements. If it was a 2D-to-2D work, the image would be considered a slavish reproduction of the original, bestowing no new copyrights. Note that a photo of a non-PD sculpture does create a second copyright, that of the photographer on the photo itself, while there is still a copyright to the original sculpture as well. Hence if we determine that a non-free image of a 3D work where there is no freedom of panorama, we really want a photograph that is licensed free, even though it still is a deritive work of the sculpture - it is just one less copyright aspect to worry about. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
That makes logical sense. Thanks for explaining! VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
See also Commons:COM:ART. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 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:Seal of Baltimore.jpg

This has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 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 seal has a date of 1797 , Is the seal artwork contempary? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

According to the infobox in the article about the city, the city was incorporated in 1797. It seems reasonable that the number 1797 may appear in any symbol for the city, regardless of the age of the symbol. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
According to our article on it, Seal of Baltimore, this seal was adopted in 1827, so is definitely PD-old/PD-1923. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Other tertiary websites have also confirmed the date of 1827. Definitely public domain due to age (PD-OLD/PD-US). Also public domain due to being an official MSA archive (PD-MDGov). Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:09, 6 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:Humaun Azad (1947-2004).jpg

Only being used on main article Werieth (talk) 19:07, 26 August 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 violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in Humayun Azad bibliography and List of converts to Nontheism. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 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.

Australian Army officer rank insignia

Resolved Werieth (talk) 19:15, 26 August 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.


