Jump to content

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 36

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

File:Enron Logo.svg

Now tagged as PD-textlogo. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi. Is this really non-free? Sounds like a case of {{PD-textlogo}} to me.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that the United States copyright office would refuse to register this one. It doesn't meet the threshold in my opinion, so I'd feel safe tagging it with {{PD-textlogo}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. This page already has a huge backlog, so I decided to act on it. This discussion can now be closed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine

Non-Admin Closure:

The overall discussion has turned into two arguments. Those arguing keep have commented more on other editors than putting forth a policy-based discussion whereas the flip side has argued that all images in the emblems section violate WP:NFCC#8. The sole point of the keep discussion is the images “add” to the article.

There are many items to look at individually in this discussion. First, the consensus is that File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg should not be in two [places in the same article as it's double use violates WP:NFCC#3a. The accompanying text to that image is already duplicated in the first line of that section and therefore is not necessary. The file File:Savez Izviđača Republike Srpske.png is not adequately referenced, and therefore immediately fails WP:NFCC#8 as the content discussing the image cannot be verified.

There has been additional commentary added to the remaining images since the start of the discussion. The commentary on File:Savez Izviđača Srbije.png and File:Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini.png is basically a description of the logos which can be replaced by the text beneath it. These two therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

The remaining two images File:Sarajevo Scout group.png and File:Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile.svg have slightly more concrete commentary but without any commentary on the relevance of the emblems more than a simple description and dates of when the emblem was created, there is not enough contextual significance for the image to be “detrimental to that understanding” of the Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine itself.

The clear consensus per policy is that the images should all be removed with the exception of the infobox image. (Note: consensus is not a popular vote, all points of view were included in this closure. The fact is policy is mandated by the WMF, and is therefore to be followed.)

I am closing this drawn out discussion as an uninvolved editor, not as an administrator (as I am not a mop-wielder). If an uninvolved administrator determines that I have erred in my closure of this discussion, I am open to the reopening of this discussion. With the closure and archiving of this discussion I will be removing all of the discussed images from the article and tagging those appropriate as WP:CSD#F5 where they will be queued to be deleted in approximately 7 days. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

There are lots of non-free logos here. Apart from the one in the infobox, the whole set seems to violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • To anyone new to this discussion, this is an extension of the conversation on Werieth's talk page about Edit Warring. It's also an extension to Werieth's and Stefan2's long running antipathy to Scouting related images. To quote another editor about this discussion, this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s... [editors] who are sure they are right and then threaten you with a topic ban will never listen to reason." On this article, I think the images give historical context that the text cannot. The article could be better written. I would suggest focusing on article improvement rather than arguing about the images. --evrik (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the real issue is here, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any harm that is being done to anybody's copyright claims. If you really try really really hard, you might be able to imagine a technical violation of some of our rules, but I don't see any particular reason that we would actually want to imagine such an offense. If somebody would bother explaining what the substantive problem is - rather than just quoting the titles of subsections, then we might be able to make some progress, but absent that, there is not much we can do here. Note, I'm not the guy who said this "particular copyright paranoiac goes after mosquitoes with M80s" but I and half-a-dozen other editors asking questions at User talk:Werieth seem to have reached the same conclusion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Our non free content policy is not about respecting copyright and fair use; it is about promoting free images and minimizing the use of non-free as part of our free content mission. Plastering of non-free logos without commentary is completely counter to this. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • ... and now after Huey and Louie, we have the appearance of Duey. Masem, each of the images has a commentary, so your point is moot. --evrik (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Do not attack editors, which that is. There is zero commentary about the images that would allow their use. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I am not attacking any editors. I am simply highlighting that you, Stefan2 and Werieth work in concert. This whole discussion page has an echo effect in that the three of you rarely disagree and often work together to "build consensus" despite facts that do not agree with your beliefs. In fact, each of the images has a small narrative below them which gives their context. --evrik (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Calling three edits "Huey, Dewey, and Leuy" is an attack as you're not commenting on the policy. The text below the images only discuss what the images look like but give no comprehension to the article and the article does not fail to provide comprehension without them. Flat out NFCC#8/NFLISTS failure. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
                • I am commenting on how the process works on this page. A small cabal of editors wield undo influence, and gang up ... building the appearance of consensus. I'm sorry if you view it as a personal attack. --evrik (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Smallbones is right here-the images add to the article, it could be tightened up, and we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Guidelines are not hammers to beat editors with, nor were they given on golden scrolls to be obeyed at all costs. A little humanity is in order here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
NFC is policy, and mandated by the Foundation; it is one of the few areas in addition to BLP and copyvios that we are supposed to be hard and enforce strongly. There is no rationale to include these images in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The consensus and policy here is to delete, and even if not, we default to remove under NFC. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Where is this consensus you speak of? Count it up, it's 3:3. In the free world, that's not consensus at all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • With non-free content the default is to delete if consensus cannot be reached. Werieth (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Thats actually the opposite of what the guidelines say. --evrik (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • NFC is policy and the delete aspect spelled out by the Foundation in their non-free resolution. Also, given that there's no policy-based arguments to keep, consensus is on the side to delete. (consensus is not a vote). --MASEM (t) 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
            • "When a discussion has run its course, it can be closed. Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. Any uninvolved administrator may close a discussion. Non-contentious or withdrawn discussions that do not require the deletion of a file may be closed by other editors in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure." There is certainly no consensus to delete. --evrik (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
              • See WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. For a file in use in an article that was uploaded before 13 July 2006, the 48-hour period is extended to seven days." That is, if there is no convincing argument for keeping the image, it has to be deleted after 48 hours (sometimes 7 days). It says nothing about consensus here. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
                • As these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization, I believe that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Deleting the images would be contrary to the interest of all wikipedians. --evrik (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the big problems is that some people do not believe that it is possible to (re-)write an article in a way that it satisfies all NFC-criteria. --Egel Reaction? 19:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The formatting is ugly, the gallery should be in a table format, or just pure gallery. But it seems reasonable to use the logos there, they all pertain to this one article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussions appears to be done, and the consensus is keep. --evrik (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The consensus is obviously delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Whose consensus is that, you and the mouse in your pocket? Masem objected to my use of the term Huey, Dewey, and Louie to describe the dynamics of the discussions here, so let me use another analogy. Each of you is like Judge Dredd in that you combine the powers of police, judge, jury in these discussions. Most times, just listing something here means it is on the fast track to deletion. Anyone who isn't you Masem or Weieth has aged that these images are used in the article to discuss the history oif the emblems of the organization and that the discussion provided here is a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. This discussion should be closed and the images kept. --evrik (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • You'll notice that these discussions are closed by uninvolved administrators, so your claims that we are acting as judge, jury, and executioner are completely false. The problem is that you haven't provided any strong policy reason to keep against the rigors of NFCC and past discussions, and you're trying to argue on the basis of the people involved and not challenging the reasons to keep. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
          • What could be stronger than the truth? Let me repeat: these images are used in the article to discuss the history of the emblems of the organization. It seems ludicrous to discuss the history of the organization and its emblems, without showing the emblems. --evrik (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
            • There's some, but nowhere near sufficient text, and particularly with sources, to discuss these emblems. Take, for example, the caption of the 6th one in the gallery. "The design of the Bosnian Scouts-in-Exile emblem dates from the early period after Yugoslav breakup and so displays the 1992 coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina." That's original research without a source to assert that's the reason that coat of arms is used; it is an attempt to justify the image but that fails policy. Same with the second one "The membership badge of the Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina is often seen in black-and-white so as not to show ethnic leaning of the various groups." - source to say why the monotone was taken? Editor reasoning like this in the article is not sufficient and begs original research to try to justify meeting NFCC#8. Now, if these statements can be sourced, then maybe there's a better reason to keep them, but right now they fail policy. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • I think the standard you're using is arbitrary, but if what it takes is sourcing, I'm going to see if Kintetsubuffalo can provide that. --evrik (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
                • It needs to be in the context of article text, per NFCC#8 (otherwise it is purely decorative and thus removable). You have text in place, but now the issue is that the text begs the question of these actually being WP:V-meeting facts. Is it likely they used a monochrome logo to avoid nationality bias? Sounds plausible but there's no source for that. If these can be sourced, this this should also be used to better expand the organization's history to describe how it had to change due to the changes in political strife in that country. That ties the logos better to the article and starts on the right track for NFCC#8. But as presently given, without sourcing, it's a bunch of apparent OR to try to justify image inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward – non-free content rules are not determined by number of arguments although they are concerned with consensus; they are not community standards in the same way as other parts of the encyclopedia because reasoning has to fit within the criteria. Secondly, I think accusing editors of lining up as if they were themselves incapable of independent thought is a personal attack which should be avoided. Thirdly, I would like to reiterate that in order to justify inclusion the contribution of each image to the reader's understanding must be must be clear. Some points from my own perspective:

File:Council of Scout Associations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.svg should be removed from Savez izviđača Bosne i Hercegovine#Emblems, as the dual use in the infobox and the gallery violates WP:NFCC#3a. The information in the image caption of the image in the gallery can be turned into a footnote to the image caption of the infobox image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suicide Squad

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus was to remove 8 non-free images and that remaining images are acceptable for our image use policies. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I cannot see justification for 15 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, way too many covers used just for covers. I don't know which images to immediately say are excessive given that we're talking two iterations of the group, I would say one only needs two or three non-free images total. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and cut the non-free media usage back significantly. At minimum, I think it is important to illustrate all four volumes of the comic book. Please advise whether this review can be closed. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Even then that's arguable. I recognize that each Volume is a "new" Squad (as I read it), but I don't think that justifies the extra covers. The individual volumes don't appear to be notable on their own (the group is, that's not a question), and so using covers here is really not appropriate. If anything, one of the covers could be a better one to use in the main infobox, but that's about it. If anything, and I have no idea if this is possible, a single group cast image from each Volume would be more appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I feel like there might be some misunderstanding of what the page is supposed to be covering, which is totally my fault, since I've been maintaining it. In any case, my intention with the Suicide Squad page is to cover the team, and the four volumes of comic books that they star in -- similar to how the Justice League page does it. In fact, I used that page as a template for how to present the four Suicide Squad volumes. Please advise on whether this is optimal or wanted; I still think it is important to clearly define and illustrate each volume of the comic book, especially as this team exists across three separate versions of DC Comics' continuity. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please advise on whether I may consider this resolved. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is enough. But let me ask: are the 4 volumes of Suicide Squad like four different runs of the concept at different times? In other words, from a pure comics POV, is it the same series or four different series, in like how the current Superman (as part of the New 52) is a different series from the original DC Superman? --MASEM (t) 12:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Your Superman comparison is accurate. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, two more questions then: 1) The current infobox image (The promo art) - how critical is that, in that if one of the current covers (like for Volume 1) replaced it, would it be a problem? I do understand that you're showcasing the team, and not the actual line of comics, which might affect this 2) Did each volume have some type of reception to it? I know you can probably check on Volume 4, which I see is part of the new 52 (so online sourcing should be easy to find), not sure how readily you can check the others. I feel that if you can show that these would have been separate articles but you're treating them as one comprehensive article, there might be allowance for it. I do note that one cover image will be appropriate for identification of the series/concept, but the difficulty is justifying the cover for each series; even Superman (comic book) doesn't include the cover of the first New 52 version of it, though I'm not sure if that has been something that has been vetted either way.
There is going to be a push by others to reduce the number of covers, and they are in the right that as the article stands, you still probably have too many, but I'm trying to find if there's any way you can improve the justification of the covers better. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
To answer your questions: 1) No problem, I've replaced the infobox image with one of the other covers displayed on the page. I've also added a sentence to the end of the top-page summary, to make it very clear what this entry covers -- which is, in fact, the team AND the four associated monthly series. 2) I am happy to create and source a "Reception" section for each volume. This should not be a problem. --Ryan C. Scott (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If you do that - showing that you could have chosen to make each notable (where there would be zero question of using all four images on each page) but per WP:NOPAGE, you've decided that the article is better when one complete article, then I feel you're okay keeping the original cover, the four volume covers, and the cartoon shot. That's my opinion, but others may disagree. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Cheers intro logo.jpg

