Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 42
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violation of WP:NFCC#3a: no need for two cover images. Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Arugably okay, the two covers are sufficiently different and represent two different major releases. However, I'd see reason to remove the collectors edition (the non-square version) since we're only talking about photographs of the band members + text, and the normal cover is what most will likely see. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I say keep the collectors edition because that's the iTunes cover. Korean online music stores also use that cover. Darkreason (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete File:TVXQ KeepYourHeadDown R.jpg as its a repackaged version, and keep the non-square shaped cover. Having two fails WP:NFCC#3a. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:54, 10 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: The image is not replaceable non-free files. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wouldn't this fall under replaceable non-free media given the age of the work? Werieth (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The copyright is on the photography of the 3D work, not the work itself. And if the rationale page is correct and it is housed in an area of a museum where photography is not allowed, then no , we can't expect someone to take a freely licensed photo of it. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFG in the painter article, also there seem to be too many non-free images in that article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free gallery, see WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- If this was originally created by the CIC, with each of the logos belonging to the CIC, and published by the CIC, then it is one image instead of a montage of images, so NFG would not appear to apply (however, a link to show where this is in their newsletter would be helpful, none is provided). --MASEM (t) 18:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Masem:@Stefan2: I found the newsletter that the image is sourced to on their website (under the publications link). Nowhere on the newsletter is that image. I also checked the issues before and afterThe only piece of the image is the 2013 "badge" which is formatted differently than the rest. I would hazard a guess that the 2013 badge was added to this image. I believe this image fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#4 unless previous publication can be proven. Should this be taken to WP:FFD? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, clearly unusable if a user generated image. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Masem:@Stefan2: I found the newsletter that the image is sourced to on their website (under the publications link). Nowhere on the newsletter is that image. I also checked the issues before and afterThe only piece of the image is the 2013 "badge" which is formatted differently than the rest. I would hazard a guess that the 2013 badge was added to this image. I believe this image fails WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#4 unless previous publication can be proven. Should this be taken to WP:FFD? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:03, 26 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the three audio files are excessive use of non-free files. Consensus also holds that the three images (title card, production process, and satire approach) meet inclusion requirements and the remaining image is excessive use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think we need seven unfree files. The audio samples can surely go. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:SouthParkFriends.jpg is redundant to the title card, the image should be removed and the captions can be (albeit awkwardly) combined. I'd axe all of the sound clips as well, as they are pretty purely decorative as they are used. File:Elianandkenny.jpg and File:South Park production comparison.png are probably fine though, as is the title card, if we consider it as having dual use in also identifying the main cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree - those 3 non-frees (title card, production process, and satire approach) are all fair game for inclusion. The rest are excessive. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, I'd rather keep the four main characters image, and replace the infobox image with the logo, sign or no wooden sign. Too many opening title sequences, so... I'm going to request the free logo soon if no one objects. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree - those 3 non-frees (title card, production process, and satire approach) are all fair game for inclusion. The rest are excessive. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 17 December 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.
removed from all articles except Salvador Dalí & The Persistence of Memory Werieth (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in numerous articles. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- One of the most important Surrealist works of the 20th century - needed to be included...Modernist (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously good in the article about itself, and in Dali's article. It definitely is one of the few that can be used as an example image in Surrealism (one of the clearest and most recognized example of it). In terms of the history of painting-series articles, it is due to how those articles are structured improperly (a point brought up again and against) that it is overused. Probably only needs to be in one of these. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Good luck Stefan2. My experience with the modern art editors is that they are rabid in their blatant disregard for the NFCC. In fact, clashes with editors at 20th-century Western painting and History of painting, and the realization that segments of the community can decide to disregard Wikipedia legal policies because the number of people that care about enforcement is smaller than the number of people that care about having lots pictures, is the main reason I stopped working in NFCC enforcement. For the record, I'd say "Remove from all except The Persistence of Memory and Salvador Dali. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- In general, the visual arts project needs to conform to both NFCC and image use policies (even with respect to free images). This has extensively been discussed before, but we're an encyclopedia, not a textbook about art appreciation. None of the images they are using need deletion, just better arrangement of articles and pictures. In terms of this image, again, it's probably one of the clearest examples of Surrealism so there's no question there, but that's its outside of artist and work itself. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sven Manguard: You wrote "keep in two articles" but listed the same article twice. I think that this clearly is fine in the painting and painter articles, and possibly in the surrealism article, but clearly not in the other articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. One of them was supposed to be Salvador Dali. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry if this is a bit anal, but the file page gives a copyright date of 2007. Presumably, this is when the photo was taken, but I believe a photo of a painting does not carry its own copyright under US law. The painting is almost certainly under copyright, but the copyright date would be 1931. Would it be OK to remove 2007 from the info, do you think? Formerip (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably make it clear that the photo is 2007 but as a slavish reproduction of a 2D work of art, there's no new copyright on that photo. But the 1931 date definitely must be noted. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the metadata section, the reproduction is from 2004. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably, the 2007 date is a copyright date displayed on the website from which the image was harvested (irrelevant for us) or else the photo was taken in 2004 but published in 2007 (also irrelevant, because the publication date of the photo has no legal bearing). I have made this edit. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that makes it clear we look at the 1931 date for this. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably, the 2007 date is a copyright date displayed on the website from which the image was harvested (irrelevant for us) or else the photo was taken in 2004 but published in 2007 (also irrelevant, because the publication date of the photo has no legal bearing). I have made this edit. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to the metadata section, the reproduction is from 2004. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably make it clear that the photo is 2007 but as a slavish reproduction of a 2D work of art, there's no new copyright on that photo. But the 1931 date definitely must be noted. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry if this is a bit anal, but the file page gives a copyright date of 2007. Presumably, this is when the photo was taken, but I believe a photo of a painting does not carry its own copyright under US law. The painting is almost certainly under copyright, but the copyright date would be 1931. Would it be OK to remove 2007 from the info, do you think? Formerip (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. One of them was supposed to be Salvador Dali. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Sven Manguard: You wrote "keep in two articles" but listed the same article twice. I think that this clearly is fine in the painting and painter articles, and possibly in the surrealism article, but clearly not in the other articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- In general, the visual arts project needs to conform to both NFCC and image use policies (even with respect to free images). This has extensively been discussed before, but we're an encyclopedia, not a textbook about art appreciation. None of the images they are using need deletion, just better arrangement of articles and pictures. In terms of this image, again, it's probably one of the clearest examples of Surrealism so there's no question there, but that's its outside of artist and work itself. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 17 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: With additional prose, there is no further issue.-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that the original cover is undeleted per WP:DRV, we can now review (quote from Masem) "essential" similarities between two covers. There is nothing exactly similar to two images aside from camera angle of children with arrows: original has boys and girls, and the revised has just boys. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- So this is the fourth time this image has been reviewed? (original NFCR, then FFD, then DRV?) We don't need two very similar album covers if there's no discussion on the differences between them. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- But I've not seen anybody choosing just one. I made a mistake on nominating the original cover for deletion, and I don't want the same on the re-release either without proper consensus. George Ho (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
For update, I added prose about artwork. George Ho (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The 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 page has too many non-free files. Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. One to show the unique styling of the bottle makes sense, and maybe the image of the line that has the various replica outfits, but that's it, the rest are similar to the main bottle. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 20 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove all images except for original cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another case where we cannot justify 7 non-free covers for one song Werieth (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Only one here is really needed, being a single. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- beFour single cover should be kept; as well as the original cover. The rest is unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have deleted some of the covers I added which could be deemed unnecessary after discussion. The ones remaining are:
- The cover for release in their native Holland.
- The cover for release in the UK as this is the UK wiki.
- The millennium remixes cover as this is a completely new release and could in effect have it's own page and cover.
- The 2.3 (10th anniversary) release as this is a completely new release and could in effect have it's own page and cover.
- The beFour cover as this is a completely different artists cover and could in effect have it's own page and cover.