Clear violations of WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE Werieth (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there have been - for years. What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Your edit comment says: "This image has been listed for review at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Australian Army officer rank insignia". What image? There are no non-free images on the page now that you have removed them. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, if you are going to indulge in what looks like an edit war, you need to explain to your combatant that NFCC enforcement is exempt from edit-warring, 3RR, and similar rules / policies / guidelines. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It is a bug with WP:TW's edit summary. Just because no one has noticed the issue doesnt mean that there wasnt an issue. Werieth (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand.
As I said: What's your point in listing it on this page? There is no dispute - just ignorance of NFCC by some editors.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Because this is to review if their use is proper. And in this case, no, there can be a reduction in the non-free image use by showing one insigna that uses all the elements, and then text-descriptions for all the rest, as to satisfy both NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for a relevant useful reply! I will modify the page accordingly, and when I've finished, I would very much appreciate your feedback on whether I have accurately interpreted and implemented your advice. It is indeed a pleasure to hear from someone suggesting ways to solve the problem, rather than those simply complaining. Yours sincerely, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation of your advice. I will appreciate your feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of though I think you can go fewer and show the General level - which has all three elements (crown, star, swords), outside of the table, explaining that the insignia uses three major icons as shown, and then run through as you do on the tables. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That's definitely in the direction I was thinking of - Good!
though I think you can go fewer - Possibly. (Probably?) But what's the cost/benefit analysis?
In my (no doubt biased) opinion, I think the PRIMARY goal should be user-comprehension, and (of course), I think the way I've done it facilitates user-comprehension. (Personally, I'm rather unimpressed by computer programmers, etc., who believe the primary goal is to make things easier for computers. And before we go any further, I quickly hasten to state that I do NOT put you in that category.)
So, is what I've done acceptable? Or are there remaining problems? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension, particularly here in which all we are doing is showing without telling what the importance is of these ranks (eg its very weak at NFCC#8). It is completely reasonable to show an example that can be extrapolated to others, which is why I'm saying that if you show the General's insignia which has all 3 distinctive elements, and explain how such elements are presented on the rest, you're still cutting down NFC but leaving the important one, and using text to describe the rest, helping to meet both goals. (another option that I'm not sure about is if you showed one and then has very simple line drawings to show the icons on it, though I'm not sure if those would be called derivative works or not). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a balance between the free content mission and user comprehension - Agreed. (i.e. That was the point I was trying to make.)
It is completely reasonable to show an "example" ... - That was/is indeed my intent.
which is why I'm saying ... - Yes, I understand that.
I realize you are being very polite and very diplomatic, but I don't have a feel for how you view my question: "What's the cost/benefit analysis?" (BTW: It's bedtime here - I won't be responding in the next 20 hours.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the cost/benefit analysis is far different for WP than any other educational work, because of the Foundation's goal to encourage free content creation and distribution. Non-free harms that but its recognized that some is needed to complete the educational work - each use is a cost in light of non-free policy. Arguably, the insignia could be fully described in text, not incredibly hard and glossing over some details, and still be of nearly the same education value (because they are only presented and not discussed in any more detail, there's little educational value in seeing them all) But I recognize that maybe one would be better to have. But I do fully recognize that if you select the right one to use an example, the rest can be clearly extrapolated from that without a lot of excess text. Multiple examples are thus not necessary to achieve the same benefit. Of course, as noted below, one montage image, provided by those that own the copyright, is just as good from the non-free aspect and much better for the overall page, so that's a better one to use. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Well having them all did fail WP:NFG. Though could one image, with all the rank insignias, fail NFCC (something like this)? Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Montage/composite images like that would be great, but they have to be made by the copyright owner themselves. If you or a third-party put those together in the same fashion, it would be treated as an image with X uses of non-free, where X is the number of images used. If the copyright holder does that and puts it out as a single image, then it's a single image to us, too. Note that here, not knowing the relationship between the Veterans and the actual AU Army, I don't think that image could be used, but a bit of Tin Eye and I get this page [1] which DOES appear to be the same image and from the defence agency of AU, would presuambly are the copyright holders. It would be reasonable to crop that image to the appropriate line (making note of that) and using that single image as a lead image here. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I get the impression the owner doesn't want that: "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only" [2] Or does US law allow it? And the insignias are a low quality photo/drawing hybrid. --Egel Reaction? 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
US's Fair Use allowances in copyright law should override that; as part of the guarantee of copyright is that you cannot forbid fair use, irregardless of what warnings/restrictions you place. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Further, I have a problem with the definition of "the owner" of "the copyright". (NOTE: I'm talking about so-called "copyright" images from sites other than defence.gov.au) Quite clearly, the copyright is owned by the Australian Government. Yes, the so-called "owner" drew the image, but I think it's a rather large stretch to say "the creator of a reproduction of an image who's copyright is owned by somebody else is suddenly the owner of the copyright." Yes, they are the owner of the copyright of that particular reproduction (whatever that might mean). But they are most certainly NOT the owner "the" copyright (whatever that might mean). Comments? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Basically, if I created a derivative work of a work still under copyright, then for current purposes of non-free evaluation , there are two copyrights associated with the new work - that of the original creator of the image, and my own copyright. I myself may chose to use a free license, which doesn't touch the original owner's copyright work, but for purposes of non-free, is a better option since there's fewer copyright hurdles on the image use. (Hence, for example, we do require that we have freely-taken photographs of still-standing sculptures in countries where there is no freedom of panorama). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
a) Wow! That was a quick response!
b) Yes. That's what I thought I'd said. Are you agreeing with me, or are you pointing out a difference? If so, what's the difference?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I'm agreeing with you. You do have a claim of coypright on a derivative work of sufficient creativity, but you're not claiming the full copyright. But in regards to this case, we do have, to be for all purposes, an image created by the copyright holder (the one off defence.gov.au) so we can use that here. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Goodness gracious! That actually seems both logical and reasonable. (Clearly, you are neither a politician nor a lawyer.) ("Over and out".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 17 July 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:Red River Rivalry Logo.png

Removed from ATT article Werieth (talk) 19:08, 26 August 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.


In the article AT&T, the use of this image appears to violate WP:NFCC#8, especially as the article's text content about AT&T's sponsorship of the game is a single list item. The logo is entirely decorative. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the logo is only valid on the article about the rivalry. Remove from there. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 16 July 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:Rbhlogo wikipage.jpg

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 26 August 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.

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any need for the image, though, as there doesn't seem to be any article about the company. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 16 July 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:Logo noul adevarul.png

Removed from 10c article Werieth (talk) 19:13, 26 August 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 Adevărul Moldova. Possibly below WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The bird seems to be copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 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:TomandJerryHitler.jpg

Accordingly removed Werieth (talk) 19:12, 26 August 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 use in Adolf Hitler in popular culture violates WP:NFCC#10c. This use and the use in The Lonesome Mouse appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both. In the article about the cartoon, it's only briefly mentioned that an edited version runs, and is nowhere near the significance of the "censorship" of the Censored Eleven, for example. Similarily fails for the same reason at the pop culture one (again, if it was a scene from the Censored Eleven, possibly, but without significance and just as an example, fails). --MASEM (t) 17:18, 16 July 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:Alice Vickery.jpg

Duplicate discussion (see further below). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 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.