Withdrawing review. --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I have recently uploaded print ads of TV shows and TV movies, especially those unavailable on DVD. Some title cards I replaced with print ads for substantiality. Even I added ads of Baby Bob and The Lyon's Den (in place of title card). In this case, if this title card is replaceable, then File:Cheers premiere ad tv guide 1982.jpg must be undeleted to replace the title card. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the opening credits of Cheers - being as memorable as they are with the use of old-time art behind the credits - would allow the justification of the actual screencap from the show for not only ID but discussion of the credits. I'd spot checking ghits and it's clearly had an influence (it was parodied on Simpsons and It's Always Sunny in Philly, for a start), so I would probably not replace that. To be clear, this is only becasue the actual title sequence can likely be discussed as memoriable; many shows don't have that. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that non-free image could be replaced by a photo that is under a free license (although the trophy is copyright). Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as the trophy is not discussed in any critical commentary. Image to be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in ICC World Twenty20. Furthermore violates WP:NFCC#1, since there is File:2009t20.jpg, which is free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statuette qualifies as a utilitian object, and thus must be considered a copyrighted work of art (unless we know the statue is in the public domain/freely licensed which is doubtful). As such, the free image on commons is probably invalid (one could argue de minimus but its clear the statuette is the focus of the image). Ergo, NFCC#1 is not broken. And thus on this article, the event that the statuette is awarded for winning, inclusion seems reasonable. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, but only with critical commentary regarding the trophy and not without commentary in the infobox as it currently is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
True, the trophy in the infobox is bad. There is an official logo based on the official website, that should be the infobox image; the trophy should be presented later, but with sourced discussion about it (which spot-checking, seems to be available). --MASEM (t) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Photos like this have two copyrights: the copyright of the statuette and the copyright of the photo. The photo part is replaceable, so we need a free licence from the photographer regardless of the copyright status of the statuette. See {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The photo part is not necessarily replaceable, depending on where the statuette is located. If it is a non-public place, then it is not easily replaceable. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If the Commons file has a correct copyright tag (for the photo part), then the photo part is replaceable by cropping out the statuette from that photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
True, but that doesn't solve the problem with the trophy, since all that would remain were the poster with the Yahoo logo, which is irrelevant for the purpose of illustrating the statuette. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Did I perhaps misunderstand what you said? Do you mean we should crop out the Yahoo logo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced the trophy with the logo and moved it to the results section, since that seemed more appropriate. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not see how that use is appropriate under WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this file be replaced by a cropped version of File:2009t20.jpg? It seems that would be freer than File:T20worldcup trophy.jpg and thus preferrable per WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: File:2009t20.jpg has not existed on Commons since June 2013. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009t20.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the common procedure is for transferring a file that was deleted at Commons to EN Wikipedia as non-free content, but that is what should be done here (after the unnecessary parts have been cropped from the image). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is images fail WP:NFCC#8 as the files do not increase the readers understanding of the topic. Remember that the topic, is the topic of the article itself, in this case the Danish Scout Council. No reader of an encyclopedia needs to see various logos of a scout group to see that the scout group exists. Adding information that is not relevant to the article topic does not allow the images to pass WP:NFCC. As such, the files will be removed from the article, and tagged as F5 appropriately. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Clear violation of WP:NFG where the user refuses listen. Werieth (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No where on WP:LOGO does it say galleries of non-free files are permitted. There is/has been zero sourced commentary about the designs of the logos. WP:NFG is also listed as reasons to not include said images. WP:NFCC#8 hasnt been met. These logos are just used as eye candy. PS When working with NFCC, like copyvio, and BLP, the default is removal until consensus for inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To meet NFCC#8, we generally require sourced commentary, and not just discussion of what the logo looks like, as to establish contextual significance. Any image can be discussed without sourcing, and this sometimes is sufficient, but here as there's nothing else to make the need to show the logo important, it's not sufficient. Something along the lines of documented design choices or reasons to change, for example, would be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is indisputable that the presence of the logo's increases the readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The only thing we can discuss is how significant the increase is and how harmful the omission would be. And how to weigh this to the other factors. --Egel Reaction? 10:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It is in fact easily disputable if omission harms the reader's understanding, as if there is no contextual significance, then the image absence does not harm understanding. Yes, they are related to the topic, therefore they do meet the first part of NFCC#8, but the topic about the scouting organization does rest on knowing the various logos used, in the present version, and thus beyond the main, current logo, are otherwise nice but decorative images and fail the second part. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then we are more in agreement than I thought. The arguments are correct, but the conclusion is not consistent. The logo is a significant part of the identity of a Scouting organization and therefore can tell a lot about the organization in question, if you know where to look. So there is contextual significance, so the image absence does harm understanding. As far as I can see, all the logos are the current versions. --Egel Reaction? 14:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • One logo is fine for exactly the purposes you state - it is in fact the allowance we give for an stand-alone article on a notable organization. But any additional logos (for historical logos or subsidaries of the organization that do not have stand-alone articles) need justification for their inclusion, such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one. If that information isn't in the article, then the logo image is not necessary to comprehend the article and can be removed appropriately. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Where can I find the part "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one."? --Egel Reaction? 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • That's what "contextual significance" means. Not just displayed, but discussed to some depth in the article. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
              • "how the design was made or why they moved to a newer one" has a low significance / urgency in the context of the discussion of the organisation as a whole. That are subjects to discus in a sub-section such as "History of the logo" of the section "History of the organisation" when the organisation has its own sizable article, in contrast with only a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. The logo itself has a high significance / urgency in the context of the information about the Scouting organisation as a whole, as explained above, and should therefore be included even if the organisation only has a stub section or a line in the article about the national umbrella. We should use the opportunities that the rules provide us and not go invent ourselves stricter rules, for whatever reason. NFCC # 8 is clear to me: you can only use a logo when it is necessary for a good understanding of the organization, so for bands sometimes, often for companies and for Scouting organizations almost always. An explanation of the elements of a logo is needed because not all readers have sufficient prior knowledge to interpret the logo. The explanation is not needed to provide contextual significance, because that is already present. --Egel Reaction? 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
              • "such as how the design was made, what is the significance of the design, or why they moved to a newer one." is a nice rule of thumb (and nothing more) for some classes of images but not for the current main logo of a Scouting organisations. Review should done on the basis of the official rules, not on the basis of self-invented rules of thumb. --Egel Reaction? 17:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I have sat this one out for a while solely because I didn't want to engage in yet another pointless debate. I want to note that Werieth is engaging in the same bullying tactics on Jergen used against me. Also, the demand that images be not placed in the article until this discussion is over is simply that, a demand. It is not actual policy and is made up. --evrik (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually see the bottom of WP:NFCC the burden Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to ensure that it comply with policy. Unless there is consensus for usage it doesnt meet WP:NFCC and thus needs removed. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I should now also note that in placing the images back in the article to prevent them from being tagged by he bots and then removed prior to the discussion being over (which could take months), I have now triggered edit war with Werieth. Update I have added all the images back in ansd set them up so someone who speaks Danish, or is familiar with the images can write a description which will justify their being used in the article. --evrik (talk) 15:53, 2 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.

Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly

Non-Admin Closure: As articles have been split, each cover and the individual screenshots are used in accordance with WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I cant see justification for the images except the primary cover Werieth (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It helps the reader understand the context of the game.
  • Gameplay screenshot(s): provides the reader with a concrete example of the Gameplay information, as well as a subtle compare-contrast between remakes.
  • PZ2: Wii Edition cover: provides secondary identification, as well as concrete evidence of it being a Wii remake of the original. Plus, it shows two main antagonists: Sae Kurosawa and the Kusabi.
—017Bluefield (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
None of those reasons meet the bar set forth by WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Technically, the screenshots do help the reader understand the context of the game, both in setting and in gameplay. —017Bluefield (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
But per the second part of WP:NFCC#8 the omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Werieth (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite agree. Without the screenshot, the reader won't precisely understand how FFII's Viewfinder mode, or its HUD components, work(s). For the original version's Camera Obscura, the power charge focused on the player's proximity to the hostile ghost; not time spent watching it, as seen in almost every other installment. —017Bluefield (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
One screenshot to go along with a sourced gameplay section for video games is considered standard practice (and one of the items listed at NFCI). NFCC#8 is met by assuring that the screenshot showcases key gameplay features that are described and sourced in the text (in the concept of a video game, it is very hard to narrow the game to a single screenshot and talk about that image in context). Any more than one screenshot must require more normal application of NFCC#8. In the case of an HD remake, if its just to show the graphics in the HD and not talk about new gameplay features or to go along with sourced discussion of what graphical improvements have been made in the HD version, then the second screenshot, in HD, is not appropriate (as appears to be in this case). --MASEM (t) 06:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the screenshot shows a different version of one of the Camera Obscura's gameplay mechanics. Instead of the proximity-based charging system from the original Fatal Frame II, the Wii remake returns to the series' standard method of charging attack power by keeping the target ghost in the Camera Obscura's capture circle. —017Bluefield (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kate Bush

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there are too many free files on the Kate Bush article. The Wuthering Heights and Running Up That Hill samples are discussed to be the most important to be kept. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Are 6 sound clips really needed? Werieth (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The artist has a very unique and distinctive style, but one sample would seem to cover that. Perhaps what editors need to do is discuss which sample best illustrates her unique vocal and rhythmic style.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I should also note that a lot of those are also included in the song page as well. Werieth (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be willing to see a live clip added to most artists, but Kate Bush is not known for ever really touring and had only one tour very early in her career so I would not support such a clip as being relevant (even if one could be found) I actually think the tour section is undue weight for one single tour in 1979.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should lose everything but "Wuthering Heights" (1978) and "Running Up that Hill" (1985). I think these two selections best demonstrate the artists range and I believe her biggest hits.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the clips are all relevant. Kate as an artist has been known to have many distinct styles and, considering how those styles have influences artists of all different genres, I feel as though it's important to display the different styles through samples. Kate was a pioneer of rock, pop, jazz and electronic music and to limit the scope of the samples to only her more homogenized hits would deprive the article of displaying the other innovations of her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.141.32 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't use sound clip samples just to show the variation in music styles an artist might have. We need sourced discussion about each clip and more specifically towards the musician, otherwise it does not belong on the page. I think there's reasonably room for one or two samples, but certainly not 5 or 6. (And as a note, while Featured, it was pre-2008, when we had less strict NFCC enforcement at FAC) --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pre- 2008 less strict enforcement is a strange thing to say. Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict. Wikipedia is always evolving sometimes for the worse sometimes the better. The exclusionists seem to have the upper hand at the moment even when copyright holders express no interest as to if their images are used or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • My pre-2008 comment is that prior to 2008, image/media use at FAC was reviewed but not with the scrutiny that has now come on line due to the Foundation's resolution on non-free media and subsequently at FAC due to more stringent review of the media. In other words, if the FAC of this article was post-2008, it likely would not have passed with all those media files. And our removal of non-free content is to support the Foundation's goal of making a free content work, using non-free only when necessarily to help understanding of an article. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
        • "Who appoints the enforcers? These reviews seems to be dictated by two or three editors. Maybe when they move on new editors will be less strict." No one is appointed. We all volunteer. Less strict? I doubt it. Probably even more strict as the use of other people's intellectual property is not a right or a given. Editors here do not always agree...that's why its a review discussion and not just a unilateral decision.--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 17:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Although the fact the rules do tend to change have made many people leave the project (including me; I used to be an admin but got so frustrated at seeing Featured and Good articles devalued after all the hard work and hoop-jumping people did to qualify them, and also the changing rules re: images that at one point was changing almost by the day, I now only casually edit as an IP and stopped contributing visual material about 4 years ago (in my former Wiki-life I began to advocate for a zero-image policy on Wikipedia, which in retrospect is actually not a bad idea as some pages are very hard to read properly on hand-held and pad devices because of heavy use of media). Anyway, to avoid being accused of tangenting, I have to agree that there's no need to have more than two representative sound clips. The huge article on The Beatles only has two. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This featured article Ōkami has a number, five or six, of non free images with minimal rationales. Is this a candidate for review or a good example of how to do it and get past the enforcers and their friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.208.188 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It was a 2007 nomination, and I just removed 3 files for failing WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Given that that is my article (in the sense I brought it to FAC and the primary editor) I'm pretty confident that the NFC use on that article is acceptable. For example you remove the screenshot of the core mechanic of the game that is discussed in text and backed by sources. That's not an NFC failure.
      • As to this article, there is no maximimum number of allowed NFC - it is whatever the article sourcing supports and required for reader understanding. Hence arguments of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is useless. Photos of victims mentioned in passingSound samples that are just there but not discussed in the text in a manner to explain how they relate to the artist are not cases we generally allow for NFC, and thus those images are all failures. I'm sure there's a few samples that can be expanded up in text so they may remain, but we can't just pull a number of samples from songs across the musican's career if there's no text to explained how her style changed over time. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that two samples ("Wuthering Heights" and "Running Up that Hill", which can be considered as her career zeniths) would be enough to demonstrate her musical eclecticism and style. Other samples are just redundant. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Brahmanaidu Statue destruction 2011 Million March Telangana.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Clear policy-backed consensus that image fails WP:NFCC#8. As such image will be removed from articles and tagged as CSD#F5-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