- Hopefully this is enough of a compromise to close this subject. Wozza20 talk 10:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Just one image is enough. Remove UK cover and remix cover arts. George Ho (talk) 09:27, 26 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove all images except for original cover. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another case where we cannot justify 7 non-free covers for one song Werieth (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, only one is really needed, being a single. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I nominated images for deletion. Feel free to close this. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I nominated them because I expect the uploader to disagree. --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just because the uploader disagrees doesn't mean that you shouldn't let this discussion run its course. Nominating them for FFD short circuits the discussion and moves it away from the users who can actually review the NFC issues. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Werieth here, maybe because I have been paying more attention to both this page and WP:FFD, but I do not understand why file that are originally brought here, have some discussion started, then get taken to WP:FFD and the section here deleted, instead of letting the discussion finish here. This has been happening a lot the past few days and I am not sure if that number is typical or not. Aspects (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- A file should not be discussed in an open NFCR and at FFD at the same time. George's actions were improper here. Once the NFCR is closed by a non-involved user, and assuming to close with removal of one or more images, then they would be removed from the article, and become orphans, and then an FFD can be opened to delete them. But concurrent discussions is harmful. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy now? I withdrew FFD as improper. I just think FFD should have been first, but no... why take it here? Wozza wanted ALL, right? If not anymore, then I underestimated. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth clearly brought the page with multiple images here because he felt there were excess use, but he couldn't say how many were excessive - whether none, some, or all of them. As such, it would have been wrong to FFD the images in the first place. Bringing it here gets consensus on how many are proper, and then once this discussion is closed, those determined inappropriate are removed, marked orphan and subsequently deleted. That's the right process to follow. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the page history I attempted to remove 4 of the files and got reverted (I liberally left 3 files). Some of the files that I left where also questionable, I figured on 1-2 being acceptable and possibly the third. Filing an out of process FfD for specific images when it is not clear exactly which files are and are not acceptable just disrupts the process here. Werieth (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Werieth clearly brought the page with multiple images here because he felt there were excess use, but he couldn't say how many were excessive - whether none, some, or all of them. As such, it would have been wrong to FFD the images in the first place. Bringing it here gets consensus on how many are proper, and then once this discussion is closed, those determined inappropriate are removed, marked orphan and subsequently deleted. That's the right process to follow. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Happy now? I withdrew FFD as improper. I just think FFD should have been first, but no... why take it here? Wozza wanted ALL, right? If not anymore, then I underestimated. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- A file should not be discussed in an open NFCR and at FFD at the same time. George's actions were improper here. Once the NFCR is closed by a non-involved user, and assuming to close with removal of one or more images, then they would be removed from the article, and become orphans, and then an FFD can be opened to delete them. But concurrent discussions is harmful. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Werieth here, maybe because I have been paying more attention to both this page and WP:FFD, but I do not understand why file that are originally brought here, have some discussion started, then get taken to WP:FFD and the section here deleted, instead of letting the discussion finish here. This has been happening a lot the past few days and I am not sure if that number is typical or not. Aspects (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just because the uploader disagrees doesn't mean that you shouldn't let this discussion run its course. Nominating them for FFD short circuits the discussion and moves it away from the users who can actually review the NFC issues. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't know if I should put this here or at FFD, but since I already added a comment here. I think one of the two U.S. covers could be kept since they are both are significantly different from the original and are widely distributed. These are the only covers from a country that actually charted in that country and got to number 38 on the Billboard 200 and charted on four other Billboard charts. Aspects (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The band is Dutch; I can't use American covers. George Ho (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I have read up a lot about the inclusion of non-free content, and a lot about etiquette within wiki when disputing about content with other users. One of the key words were compromise could be the answer. Maybe not so many covers are needed. How about this as a compromise to close the case. The Dutch cover should always be included. How about the inclusion of the UK cover when it is different as this is the UK wiki. If the UK one is not different, the inclusion of the most charted cover which is different. In the case of Get Ready for This, see Aspects comments above where Get Ready for This was the biggest hit in the US and has a different cover? Wozza20 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The top infobox image is enough; probably it's European, but that's still enough. George Ho (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I have read up a lot about the inclusion of non-free content, and a lot about etiquette within wiki when disputing about content with other users. One of the key words were compromise could be the answer. Maybe not so many covers are needed. How about this as a compromise to close the case. The Dutch cover should always be included. How about the inclusion of the UK cover when it is different as this is the UK wiki. If the UK one is not different, the inclusion of the most charted cover which is different. In the case of Get Ready for This, see Aspects comments above where Get Ready for This was the biggest hit in the US and has a different cover? Wozza20 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted some of the covers I added which could be deemed unnecessary after discussion. The ones remaining are:
- The original release from their native country.
- One US cover as it is very different and charted on 5 Billboard charts being 2 Unlimited's biggest hit there.
- Yves De Ruyter remixes as this was a completely different release and could in effect have it's own page and cover.
- The Steve Aoki remixes as this features a different artist and could in effect have it's own page and cover.