Given the date of the image, I'm disputing if this needs to be considered Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 26 July 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:Jcp logo.PNG

This has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 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.

In the commons deletion disscussion, this image was deemed not to have met TOO. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:43, 28 July 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:UniversalTelevision1975.png

Apparently deleted now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 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.

Clearly logo artwork, and not uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 28 July 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:Scutisorex thori skeleton.jpg

Apparently deleted now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 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 that the image adds sufficient value to the article to justify fair use. It is suggested that it is used to show the "strong, interlocking vertebrae" of the animal, but another non-free image in the article does so better. ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. If the author of this illustration could make this illustration, somebody else can make another. That goes for the other ("better") illustration too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone else removed it from the article, so I speedy deleted it as "unused fair use" --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 31 July 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:MlaStdLogo.png

This has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 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.

(fasttrack) - Threshold of originality not met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur, insufficient originality. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:12, 18 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:Durga Nagpal.jpg

Apparently deleted now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 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.

Snap of a living person, very much in news currently and likely to be present for some more time in near future. Has a very good chance that a free image will be available. Also, there is no extra-ordinary need for the image in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as replaceable non-free. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What the hell is this page?! I wanted to go for WP:FFD with this file. How did it land here? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, you didn't even need to FFD it - a non-free of a living person that is otherwise easily publicly accessable is a CSD for imagery, so there's no discussion needed and it will be gone in under 48hrs. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 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:Swedish Hockey League.png

The file has apparently been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 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.

Threshold of originality not met - This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is not a valid fair use of non-free content, perhaps this image is eligible for {{PD-text}} or {{PD-textlogo}}? The image only contains three black shaped letters and a white background. Heymid (contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The image has now been deleted at the English Wikipedia per F8 speedy deletion criteria; the same image exists at Commons and is also properly tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}. Heymid (contribs) 21:51, 17 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:Playboy 0603.jpg

Do not re-open this without consensus. Go to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 27. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 27 August 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.

Non-free image being used on Jessica Alba. Discussion at Talk:Jessica Alba#Non-free image has gotten out of hand and gone way off track; outside feedback, please. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear failure of NFCC, see WP:NFC#UUI 1 & 9. along with NFCC 1,3,8. Werieth (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring the part of 9 which states "However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary." Dismas|(talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"May" is the key word. While Alba's appearance on the cover is discussed, there is no visual elements to be explained - she appeared on the cover, which gave the appearance of supporting something, but Alba denied this. There's no visual need to see the cover (with the understanding of what Playboy is in the first place). --MASEM (t) 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"May" is not an issue. There are elements to be explained, (see below) which in fact create a "visual need to see the cover".
(btw - how does your caveat account for readers who may not have an ""understanding of what Playboy is"? - thewolfchild 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You can always link to Playboy and provide that understanding. The discussion is about the fact that playboy used her image without her permission, not the content of the picture itself. Thus this image fails the second part of #8, and is decorative. Werieth (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "clear failure" of NFCC here what-so-ever. NFC#UUI 1 & 9 both support inclusion of the image.
As far as the criteria is concerned;

  • 1. There is no free equivalent of this image available.
  • 2. The use of this image is not going to replace it's original market role.
  • 3. ..a) It is only being used once, which is absolute minimal usage.
b) It is being used as a thumbnail, which is the absolute minimal extent of use.
  • 4. This image has been published and publicly displayed outside of Wikipedia.
  • 5. The use of this image is being used to both augment and demonstrate an issue of importance to the article and is encyclopedic.
  • 6. This image does meet both Wikipedia's media-specific policy and Wikipedia's Image use policy.
  • 7. This is being used in at least one article.
  • 8. (The criteria currently up for debate) This image does provide contextual significance and increases the readers' understanding of the topic as the topic is specifically about both image and an image.
  • 9. This image is only being used in an article.
  • 10. a), b), c) The image display page contains all the information required by policy.