IMO, it violates "Contextual significance". Just shows a statue being destroyed. Even text can convey the idea. It does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The image is significant in many ways: a) Images of 12th century leaders were destroyed who weren't connected with the current movement. Later government & political sources felt that it could be due to militant (naxal) infiltration into the movement. b) The destruction of these statues also created fear & insecurity in the minds of people of other regions who are against the seperation as to what will happen to their properties & interests in Hyderabad after seperation. c) the event itself is a very siginificant milestone in the movement which showed the color of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the photo's okay, as 1) it doesn't appear to be a press photo based on the original source, and 2) it is showing an event from the past (though there's a moderate chance there may be others that photographed it and we could get a free image, but that's not an assurance). That said, it's being used on two articles but really only should be used on one, Early 2011 Telangana protests where the destruction of the statues is of specific discussion. The rationales currently there only list it for the Telangana Movement, so we do have a rationale problem (#10c), but again, I think the article the image can be used on needs to be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Early 2011.. article is a daughter article of Telangana movement article. Hence being used in both. Vamsisv (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
(re Masem): No, clear NFCC#8 violation. "Showing an event from the past" is obviously not enough to justify an image. It would have to be showing something about that event that's significant for understanding the article and couldn't adequately be conveyed in other ways. What is that "something"? The specific way that guy has climbed the statue? The way the other guy is waving his little pink flag? There's nothing in the visual detail of the image that is pivotal to understanding the scene, beyond the generic information that "furious demonstrators climbed on statues and vandalized them", which can easily be conveyed in words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The pink flags belong to certain political party. Though the party denied having been directly involved but the picture proves their activists in the act. Thus the picture is significant because it proves the party's involvement in the violent acts of the movement. Vamsisv (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
We never use non-free images to "prove facts". For that purpose, we only use reliable second-party published sources. Everything else would be WP:OR. If you think it's important that that party was involved in the activities, find a reliable source that says so, and cite it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I said before the purpose is to show the landmark event of the movement. Many things changed in the course of the movement after this act. I'm not boxing it by saying it just proves the involvement of a party. Also there is no free image available - Very few images are available since media was also attacked during that event. Vamsisv (talk) 18:42, 13 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.

Catwoman

Non-Admin Closure: Of the 12 non-free files, consensus is remove multiple images including: AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg, Batmanreturnspostercatwoman.png, CatwomanB&B.jpg, and Catwomanbaby.PNG due to invalid rationales, failing WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Not enough critical discussion on other files to warrant removal. This close does not preclude an immediate opening of a new discussion of the remaining images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This article has 12 images. The only free one is File:Julie Newmar Catwoman Batman 1966.JPG. I don't know if we should list them all in this section or just the questionable ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is excessive in my view. The same is true with the article Wonder Woman. If Cat Woman has a free image of a live performer, then one or two...maybe three (because the character is older and has a longer history of changes that would be encyclopedic to depict with discussion of costume and character development) of the comic book depictions is fine. But 12 is way too much.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Invalid rationale. Replaceable on this article with free alternative of live performance actress with free file.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Invalid rationale. Purpose is purely decorative and does not represent the actual cover art for the motion picture. This is pre-promotional material to generate interest and attention. Caption is incorrect.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree with this one use. Seems to have a full rationale and has contextual significance. I have no idea how notable the character of Catgirl is, but it seems reasonable that such a development is notable enough for an image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the use of this one as well. it is highly encyclopedic to depict the original first use of the character. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This one as well I agree with its use. This more contemporary work depicts the many versions of the character in one image. Rationale rescued.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Lee Meriwether is notable as the first actor to portray the character I believe. There is an earlier serial from the late 40's or early 50s but I don't think there was a catwoman. Does anyone know? At any rate there is no valid rationale for this article and the existing rationale may be invalid as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This probably fails a number of criteria but I don't think we need to illustrate each contemporary depiction of cartoon series incarnations. I think one is fine and the another artistic rendering may be more encyclopedic.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Invalid rationale. Little encyclopedic value in the image. Depiction is too generic in my view. Could be any mother and child.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Are the files in question. Werieth (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I do suspect - but without doing a source check - either one (but not both) of the recent live action movie shots could be used since I recall that the outfit was critically discussed. But nearly any other appear is going to require sourcing that discusses the look of the character (we have the identifying one at the top that works in general), which I doubt will be readily available. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that we actually have such strength for use Masem, if you read the actual text: "In the 1960s, Catwoman's catsuit was green in color, which was typical of villains of that era. In the 1990s, she usually wore a skintight purple catsuit, before switching to a black PVC catsuit that recalls Michelle Pfeiffer's costume in Batman Returns (except not stitched together).". it seems this could easily be illustrated with the original Julie Newmar image that is free. Would that not mean that the Phieffer image doesn't pass criteria NFC#1 replaceable with a free alternative?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I found a few at commons and uploaded a few more from Flickr to show the costumes. I need to check the copyright commons guidelines on the mannequin and the wax figure with File:Old timey selina kyle (3262626624).jpg and File:Michelle Pfeiffer wax model.jpg. We also have the Lee Meriwether version with File:Catwoman original Chicago C2E2 2013.jpg and the purple version with File:Catwoman and Penguin 2007.jpg. I created Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles as a proposal to see if we can get consensus to replace many of these non-free images that just show versions of a character or costume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That said, if we go back to the discussion about the Jedi image above, it would likely be considered improper to use cosplay images as replacement for any of the "representation of the character" images (an image to show a person in cosplay as showing the popularity of the character as a cosplay target - that's okay). Photos of the actual costumes on wax dummies may seem reasonable but now we get back into copyright territory where the costume could be copyrighted (I am not 100% sure of this, however). --MASEM (t) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
We have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Costume to cover the costume copyright issues at commons. The wax museum image doesn't seem to have a decision at commons. If wax museum images are considered utilitarian as historically educational then they can stay. If not then we have a huge problem with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wax_museums at commons. If the Pfeiffer non-free movie image is just to show the costume change then we do have File:Catwoman San Fransico WonderCon 2009 .jpg which shows the same costume. Our third pillar does state that we should strive to use free images where we can.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe1967, the template from commons means nothing. It is simply a disclaimer, not a license. Costumes do have a copyright however, like many images between certain dates, the copyright had to be mentioned when published. Such copyright is attached to the film credits and counts as published copyright disclaimer. This gives the production company copyright of costumes, but the designer may retain partial copyright or none at all (see Star War helmets for example). Wax figures are not historic representations, they are entertainment and would be the same as showing another theatrical representation of the subject. If it has relevance in discussion it could be used...if the costume copyright is not still in force. In this case Warner Brothers still owns the rights to all Batman Costuming. With Cosplay, you must have a specific reason to show it and, again if it is the copyright of the studio it won't work of Wikipedia. Just because Commons hots it, doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the servers are both owned by WMF then if it is acceptable on commons it should be acceptable on en:wp as to copyright. See the final statement of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay where the community decided to host images of costumes. If there is case law in the future or the WMF changes their minds then we may have do delete all the images. Until then the warning template is there for commercial re-users. This is the same as the warning template we have for images of people. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights The images should be fine in articles until one of the above changes their status.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons do NOT have the same policies or the same goals, although they are similar. Your logic is simply incorrect. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. As for that discussion, it isn't even an argument here. Read it. Cosplay of copyrighted costumes are not even acceptable unless they are secondary in nature and only in limited circumstances. You use the discussion here as license to something ti does not even allow.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have clarified. If any image is accepted at commons then there should be no legal reasons not to include it in an en:wp article since the servers are governed by the same laws. I had this issue with File:ACMI 14.jpg where some users don't think we can legally use it in Academy Award. Since we have a free image we can't use a fair use one. This discussion just ended up with no image in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: File:AnneHathawayCatwoman.jpg - if the article discussed physical appearance of the character, would it be allowed? What I mean by that is, an image of the Halle Berry version of Catwoman could illustrate the many liberties taken with the character if in conjunction with text describing this. A description of Hathaway playing a version of the character more in physical line with the comics than, say, Michelle Pfeiffer or Berry's versions - would that work rather than a paparazzi photo of Hathaway taken at some random public event? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 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.