Hopefully this is enough of a compromise to finally close this discussion? Wozza20 (talk) 10;56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Remixes are non-notable and belong to song page. Just the European or Dutch release is enough. Remove US cover and remix cover arts. George Ho (talk) 09:28, 26 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is images of the person in their underwear or images of their victims would violate neutrality in WP:BLP. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I found self-portraits of this person in underwear and bras. Does addition of just one self-portrait meet NFCC, even when Wikipedia is not censorship? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given we already have a fairly neutral photo of him, I think an additional and extremely biasly charged photo would be completely unacceptable. Werieth (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Which criterion of does NFCC this "biasly charged" photo violate? George Ho (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- BLP. He's still alive, and while the photos are part of why he's incarcerated (and thus why we have a non-free of him), there's no significant discussion to require seeing these rather private photos. Let newspapers and tabloids do that, we're more professional than that. One photo to ID the man is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- While one of those images could be added to the "Court proceedings and trial" section the reader's understanding that he posed in the underware is not necessary to understand that he did that, so NFCC#8 for sure. I doubt it is contextually significant. We already have one non-free image to identify the subject so a second non-free image would not comply with NFCC#3a - minimal use. That's my 2c worth. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- BLP. He's still alive, and while the photos are part of why he's incarcerated (and thus why we have a non-free of him), there's no significant discussion to require seeing these rather private photos. Let newspapers and tabloids do that, we're more professional than that. One photo to ID the man is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Which criterion of does NFCC this "biasly charged" photo violate? George Ho (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What about images of his victims? George Ho (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, we don't include non-free pictures of victims unless their appearance is notable to the crime (Which it rarely is). --MASEM (t) 01:13, 23 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is pd-textlogo -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do the scales fail WP:TOO, thus making this a PD-textlogo? RJaguar3 | u | t 23:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the United States copyright office would refuse to register this and as such it probably doesn't meet TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:19, 23 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notwithstanding the unusual capital A, this should be a PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should be pd-text. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 23 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This may be a PD-textlogo; in particular, the three sentences on the bottom are nothing more than a slogan, which the Copyright Office refuses to register. Although there may be some creativity in how the ineligible elements are arranged, I don't think this meets WP:TOO. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- At worst, the text line could be cut out, but in either case, its definitely PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 23 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image is creative enough to meet TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
May be a PD-textlogo: not sure whether the drawing of the N meets WP:TOO. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- arguably yes, that image is creative enough to make this non-free. --MASEM (t) 06:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the semi circles and quarter circles enough to push this image over TOO, or is this image PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Same question for File:Explora_logo.svg? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the United States copyright office would refuse to register either of them. File:ICI Explora.png primarily consists of typefaces and a red figure which I believe lacks the amount of artistic and creative authorship required for registration on its own. The combination of the figure and the typefaces is probably not enough to push this beyond TOO. File:Explora logo.svg also primarily consists of typefaces and geometric shapes probably lacking the amount of creativity required for registration. Thus both are probably below TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess that the odd thing in the middle of the first logo and to the right in the second one is too complex. The copyright office accepted the registration of the second logo on page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf but the first one was refused. The accepted logo seems to be less complex than the logos discussed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 28 December 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.
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is that the image is not under the Threshold of Originality, and therefore should be treated as non-free. It should be noted that Commons treated a SVG similar version the same way: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Microsoft Office 95-XP logo.svg. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Me and Rezonansowy have a different of opinion as to whether this image is copyright-protected or not. Can we have a review please? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I'd edge on being creative enough for copyright. A puzzle piece is not a "simple geometric shape" called out by threshold of originality aspects. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lisa, copyright has nothing to do with Threshold of originality. Besides in United States works like this one are under this threshold and are in the Public domain. See for example File:New Orleans Saints.svg. That's why this file should be transferred to Commons. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Er, copyright has everything to do with threshold of originality - copyright cannot extent to simple works because they lack originality, that's how TOO works. The Saints logo is the fleur, which is a common heraldic symbol, and thus the Saints can't claim copyright over that. On the other hand, MS's puzzle piece is a novel take, and likely copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I meant only that if some image is subject to trademark then doesn't become automatically non-free. Simple shapes aren't enough to become original. Besides, many others MS Office logos, which are shapes have been considered as PD:
- ...and many others. Admins and users on Commons agreed with it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The puzzle pieces are not simple shapes though. All those Office logos are constructed from simple shapes, but the puzzle piece is not that. (You are right that trademark does not come into play in determining the non-free nature of a file, though) --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, why you think that's not simple shapes. The Puzzle patter is itself very basic and popular symbol, which we can find everywhere - on streets, toys. The puzzle shape isn't something original, just like next one form Commons:COM:TOO - File:Nikken Logo.jpg. That's exactly the idea of simple shapes, we can find them everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs)
- Because there's many different ways one can draw out the puzzle piece, each being creative in itself. It is not a simple geometric shape or constructed simply from them as your above examples. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, why you think that's not simple shapes. The Puzzle patter is itself very basic and popular symbol, which we can find everywhere - on streets, toys. The puzzle shape isn't something original, just like next one form Commons:COM:TOO - File:Nikken Logo.jpg. That's exactly the idea of simple shapes, we can find them everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs)
- Hi. Admin's closing verdict does not reflect his personal opinion. Reflecting personal opinion in the closing verdict is called super-voting, which admins never do. Anyway, we can wait for more input. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The puzzle pieces are not simple shapes though. All those Office logos are constructed from simple shapes, but the puzzle piece is not that. (You are right that trademark does not come into play in determining the non-free nature of a file, though) --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Er, copyright has everything to do with threshold of originality - copyright cannot extent to simple works because they lack originality, that's how TOO works. The Saints logo is the fleur, which is a common heraldic symbol, and thus the Saints can't claim copyright over that. On the other hand, MS's puzzle piece is a novel take, and likely copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa:, @Masem: File:Microsoft Office 95-XP logo.svg - similar vector version uploaded on Commons seems not violate any copyright (no DR since 3 December), so this is PD-shape as well. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Just existing on commons doesn't mean it's right; just like here, not every upload is checked for meeting the free content requirement there and there are images that can remain a problem for many years. Basically, WP:OSE and the caution against using that. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 17 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is 7 non-free files are not justified under WP:NFCC. Consensus holds that the infobox screenshot, the icon, and the Symantec screenshot are more justified. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cant see justification for 7 non-free files Werieth (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see no significant discussion about the UI (feature set is one thing, but the UI is trivial), so only one representative software screenshot is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate that 7 screenshots are too many. However, there were two distinct programs called Ghost, developed by different companies but sold at overlapping times by Symantec. I think it appropriate therefore to have two screenshots: one of the original codebase (File:Ghost-screenshot.png, uploaded by myself), and one of the PoweerQuest codebase, perhaps File:Norton Ghost v15 Home Screen.jpg.-gadfium 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not necessary to see screenshots of the different corporately-owned versions of the programs for something that has a otherwise non-notable UI. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I was about to open this topic myself. However, there are 6, not 7, screenshots in this article. (There are 7 non-free files, one of them is a computer icon.) I can probably make a case for keeping File:Ghost-screenshot.png too, but that would make 3 non-free images, far from 7. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:04, 6 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Although there the policy that allows the use of non-free covers representing work, the consensus in this particular discussion illustrates in this one instance the cover does not aid in any understanding of the article nor does it help in identifying the article's topic by serving branding purposes. The image will be removed and tagged as CSD#F5. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails NFC#8, " Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
This is anodyne clip art with a crown on it. In no way does, "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article", as the FUR claims.
It was removed from the article Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review, then reverted without discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a notable publication, and thus per NFCI#1, the cover art is generally acceptable to use. That said, we are also not required to use the cover art, and there is fair claim that the cover of a government report is not going to help ID the report in terms of marketing and branding. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously Andy, can you read WP:NFCI#1 in regards to cover art? This is just more stalking/harassment behavior by Andy Dingley towards me. Werieth (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- ... only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. This is about NFC#8, not NFC#1.
- Can either of you even explain what the subject of the cover is, or even better, what "understanding" it conveys about the report? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus has been that cover art in the article about the the object (book,film,album,single) defacto meets WP:NFCC#8 otherwise you could remove 99% of book, film, album, and single covers. Werieth (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- PS I cited WP:NFCI#1 not WP:NFCC#1. Please be aware that generic number links to WP:NFC are not the same as WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) Werieth (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then if you prefer the NFCI page, it instead fails NFCI#8 " only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic," and " only where all 10 of the following criteria are met."
- Again, 'what additional understanding does this piece of anodyne eye-candy convey? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCI#8 refers to historical images. Werieth (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Wikipedia:NFCI#Images, §8 refers to images (and §1 refers to cover art). Note also the comment in Wikipedia:NFCI#Images, "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here.".