As for NFCC#8, Use of this image does increase the readers understanding of the issue, and furthermore of the subject. The issue is centered around the controversial use of an image, use that resulted in the image being seen around the world, both at the time (over 7 years ago) and still presently. The original image, found within the image, is one from a promotional poster, that was used publicly, that the subject freely and knowingly took part in creating, dressed scantily and posing provocatively. (Bear with me, I'm trying to describe the situation here, but... geez, this would be a lot simpler to 'enhance your understanding' of what I'm saying if I could just show you the image) The image from the poster was used to create another image for the purposes of creating a magazing cover. However, the image was then altered to have the magazine title and various content teasers displayed (again, it would be easier to just show you what I'm trying to describe). The subject objected to this use and went so far as to sue. She ultimately settled, allowing the image to remain public. The fact that this issue in centered around image, (public image), an image (picture file), and imagery (visualization, use of a visual medium) necessitates that the image file in question be used in the article, as it clearly does lead to the readers understanding of the issue and subject - (and the removal of which, by default, can only reduce that same understanding).

Furthermore, regarding this review, there is already an implied, if not established, consensus that this image is within all current wiki-policy as it has been a part of the article for 7½ years (helping readers understand), survived over 4,800 edits, an unknown number of reviews and assisted in the article achieving Good Article status. Why does NFCC suddenly apply now? Answer: It doesn't.

Also, this image has helped "increase reader's understanding of the topic" for years, in various media resources, all over the world, including (but not limited to) people.com, msn.com, The Smoking Gun, Handbag and Mediabistro, Photobucket, The U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Romania, Honduras, India and China. Why does this article have to be any different? Answer: It doesn't.

Keep - thewolfchild 14:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because something has existed for years doesn't mean its correct. Take a look at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Gaius Flavius Antoninus which was an article for over 8 years, and is complete nonsense. Citing WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt valid. How is not including this image detrimental to understanding who Jessica Alba is? This is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) with the current text (you dont need to know what the image looks like, as the contents of the image are not what are being discussed). Werieth (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- So, you only focused on the length of time itself, and not what I went on to say about what it implied.
- The use of this image is not a hoax.
- You claim I can't use OSE, right after... you use OSE?(!)
- OSE is not valid, except... when it is. Your blanket statement is... invalid.
- Not including the image does reduce the readers understanding of the issue because, well... they can't see it. Seeing an image is always more effective than describing it (the visually impaired notwithstanding). "A picture is worth a thou...", oh, wait... someone already said that. Why? Because it's true. Further to just the image itself, one of the core issues of the controversy was how one image was altered to create another. Only a visual of the image can best demonstrate this. Also, beyond just the issue, the image does increase the reader's understanding of the subject, as the subject has largely traded on her status as a sex symbol to achieve their notability. An image can increase the reader's understanding of the subject in this way, where a description alone would not suffice. (and, apparently only this particular image can fill this role, as all the other images found within the article, and Wikimedia, are relatively conservative, and in no way increase the reader's understanding of the subject's status as a sex symbol and model.
-Really, did you skip my whole post and focus only on the last few comments? - thewolfchild 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes any image will increase the understanding of any article, that is why there is a second clause to #8. Its not phrased as decreasing the understanding, the term used is detrimental. How is not including this image detrimental to understanding who Jessica Alba is? Werieth (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, then... yes, it is detrimental to remove this image. It is detrimental to reader's ability to visualize something visual. Whether it's the image itself, how the image was altered that lead to such notable controversy, or how the image aids the reader's understanding of the issues or the article's subject, a simple description will not suffice. It cannot do nearly as adequate as job as simply adding this image. Therefore, removing it would be detrimental. There are times when a description will do, but in this instance, that is subscribing to the bare minimum, which Wikipedia is not about. - thewolfchild 21:34, 27 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.

UN-CLOSE?

Why is this closed? Who arbitrarily decides no one else gets a say, or any more say?

Why would FFD supersede this? This was filed first, wasn't it? Shouldn't this run it's course first?

(yeah, yeah... I'm sure I done this 'wrong' somehow, but I don't really care. NFCC, NFCR, CSD, FFD, CIA, FBI, IRS... too much red tape) - thewolfchild 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant thanks to FFD, no matter which is first. Go to WP:FFD and speak there. I'll re-close this, okay? --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"okay" what? You've already done it. - thewolfchild 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Windows 95

OK, I'm going to close this. I've updated the rationales to match the fact most of the images are now at Development of Windows 95, where their inclusion is a rather different prospect to the Windows 95 page itself and where there is a much stronger prima facie case for inclusion. Discussion of whether screenshots are appropriately sourced move considerably forward below, and if the issue is raised again it would make sense to start afresh. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 29 August 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 article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.