Images at Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus has not changed in new discussion. Consensus still stands that Carebears image and live action should be removed from article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I closed a previous discussion about the use of non-free language in this article, which I reproduce below. My language in the close wasn't great, but I stand by the outcome, which was consensus to remove the care bears image and no consensus on the game cover (the third, a film image, not being in the article at the time of closing, and this prevented consensus engagement on the game cover). I removed the care bears image, which has subsequently been objected to. Given the imperfect close, and the fact that the film image has been readded, I think it best to revisit this issue. I'll notify the interest party. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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)
    • The PD ones are no issue. The only problems are with the non-free ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 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 [3] and [4] 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)

(Starting fresh discussion here) As with the Catwoman thing here, I would argue that unless there is critical discussion that either focuses on the other versions of the character (or aspects thereof) , or that compares/contrasts with the earlier one, it is not our place to document via non-free illustrations of the other versions of a character. Eg, just because there is another version of a character out there, we don't need to illustrate it unless there is appropriate contextual significant for that specific iteration of the character. These character articles can use a non-free for the default infobox image if that is how they are first presented as an image for identification, but that's it without additional discussion. In this case for Alice, the Disney version is reasonable to keep but the others are not. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43021516@N06/4382428505/ published in 1916. We have many PD similar of the same character so there is no need to use modern non-free.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Alice in wonderland 1951.jpg (the 1951 Disney image) is currently being used as free. The three non-free files are carebears, the Burton film, and the American McGee's Alice box cover. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah , I didn't see that was free as well, so yes, reasonable to keep. Of the other three, there may perhaps be reason to use a non-free of the video game version of Alice given that there was discussion at the time of the game's release of the gritty version of the character, but I would replace the box art with a character image if possible. The live-action film was a flop and thus I doubt there is significant discussion about that character relative to the established Alice character, and there's zero need for the Care Bears one. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 31 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.

Brian Wilson

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there are too many non-free files on the article. Consensus concluded File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png and File:Sping with Brian Wilson.jpg should be removed from the article. Consensus also concluded that 2-3 non-free samples would be appropriate in this article with File:The Honeys - He's A Doll.ogg, File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg, and File:I'llBetHe'sNice.ogg decided to be the most representative. All other non-free sounds samples to be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Obvious violation of minimal usage, 5 sound files are excessive, 2-3 are normal. Also File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png isnt needed. Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Werieth (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All sound clips convey every musical cornerstone of Brian Wilson's recording career from his beginnings as a freelance record producer in the early 1960s to a self-performing artist in present day. From his high-budgeted various artists Wall of Sound teen group period (surf rock); his minimal, reclusive, drug-addled, auto-biographical period which heavily reflects his well-publicized mental instabilities referred to multiple times throughout the article (psychedelic); his brief but notable foray into quirky synthesizer experimentation (art rock); and finally an example of his music as a credited solo artist (baroque pop). Although Wilson used The Beach Boys as a proxy for his released work between 1961–1988 (and for that reason, it may appear as though they place higher priority for inclusion in The Beach Boys article), a high emphasis is placed on the samples The Beach Boys - 'Til I Die and The Beach Boys - I'll Bet He's Nice because:

  • "'Til I Die" has been cited as the most "personal" song Wilson had ever written. It is auto-biographical by nature, and provides a glimpse to the viewer of a period in Wilson's life often discrepant in journalism. Wilson is largely believed to have been in a state of complete inactivity between the times of the albums Pet Sounds (1966) and Love You (1977). This is blatantly untrue, and the sample does well to help disprove the myth and ultimately enhance the article by providing an audible summary of Wilson's work with The Beach Boys AND a summary of Wilson's output during the 1970s, which dramatically differed from other eras.
  • "I'll Bet He's Nice" stems from recording sessions intended for a Brian Wilson solo album. The song's credit to "The Beach Boys" is arguably nominal; Wilson himself plays every instrument in the sample, and also offers lead vocals. Additionally, the same extra justifications above can be duplicated for this particular sample as it can serve to convey Wilson's work with The Beach Boys during the 1970s. Not only that, but it also provides an example of Wilson's voice shortly after it very noticeably deteriorated from excessive drug use.

As for File:Brian_Wilson_I_Just_Wasn't_Made_For_These_Times.png not being "needed," that reasoning is awfully vague. It is a photo of Wilson during sessions for the album Pet Sounds, a work for which he is most known for. Within the article, the only other picture of Wilson from around its recording sessions is removed by two years, was photographed from a far distance with many other people in view, and by itself poorly exemplifies his person and demeanor in the 1960s. Wilson was primarily known as a studio musician and record producer, and so a photo of him in that context highly enhances the article space it accompanies. Another function the photo serves is to provide a space in which to comment on the thick-rimmed glasses he was often photographed wearing for a short time in the 1960s. Some of the most iconic photos of Wilson show him with these glasses. I'm not sure how it is supposed to be obvious that this photo must be removed. Looking at other articles for guidance, John Lennon is also portrayed two times in the article for the 1960s spaces: once during his early "mop top" period and another during his later "psychedelic" period. The principles are nearly identical for Wilson.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Werieth here at least on sound samples. Yes, for an average band or musician, 2-3 is probably the norm. However, this is someone that has been a significant influence on music, and given that he both sang and arranged songs, examples of both are not unreasonable. Arguably since all of these songs appear to be notable on their own (where the song sample could be include if not already), we could relocate one or two there, but I don't see 5 being excessive for someone like this (though I would encourage trimming if possible). As for the photo, I think it's rather reason to include - he wrote glasses despite not having vision problems. If his glasses-wearing was a noted iconic image of him during that time, that would be one thing, but I think we're talking about during a closed session, and that can be described in text. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets break this down:

Also used in The Beach Boys, Nothing is iconic about this look, and can be described in text.
Also used on Love You (album), doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page
Also used on Brian Wilson (album) doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page
Used correctly on American Spring and not critical to this article.
Not used on other articles may be appropriate here
Also used on 'Til I Die doesnt need to be in both, and its better suited for the album page

Werieth (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that there are times we allow duplication of sound samples between the artist and the song/album where there is reasonable discussion for both; the question is here if Wilson's personal efforts are called out for the song, or if its just dropped as a representative work. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Even then we can reference the other article where the file is being used. 2-3 should be kept the rest should be left on the other respective articles. Most are not detrimental if removed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Technically you're right, the article doesn't "need" anything. What about the things it "could" or "should" have? The usages of those files are relatively minimal, being present on only two articles at the most. I still say the photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds is definitely iconic. You will undoubtedly see a photo of Wilson during Pet Sounds sessions in every documentary or related piece about him, and he's sporting those glasses in almost every photo.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We are not a documentary, we are writing a free encyclopedia. We already have a free image of the person, including a non-free image of him in glasses where he is known for what he produces and not his personal visual appearance is not needed. Werieth (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
It's established that absolutely no media is really needed in the article. That goes for the image used in the article's infobox. "The reader already knows from prose that Wilson is a 71-year-old man, so what's the purpose of an image that serves nothing except to convey unneeded information like hair color or wrinkles?" The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves. Of course the infobox photo doesn't impose itself. Neither does the photo of Wilson circa 1966 where it is accompanied by text describing his life at that point. Nobody should feel as though it is odd to find several photographs of Brian Wilson in different stages of his life on the article for Brian Wilson. They likewise should not be shocked that an article for a popular composer marked by several different musical approaches throughout their career contains at most one sound clip for every decade they've been musically active. The four sound clips are irreducible because they perfectly display everything he's prospered to and is identified with, which is basically happy pop, sad rock, synthesized lunacy, and his present day activities. I've already explained why the article's quality benefits greatly with the addition of a relatively iconic photograph of Wilson taken during the most profiled event of his career. There's no reason to have walls of text lacking a suitable visual accompaniment when one with an apt rationale is readily available.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
With regards to the statement it's whether they make the article look neater means that your whole approach to non-free media is flawed. That approach is fine for free media. However the standards and bar for inclusion for non-free media is significantly higher than just being eye candy. Given that such a large number of these non-free files are accessible on other articles, and we have a free image for his primary visual identification we could easily trim down the non-free files to 2-3 and not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Werieth (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand completely, but they're only used on one other article. I would agree if the same photo was used in several other articles wherein the subject is only tangentially related. Then it would be overuse. But it's a photo that focuses on the article's subject and nothing else. For that reason, it actually has an even more logical placement in Brian Wilson than it does on The Beach Boys. I'm not sure where you're basing the claimed "2-3" benchmark from.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"The question is not whether the media is needed, it's whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." is absolutely wrong. We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance for the image to be used while minimizing the number used. We have a picture of Wilson, and the only thing is that he wore these glasses during a specific recording session. Did it impact the music? Did it impact his association with the rest of the band? Did it inspire a song? I'm not reading this, just that he happened to look like that that day. As such, the image is not needed, as currently described. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"We do not use NFC to make articles look pretty (free images, sure, within reason). There must be contextual significance" No duh. And I've already established numerous explanations of contextual significance. Nothing more need be said by me about the purpose of those images and clips. I'll still reiterate for you why his appearance at the time is notable for inclusion in order to appease you:

  • He is not wearing garb associated with his extroverted live performance era. He is wearing distinguished garb associated with his intimate studio producer era, and the psychedelic era for which he was part of to a great extent. This same layout and reasoning is also applied in the John Lennon article to no complaints.
  • He is wearing formal attire to a pop music recording session which (as I recall hearing somewhere) was unusual for younger producers at the time according to The Wrecking Crew musicians.
  • It is a photo of him with nobody else in frame.
  • The photo was taken at the most crucial period in his life.
  • It accompanies the Pet Sounds section well for being a photo taken during Pet Sounds.
  • The Pet Sounds recording sessions are directly related to the music; it is a photo of him as he was creating the very thing for which he is (arguably) most notable for.
  • Wilson is very-much-so known for his idiosyncratic personality, and so yes, doing something weird like pretending to be nearsighted is not a closed case of strangeness. This trait of his was exerted in full force around his "bed" period during which he became a subject of lore and mystique a la Syd Barrett.

Because numerous rationales have been established, I reiterate, "the question is whether they make the article look neater without imposing themselves." Do they? I say no. Let them stay; they're not hurting anybody.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"they're not hurting anybody" - wrong. Every piece of non-free in WP harms the free content mission set by the Foundation which is why the goal is to minimize the amount of non-free used and avoid uses that are otherwise replaceable. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Vanessa logo.svg

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been replaced with logo that does not fail WP:NFCC#3b. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Excessively large non-free file. Several details in it are only shown if you render it at a very high resolution, e.g. [[File:Vanessa logo.svg|3000px]]. Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Cardinal McCloskey.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been replaced with known free image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a painting of a man who died in 1885. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment directly below. The two paintings are suspiciously in the same style. In any case it should be a matter of asking whoever published them where they obtained the images. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I attempted to contact the immediate source of the images for more information, see the below section for File:3rd Bishop of New york.jpg for more information. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:3rd Bishop of New york.jpg

Found a 1914 publication of image which makes it PD-US. Uploaded color version to Commons as File:Bishop_John_Dubois.jpg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a painting of a man who died in 1842. It is very unlikely that there isn't an image of him which isn't in the public domain. Also, if all images of him are copyrighted, then none can have been made during his lifetime, so all images would be inaccurate and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.

It doesn't seem impossible that this painting might have been created during his lifetime, in which case it is in the public domain. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There's nothing at the source to indicate when the painting was actually painted. That being said, I find the date "2013" listed at the file page to be highly improbably. Unfortuantely, in the absence of a source that conclusively dates the painting, we can't assume PD-old. That being said, I would remove the image as it is overwhelmingly likely that there is a PD-old painting of this person out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the faults in the uploading process is that it asks when "this file" was created. Obviously in a lot of cases that answer would be the time at which it is being uploaded or shortly before. I went looking and every PD-old image seems to have been based on that painting, including black-and-white representations from books published in the late-19th to early-20th centuries. However we all know of paitings that have been based on older drawings, and the style seems to be consistent with paintings of other bishops before and after him, so it cannot be said confidently that this painting is, in fact, old and out of copyright. The uploader needs to do some due diligence and contact the diocese or publisher and learn exactly when this portrait was painted. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I contacted the Archives of the Archdiocese of New York (the immediate source of the image) asking for any information for this and the above image to discover their copyright status. The responder to my request was less than helpful and they were not willing to give me any information about the paintings. It is also worth noting that the Archives is closed until December 2013 due to them moving. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Michael Jackson - Got to be there (single).jpeg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is replaced by Free Netherlands cover, and has be updated as such. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Current upload seems to violate WP:NFCC#1, see initial upload by User:Smooth O from 2006 which appears to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