- However WP:NFCI#8 (and also WP:NFCC#8) refer to the criteria that must be met and the specific issue here: "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In what way does this content-free purely decorative cover art increase such understanding? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a mis-communication, We have two pages. WP:NFC (Wikipedia:Non-free content) and WP:NFCC (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). WP:NFCI refers to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images (which is a subsection of acceptable usage) a reference to WP:NFCI#1 is a reference to Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). which has a footnote which has per several discussions established that cover art on the article about the object defacto always meets WP:NFCC#8 NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) Werieth (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Once again, what "marketing, branding, [or] identification information" does this cover convey? It's a boilerplate cover, with negligible visual identity other than the purely decorative and certainly nothing that is meaningfully specific to this use, or justifying NFC. Also see the very footnote you cite as supporting your position, Wikipedia:Non-free_content/Cover_art_RfC#Cover_art_should_have_some_connection_to_the_text_beyond_just_infobox_placement, "More abstract art, on the other hand, would be difficult to connect to the text, and thus would be difficult to justify via NFCC#8.".
- Its only claim to meeting NFC is that it was uploaded by Werieth, who is not to be challenged on issues of NFC. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a mis-communication, We have two pages. WP:NFC (Wikipedia:Non-free content) and WP:NFCC (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). WP:NFCI refers to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images (which is a subsection of acceptable usage) a reference to WP:NFCI#1 is a reference to Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). which has a footnote which has per several discussions established that cover art on the article about the object defacto always meets WP:NFCC#8 NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) Werieth (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCI#8 refers to historical images. Werieth (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus has been that cover art in the article about the the object (book,film,album,single) defacto meets WP:NFCC#8 otherwise you could remove 99% of book, film, album, and single covers. Werieth (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Andy it is the cover for the book, see http://books.google.com/books?id=vKZ8wsdVJ4MC . Also quit grasping at straws, many different views where expressed in the RfC's. Please look at how they where closed. Any arguments for removal you are making could be made for removing the cover from Catching Fire. Usage of a book cover in the article about the book meets WP:NFCC#8. So do you have any other straws to grasp at or are you going to stalk my other edits to find something else to harass me about? Werieth (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll reiterate what I said before: NFCI#1 is an allowance to use the cover of a published work for the infobox, previously determined that it will generally meet all 10 NFCC, but it does not set the requirement to use such an image. This is a case where consensus can decide to forgo the image since it really doesn't help that much, being a goverment report, but to say "it fails NFCC" unfortunately is against previously determined consensus for covers. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Generally" is the point of relevance to the previous consensus. Yes, generally cover art will be acceptable (as it is at Catching Fire) because generally this cover art will have some significance that allows it to reach NFCC#8. However this is not such general artwork, it is a piece of literally vacuous abstraction that offers no scope for an article to use it towards NFCC#8. Accordingly its use fails NFCC#8 and so this specific case falls outside the general guidance of WP:NFCI#Images§1. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Werieth, it is hardly a "straw", it is one of 10 criteria for which it is essential that all are met. As both en:user:Werieth and in your self-disclosed 9,000 edit previous identity, you have been a rigorous enforcer of the most trivial of these criteria to other cases, yet here you are now claiming that the criteria become individually optional and are overridden by a broad guidance that book cover art is "generally" acceptable. Even then, the section that you cite contains the specific instruction, "failure to meet those (i.e. NFCC#8) overrides any acceptable allowance here". We know that your language skills are frequently poor, so are you aware what "generally" means here? WP:NFCC#8 still applies, even within the scope of WP:NFCI#Images§1, and this abstract image conveys no informatiion with which to pass WP:NFCC#8.