Set 1:

Set 2:

Set 3:

Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that all the non-free images in the table at Windows 95#Beta should be removed for violating WP:NFCCP#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
One instance of the Chicago startup screen and one desktop screenshot of the beta version are adequate for educational purposes per WP:NFCC#8. I agree that the second and third instance of each are redundant per WP:NFCC#3a, as well as the Windows95 logo startup which is nearly identical to the art box (which should be retained). So let's keep File:Windows Chicago (build 58) boot screen.jpg, File:Windowschicago73.png and File:Windows95BOXSHOT.png and remove the others. Diego (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please be advised that all screenshots of versions of Windows that predate a public release may not be covered by U.S. fair use (Internet leak, in this instance, is software piracy) and violate NFCC.4 previous publication. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCC #4's previous publication requirement does not require authorization by the copyright holder; it merely prevents unpublished nonfree material from being uploaded to Wikipedia first. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
And as in regards to "not yet public release products", if the product has had distribution even if closed/limited beta outside of the company, that's published for purposes of WP, and would not run afoul of NFCC#4. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Screenshots of unpublished Microsoft products, such as unpublished pre-release versions of Windows 95, are not covered by {{Microsoft screenshot}}.
There was a recent discussion about WP:NFCC#4 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 58#Some thoughts about WP:NFCC#4 where it was discussed that WP:NFCC#4 might require that the work was shown outside Wikipedia with the consent of the copyright holder. I don't know much about pre-release versions of Microsoft Windows, so I'm not sure how people gained access to these images or to the software used for creating the screenshots. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. The previous publication clause is obviously meant to combat Internet leak. Otherwise, it is totally worthless because one can always post the image on his own blog first before posting it on Wikipedia. As for your last comment, Stefan, people do not gain access to them; rather, employees or beta testers under a non-disclosure agreement publish them. (Hence the name "leak".) This violation of NDA is more serious than a simple copyright violation. People doing them go to jail. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
People do obviously gain access to those programs since they are able to make screenshots of them. On the other hand, people do not necessarily gain access to them in a legal way – if the programs are leaked, people more likely gain access to them in an illegal way.
Yes, the problem with publishing something on a private blog before uploading it here is exactly why I started that discussion at WT:NFC. Non-free images from questionable sources are usually not sourced to personal blogs but more frequently to websites like Find a Grave which don't tell where the images come from. In my opinion, WP:NFCC#4 has to be read as making the image available with the consent of the copyright holder outside Wikipedia. Otherwise, we're just creating an acceptable form of "Flickrwashing" of non-free images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to screenshots, we generally assume that the publishing factor of NFCC#4 is from the act of publishing the software, not the screenshot itself. So a screenshot taken by a user of a commercially available program passes NFCC#4 (ignoring any other copyrighted images that may be on the screen itself, like if visiting a website). Screenshots of a piece of software that has had external distribution but are under NDA still meet this but should be avoided due to the NDA violation issue (WP should not serve to harm this further), unless for some reason this "leaked" image had received critical attention. In the case where a leak of a software product that as best can be told has had no external publication, the software has not been published, though it may be the case that other parties republish the screenshot in which case it can become possible fair use. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
My assumption (from Codename Lisa's statements) was that these pre-release versions weren't commercially available. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but if they've published to external parties under NDA, and taking the screenshots is only violating the NDA, the software was "published" (as soon as it left the auspices of the company). Now, whether we should include a screenshot of a product while it was NDA, that's more an ethics question and one I'd recommend that we don't include unless there's really a very strong compelling reason (supported by sources) to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm, this is getting complex... I'm not sure if set 2 is needed at all, since it mainly duplicates the infobox screenshot. A watermark saying "under construction" can easily be replaced by text. Some minor details (such as icons) differ, but you can hardly see those anyway. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a problem to remove all of the pre-release images; it should be fairly easy to explain what it looks like in text. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I concur with both:
  • Authorized publishing is a legal factor, especially when the source says "Windows Chicago Build 58 (by Microsoft)" which means this image is an original post)
  • Even without NFCC#4, we have an abundance of reason to delete them all. NFCC#1 says an image should not be included when text alone is enough. (Just cover the shots column and start reading. See if you feel anything missing.) Again, NFCC#8, requires the contents of these images to be commented on, which is not true at all, especially for the boot screens. These images have no good sources beyond "Various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows" or "It can't be exactly remembered where i downloaded the image from, but the image can be found on various websites on the history of Microsoft Windows".
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources - I've found the origin of the screen captures, and they're legit. They come from a document called "Microsoft Windows Chicago Reviewer's Guide",[3] that Microsoft released with the Beta [4] "for informational purposes" and represented "the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication" so that reviewers of the Beta version were properly informed; the screenshots were intended as promotional material by MS, we're good to use as many as we see fit for whichever educational purpose they can serve under WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCI#4. I'll try to add some critical commentary from this source, although I feel that the current table structure would be educational enough if we just remove the redundant images I described in my previous comment. Diego (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of full disclosure, I'm reviewing the document in more detail and the screenshots in it are not the same ones found in the article. It's possible that those came from a similar promotional purpose, but not being sure I now think it's better that we just replace the current images with functionally equivalent ones coming from the document where possible. Diego (talk) 14:59, 15 April 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:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