By Discogs, there seems to be at least five possible covers based on country published; the orange text-only is the Netherlands, the current one used is from France. There is one for the US release (just the disc label), which would seem to be the one one would use, given that Jackson was an American artist and all that; the only issue with that is if the map part on the top is of sufficient copyright (as the rest is just text and would be PD-text). Given that there is otherwise no unique imagery with this (in terms of branding), otherwise, we should stick with the free orange label if the US version is not free. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Your link goes to a page which shows the disc, but we should probably use a cover image instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I know, it's just the vinyl 45 record; that is done in some cases where the sleeve cover has been lost to time or blank. I do agree the sleeve cover art is better in general. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Vinyl 45s were typically sold with a plain white or unbleached sleeve with a cutout in the centre so the label on the disc could be viewed. Or information about the label would be printed on the sleeve. It was rare to see one with images, even for the Beatles. See Google images for examples. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jackie Chan

Non-Admin Closure: Non-free images were removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Too many unfree images. Unsure if the scenes are discussed in prose. George Ho (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Los Bravos - Black Is Black 86.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image updated as PD-ineligible-USonly until it is determined that it is not uploaded in the country of origina, which may be Germany, or may be Spain (Spanish band?) or US... who knows... -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Is this image too simple for copyright under German law? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Per http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html this would have to be accompanied by a copyright notice in order to enjoy copyright protection in the United States. So unless such a notice exists, I assume this can be uploaded as {{PD-USonly}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Apart from that, this probably doesn't meet the threshold for copyright protection in the United States anyway. Also, why is German copyright law relevant here? Was this cover first used in Germany? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
That's what Discogs said. Well, I can't find any other edition of the remix vinyl. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume that this does probably not meet the Schöpfungshöhe in Germany, though I am not sure. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caverns of Mars

Non-Admin Closure: Discussion previously closed at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_35#Caverns_of_Mars#Sequels. Reasoning discussed. No further action necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Someone tagged up NFCR in Caverns of Mars, but didn't start the discussion here, so I'll do it…

Caverns of Mars is one of the best selling software packages on the Atari platform, and was widely written on in magazines of the era - not just about the game itself, but as a rags-to-riches story for the author, a high school student.

The author followed the game up with a number of sequels, which is there the gallery comes in. It is worthwhile pointing out that each of these is an image from a different program. In this respect, one can trivially find thousands of articles on the wiki with NF screenshots from different programs in them - Spreadsheet for instance.

It appears that the "problem" in this case is the use of a gallery tag to collect them, setting off someone's alarms. I suspect that if the images had not been collected in a gallery, I wouldn't be here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion but it was quickly closed (As yes non-free galleries aren't allowed), and has been archived.
That said, I saw the images, and really, due to the low-quality graphics at the time, you didn't need all four. Of course, you should have one for the general gameplay and describe what is happening (to justify a sourced gameplay section), but after that, you need better justification than "this is a an important game series". There has to be sourced commentary on the graphics (their changes or the like) for each subsequent image. You may have a case where the graphics approached that of Scramble in Mars Mission II, but you need a source that makes that acknowledgement to show the need for the image. General graphical improvements of the same game on different platforms is generally not sufficient to justify an image. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Where was the discussion in question? And why weren't any of the main participants in the article invited to take part? And why doesn't that discussion appear here, the place the tag specifically refers to?
Non-free galleries are allowed, as the NFC page clearly states: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis". Well, this is the consideration on a case by case basis. The images in question were used to compare the various releases of the program. I have also provided examples of mainstream articles that also show multiple NFC images in exactly the same fashion, illustrating the mainline concept and then showing notable variations.
So I'm afraid I'll need a little more justification. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The user who closed the discussion (Werieth, I believe) should have removed the tag from the page on closure, as once closed, the archive bots move it to the archive pages, nullifying the link on the page.
And while NFG does allow exceptional cases for non-free in galleries, the handful of allowed exemptions is typically when one or two non-free images are mixed with free for the purposes of comparison and contrast. I'm aware of no gallery with a majority of non-free images which has been accepted readily by the community. This is why, in this case, the closure was correct - this is not one of those exceptional cases where the community would allow it.
This doesn't mean your images are necessarily unusable, but you need to find a way to put them inline and with proper justification for each image, and that's the points I raised above - I don't think you can justify 4 images for this page. Two, perhaps, but nowhere near all 4. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
So, then, it appears that my initial statement about gallery tags is correct, right? Consider it fixed. And none of this explains the lazy efforts on the part of everyone involved. Was it really to much to ask Stepha2 to post information tags on the pages of the people involved? And was it really too much to ask Werieth to wait more than one hour in the middle of a work day before closing? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Its more than just the gallery tags, its the way the files are being used. Its a fairly clear violation of WP:NFC. Werieth (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, again, the use of the gallery here pretty much has no consensus, even considering the exemption of NFG, so rapid removal made sense. The question of "everyone involved" on a article problem is solved by tagging the article, otherwise, you're asking editors to tag every editor that may have contributed to an article, and that's not a reasonable expectation.
Now you still have a problem, in that the three additional images beyond the one that is normally allowed for video games, and so these are still a problem, even outside the gallery. It doesn't matter if you consider this game very important, it is what the sources say about the game that would justify the use of additional screenshots, and that's simply not shown with the sources you presently have. None of the graphics are discussed in a critical way; even the one for Mars Mission II, where you state they are comparable to Scramble, is not repeated in the source listed, though I would think that you should be able to find more sources for this. But the images of Phobos and the official 2600 game? Those absolutely are not needed as you have no sourced discussion about their graphics that would be necessary to include those images. NFC is about minimizing non-free, and that's why we have NFG, and why we don't just use screenshots to justify that a certain version exists. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:CallahanvsVamp.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#8 and will be removed from the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Rationale indicates that this is a book cover, but it's actually an interior illustration. Kelly hi! 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As the article that the rataionle claims it is for already has a cover image, this is only being used as an illustration of the plot, without critical commentary, and thus inappropriate per NFCC#8 and should be deleted. (If it was being used as the ID image, the rationale could have been fixed, but that's not the case) --MASEM (t) 18:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Bluegreen Corporation Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image was updated per consensus. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

PD-textlogo ? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, it is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_36&oldid=1146665055"