- The Catching Fire image is of course irrelevant, per WP:OSE, but in that case it is both a work of substantial creative inspiration as book cover art, and also uses an image that is a thematic image of the subject series. Neither of those apply to this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll reiterate what I said before: NFCI#1 is an allowance to use the cover of a published work for the infobox, previously determined that it will generally meet all 10 NFCC, but it does not set the requirement to use such an image. This is a case where consensus can decide to forgo the image since it really doesn't help that much, being a goverment report, but to say "it fails NFCC" unfortunately is against previously determined consensus for covers. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Andy it is the cover for the book, see http://books.google.com/books?id=vKZ8wsdVJ4MC . Also quit grasping at straws, many different views where expressed in the RfC's. Please look at how they where closed. Any arguments for removal you are making could be made for removing the cover from Catching Fire. Usage of a book cover in the article about the book meets WP:NFCC#8. So do you have any other straws to grasp at or are you going to stalk my other edits to find something else to harass me about? Werieth (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I actually agree with Andy on this one: no one is likely to misunderstand anything about the topic in the absence of the image, and the whole "identification" argument is fairly nonsensical. Cover images from random editions of books do nothing to help people identify the article topic. The image does fail WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- 'Use the source, Luke'. As none of the RSs use the image, I see no reason why we should. Aquegg (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would call google a fairly reliable source and it does use that cover, see https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:9780101779425 (Using the ISBN from the infobox). Werieth (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- So does Amazon, worldcat and LibraryThing. Werieth (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- But they are not the sources currently being used for the substance of the article (which is to do with defence strategy & politics, not pricing & availability of a hard-copy). Aquegg (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am generally of the opinion that an image of the cover of a work, unless the cover itself is a topic of critical discussion, fails NFCC #8, as it is being used for purely decorative purposes. That being said, the community disagrees with me (although how much of that is based off of Argumentum ad Jimbonem is impossible to tell. This is not the proper forum to overturn said community consensus, so if it can be proved that this is the official cover, leave it in. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given that we have four major book databases all agreeing on it (Google Books, Amazon, WorldCat, and LibraryThing) And that the Google books page that I linked to provides a sample, which includes the cover, its hard to challenge that the image in question is the cover. Werieth (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- No-one is questioning that this is the right cover, merely that the depiction of the cover is near-meaningless, thus irrelevant to coverage within the article and thus fails NFCC#8. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- However the usage of a book cover in the article about the book meets NFCC#8, see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#cite_note-2 If you disagree with the RfC outcome feel free to file another one to get the previous consensus overturned. However until that happens, book covers in the article about the book always meet WP:NFCC#8. Or are you just going to ignore that fact because it doesn't agree with your position? Werieth (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The issue is that the allowance for cover art from NFCI#1 implicitly satisifies NFCC#8 because it is suggested to carry branding and marketing to help identify the production. This is a government report, which is not a normal product that is on store shelves or in a digital catalog to catch the purchaser's eye, and that's where one can argue NFCC#8 is not met, because the cover here is not serving the purposes of branding and marketing. I would argue that we might have to adjust NFCI#1 to talk about covers of publications normally aimed at consumers, and not for things like government reports, analysis reports, etc. which might be retail products but not the type you'd need the cover to identify it. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone uninvolved fancy closing this? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is only three non-free images are justifiable: the image of the man, the image of his typography and the image of his photography style. All others have been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cant see justification for 5 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given that two pairs of photos share practically the same caption, it is a strong indication that one of each pair is unneeed (one of the typography works, and one of the photographs). One non-free each demonstrating his typography and his photograph are approach along with the non-free image of himself, particularly since his style and contributions are discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 20 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#3 in all articles except main Ambisonics article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone! This logo was used as a visual identifier on all pages in Category:Ambisonics. Its use on the main page Ambisonics is undisputed. However User:Werieth objected to its use on multiple pages (and subsequently removed it) on the grounds that it "sort of" violates the following policy items, which I'd like to address:
- WP:NFCC #1: It is an established logo that carries an established meaning. Hence, it cannot be substituted.
- NFCC #3: I believe that the minimal usage imperative does not apply here, for reasons stated in the fair use rationale of that image. User:Werieth has not provided a counter-argument. One could argue that on each page, it is indeed used minimally. Its purpose is to tie together a group of related pages.
- NFCC #9: It was indeed used in non-article namespace on one occasion: in the header of the Category:Ambisonics page. I believed it to be a useful addition under the same rationale as above, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed from that one page.
- WP:NFCI #8: I cannot see which part of this policy could possibly be violated.
- NFCI #14: Possibly a typo, this policy does not exist.
The discussion took place here:User talk:Werieth#Use of File:AmbisonicLogo.svg
User:Werieth is right in that the use of that file on the other pages did not have an explicit fair-use rationale at the time of his edit. I was unsure how to proceed - the fair-use template does not allow for multiple page links, and it felt kind of stupid to copy-and-paste the whole thing N times, since the rationale is really the same for every occurrence. I would like to reinstate the logo on all Ambisonics-related pages, and I'm starting this review to find out if there is consensus to do it.