Removed Care Bears example, which despite the protestations of the rationale was trivial (given Wikipedia's strict reading). "Box of American McGee's Alice" kept, given that it differs substantially in presentation from free images in the article (unlike the care bears one) and carries critical commentary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 29 August 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 article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep PD ones. one. It is the original from the book and is public domain. The others can possibly go in all the derivative works articles, but that is another issue. Since the original is PD there is no reason an artist can't create free licence images of a girl from fiction. If we keep the Disney one then far too many readers may think that is the modern 'official' image of her. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't notice the Disney cartoon image was PD. The very low resolution one can go from the other movie as well as the Care Bears and video game one. She has been portrayed so often that the article should only contain PD or free license images that should be easy to make or find.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this conversation was already held somewhere in the archives and it arrived to the current article version, though I can't find the conversation. The Care Bears can definitely go, but the Tim Burton's and American McGee's are serving some functions in describing modern versions of the character, that the older free versions can't provide, and therefore are not mere repetitions of the others.
In the 2010 film there were critics commenting on her being represented as a grown-up, and in the videogame there was commenatry on the sinister tone (blood stains, knife and all) contrasted to the Disney naif version (see [5] and [6] for instance); I think this merits keeping the sequence of images which are providing educational value (at least the Burton's one; McGee's maybe could be replaced with a link to the video game article). Diego (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Since these pieces of media have separate articles which both feature Alice in the cover art, it is inappropriate to use those images here, unless there is significant commentary comparing and contrasting the different styles that require the reader to see that image at that time. There isn't here. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The image at Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) doesn't feature Alice, it features the mad hatter. I think the grown-up Alice from the film should be kept. If I include the contrasting styles for American McGee's and Disney that I found in the source above, would the video game thus be acceptable? I think that would be a welcome improvement to the character article. Diego (talk) 15:03, 15 April 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:Waterboard3-small.jpg

I know this is going to be fairly controversial, so I think it's best I explain fully why at present the NFCC require removal of the image from the article on Waterboarding. The image could be used for two separate purposes, and understanding the difference is important.

The first is to illustrate what waterboarding looks like and how it works. That, as Masem identifies below, is a purpose the could be equally well done with a non-free image. I do not accept that 'Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim.' any more than the image under question here. The fact that the artist suffered this treatment has no impact on this purpose.

The second (which has a few variants) is to illustrate a point about the image itself, the use of waterboarding by the Khymer Rouge, or cultural depictions of waterboarding.

The image is currently used at the top of the article and defended both on the file page and below under the first of these two purposes, where it fails. There has been a more productive discussion of critical commentary aimed at purpose number two. This would involve a different rationale and a different placement in the appropriate section of the article. I make no comment as to whether this new rationale would be justifiable, but it would be very different to the rationale currently provided. I will therefore remove the image from its current location. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:33, 29 August 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 am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Does not appear to satisfy NFCC.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per OP, I would note that regardless of the accuracy of the comment ' Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim', this seems to be irrelevant here since the image concerned is a work of art, so there's no reason to think someone cannot produce another equivalent work of art. (There are also other works of art which although generally quite old, don't seem to depict something that different.) The rationale also says 'It also show in detail how waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime', but I don't see anything which could not be sufficiently conveyed with text. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • keep Waterboarding aside (and the idea that a few hipsters playing with watering cans is somehow "equivalent" is frankly insulting), this is also in use, and rightly so, at Vann Nath. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not requesting deletion, as the only article where I am requesting review is at Waterboarding. RJaguar3 | u | t 12:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, to check, the Vann Nath use is reasonably legit (it needs a bit more, arguably) as he was the painter of the non-free. But on Waterboarding, we don't need to repeat the non-free use as has been argued. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • keep in Waterboarding Torture is an international crime and this image is primary evidence of its use. This painting was made by its author to bear witness to a horrific act, not to create an artwork of commercial value. Removing it from our waterboarding article would be a insult to the painter and thwart what he was trying to accomplish. This is perfect instance where W:IAR applies.--agr (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not an issue with commercial value, it is that it is a work with copyright, period, making it non-free. A free version can be easily recreated by simple graphics or a carefully acted-out photograph and would not be burdened with copyright, and thus NFCC#1 is failed. Nath's only one of the victims of waterboarding, so his impression of it is no more valuable than other descriptions of it; the painting's fine on his page but not on the general process. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • An image produced by someone who experienced this procedure has far more weight than a "smple graphic" or acted reconstruction. By your logic any non-free content can be replaced and so should never be allowed. That is not what our policy says.--agr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes it does, actually. We seek free alternatives to avoid non-free images when they can be made of the same educational value. Given the "low resolution" of the painting, a photograph of a simulated waterboarding event that would be free would be more useful on the article about waterboarding. The painting is fine on Nath's page, since he was a noted victim of it and that's a reasonable thing there, but in discussing what happens in waterboarding, we can make our own images. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
          • No, it does not, actually. The test given in NFCC is ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The word "effect" includes emotional impact as well. This article is not an instruction manual about how to perform waterboarding, it is about a form of torture, its use and its impact. A staged demonstration does not have the same effect as a depection by a victim specifically intended to covey the procedure's effect, emotional as well as physical.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • "effect" only applies to education content. No emotional content is considered nor should it since we are a tertiary source. Claiming that something is more emotionally compelling than other free works opens up too much of a door for non-free use. Even the foundation requires that the content only be used when is it important educationally. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
              • An image created by a victim has far greater educational value than a photo of a frivolous recreation. And if you think this use of the image violate Foundation rules, feel free to report it. --agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep in water boarding. This article has a strong subject and needs a strong lead image. Replicating a similar strong and valued image for this article would need a small "Hollywood like" budget and commitment for staging the real thing, a heavy and expensive burden we can't put on any editor. I also agree with the above keep arguments. IMO, the remove arguments above have a point but are not as strong and doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Given that File:Waterboarding.jpg ( a free image) does an equally good job at explaining the principles involved (how the victim is secured, and how the water poured), there is no reason to have non-free used here. No hollywood-style budget is needed. We can't place emotional value on an image unless that itself has been described in sources. Replacement of non-free by equivalent free is the core foundation of our non-free content policy and the Foundation's free content mission. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You must be kidding about that silly image does an equally good job. It looks like, hey, let's have some fun with water boarding!!! Also, there is a "Khmer Rouge" section in our water boarding article which mentions Vann Nath, the painter who was tortured, and his painting which is a documentation of that time. True, the painting is not in that section as it is strong and clear enough to depict this form of torture in the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • The free picture does a perfectly good job of demonstrating the key aspects of the waterboarding technique: the victim being bound, the cloth over their breathing passages, and water poured on their face. There's nothing glamorous about it, and the free image perfectly shows this. And if you feel this isn't good enough, it is 100% possible for someone to recreate it just as well for explanatory purposes. Our non-free policy does not care about the emotional aspect that is claimed, making the non-free image use there completely out of line. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Again the article is not an instruction manual. The free picture does not convey the same emotional impact and authority as the victim's painting.--agr (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
            • There's no argument to the emotional side - unless there are sources that describe the emotional impact of the painting, at which point we can summarize what others say about it. But as editors we are to remain clinically detached from the writing and thus evaluate without considering our personal emotions towards the topic. So if there's implicit emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC. As for the authority, we're not talking a highly descriptive process. The person is bound, cloth put on their face, and water poured over that. There's no need to have an "authority" here to explain it better than the simple premise. The picture does a lot more to explain what the process is, and the only thing that we can't easily illustrate is the agony the person being waterboarded is feeling as their face is covered by the cloth in the process. The painting adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article on waterboarding than the free pic shows. On Nath's article, of course it's important, but not on Waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
              • The is nothing in our policy that says "... emotional impact of the painting, that's not a quality that is considered in NFCC." On the contrary, NFCC says "a free version that has the same effect." There is no limitation on the meaning of effect. Further our WP:Image use policy says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." An image of a frivolous demonstration in party atmosphere does not "increase readers' understanding of the subject matter," it diminishes it.--agr (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
                • You said it right there, images are used for "encyclopedic" purposes, to education but not to illicit an emotional response. It doesn't matter that the free picture is one taken in a "festive" atmosphere, it is demonstration the three key elements of the waterboarding method clearly, and is a free image. It is just as encyclopedic as the painting, and because it is free, we use it over a non-free. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete: The fact that File:Waterboard3-small.jpg, a non-free image, does not appear in the article will not diminish the reader's understanding of the topic even if you consider it an iconic image. It is not necessary for the article. It fails both NFCC#1 & 8. Masem has stated the issue very well. ww2censor (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove from Waterboarding unless there is actual critical commentary about this specific painting in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added a section to the article that comments on this specific painting.--agr (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The text added is not sufficient to justify the painting - that's equivalent to saying "the painting of a waterboard victim exists". So that doesn't help. We need sources that comment on the painting specifically in the light of the issue of waterboarding. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I've cited the same source used in the Vann Nath article, where people here seem to agree the image is allowable. The source talks at length about Vann Nath's exposure to torture and his desire to publicize it. The Vann Nath article does not mention waterboarding at all. The text I added to Waterboarding discusses both Vann Nath and waterboarding, so if the image belongs in any article, it belongs in Waterboarding. Also I find nothing in NFCC that remotly matches the requirements you are now demanding.--agr (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
To put all that about Nath in the Waterboarding article is UNDUE. There's no question on Nath's page that the image is fine - that's one of the reason he's notable as to describe the tortures he went through via paintings, so I'm not questioning the painting's use there. On the waterboarding article, however, we have NFCC#1 - we don't use non-free if there is free replacement available of "the same encyclopedic purpose". Again, encyclopedic here is not about making an article appeal to emotions - in our case, we cannot write the waterboarding article from a POV that it is bad (though I would suspect the general opinion is that it is). We have to be clinical. Given that we have a free image already, and/or recreating the technique via more free images to show what waterboarding involves, a non-free may not be used, unless it itself meets contextual significance in the article (NFCC#8). This generally means, at minimum, sourced discussion relevant to the topic about the image, such that the image has to be present to understand the article. In this case, the text given does not fit that purpose; Waterboarding is understandable from an educational, clinical view without. Ergo it cannot remain in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 17 May 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:Bisnode logo.png

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 28 August 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 images is below TOO according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 27 July 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:Nathaniel C Wyeth.jpg

Removed from University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science per discussion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:37, 29 August 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:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c in University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science. Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, the picture's fine on the article on Wyeth but not on that school page. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 27 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:ThreeMenWalkingII.JPG

Removed from Modern sculpture and Sculpture, which are very well illustrated and where the image in question was not mentioned or referred to in prose and whose sculptor only received a passing mention. No comment on Alberto Giacometti, Stefan2 if you have suggestions I suggest looking at the issues in a new thread. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 29 August 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 violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 in Modern sculpture and Sculpture as it is exclusively used in galleries with zero discussion about the artwork. The article Alberto Giacometti contains too many non-free images, but it's not necessarily this one which should be deleted from that article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 28 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:Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society logo.jpg

Closed as insufficient originality. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:17, 29 August 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.

(fast-track) This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:37, 29 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:McMurry University Block Logo 2.png

Closed as insufficient originality Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 29 August 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.

(Fast-track) Too simple - Text logo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_27&oldid=1077416185"