I would also like to state that I consider it bad form to find content deleted or removed without a comment, and then, after my revert (with explanation in the log), removed again while I had already approached the dissenting user for a discussion on their talk page. I'm perfectly willing to be educated on WP policies and concur with consensus, but I totally do not believe in "delete first, ask questions later", particularly not from drive-by patrol users who haven't edited an article in ages. Judging the fine points of NFCR in the context of an article is an editorial decision, after all. While it's of course important to stick to WP policies, the spirit of the law should be more important than the letter. Since we're all into free content, I don't see why Wikipedia should be more hostile to us exercising basic fair use rights than the rest of the world. Sincerely, Nettings (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Without other commentary about the logo itself, the logo is only allow to be used on the single main page about the company/entity/etc. We do allow reuse in the case where a notable subsidiary of that company/entity may use the same logo. That doesn't appear to be the case here - eg on the List of Ambisonic software products, that doesn't help identify Ambisonic.
- That said, this might be a free, uncopyrightable logo, as it is composed of simple circles with white and black negative space. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- A complication (simplification?) here is that there is no company/entity/etc.; the company who owned this trademark (and probably took ownership of the copyright in the 1970s when they took over the patent pool associated with the technology) have abandoned it. The logo therefore now only represents a technology. Hence User:Nettings' desire to use it on all the sub-articles associated with the technology seems reasonable. HairyWombat 18:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a single go-to page that is the top-level article about the technology; there the logo is clearly fine since it's representing some entity. But on all further subpages, which are aspects of the technology, the logo is unnecessary (assuming it is non-free). --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify that the logo represents the technology, so it is not flat-out unnecessary on sub-pages dealing with aspects of that technology, and reiterate that it no longer represents a commercial entity. And while it would in fact be easy to create a "lookalike" free logo that could serve the same purpose (of visually tying together a group of related pages), I would consider it pretty ahistoric and unencyclopaedic, given that a widely recognized logo with a history exists. I also wonder whether I might pursue the "Too simple for copyright" idea further. The only original aspect of the logo is the coloring of some of the intersections. The circles themselves are just representations of microphone polar responses used in that technology, and this particular pattern actually comes up independently in pretty much every illustration that explains the basics of Ambisonics. Nettings (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if its technology or a company, the use of a copyrighted logo is only allowable on the page (not sub pages) that goes into detail about the technology to provide cintextualn significance. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Before this thread gets closed for lack of activity, I would like to declare my intention to reinstate the logo on all subpages, this time with proper individual fair-use rationales now that I've come to understand the details of the process. I'm going to argue as I've done above, similar to the rationales for File:Heritage Malta Logo.jpg and other logos which I've found used in a similar way. Of course, it would be even better if it turned out that the logo were not eligible for copyright, maybe someone can comment on this? It should be noted that the circles of the logo are a 1:1 representation of a set of microphone polar patterns which is fundamental to the technique and is found in many many publications that pre-date the registration of the trademark. The only truly original addition is the selective coloring of some of the intersections. Nettings (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The heritage Malta logo should be free too, so its use across multiple articles is okasy. But do not try to do this with nonfree logos as you will likely be blocked for willful violation of clear NFC policy on logo use. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, you are misrepresenting things, and that offends me, because I'm very new to this, and even a week ago, I would have accepted this threat as true without questioning it. But there is no NFC policy that explicitly forbids what I'm suggesting. There is just a guideline WP:Logos that states in somewhat muddled terms that logos can only appear in infoboxes of a "main article". I'm totally not interested in infoboxes, and since this is a guideline, I will treat it with common sense. Which in this case says that the non-free-ness of the logo is next to nil, and that none of the arguments that govern NFC logo use are really applicable and don't need to be applied. Unless your one and only hobby is the application of rules to other people's work, in which case what can I do? Nettings (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually WP:NFCC#3, which covers minimal usage. We use files on as few pages as possible. Werieth (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Our goal is to minimize non-free use, so saying "it's common sense to let me bend the rules to use on all these other articles where the image otherwise fails NFC should be okay" is flat out wrong. It would be common sense to say, if Ambisonic was developed by a notable company, but the technology itself wasn't notable on its own or could be easily developed, that the logo for the Ambisonic technology to be used on the company's page in discussing their products, even though we'd normally only allow the logo on the infobox. That's still minimal use. This is, of course, assuming the logo is non-free (which I don't think it is), but this logic applies to every other non-free logo too. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Masem, you are misrepresenting things, and that offends me, because I'm very new to this, and even a week ago, I would have accepted this threat as true without questioning it. But there is no NFC policy that explicitly forbids what I'm suggesting. There is just a guideline WP:Logos that states in somewhat muddled terms that logos can only appear in infoboxes of a "main article". I'm totally not interested in infoboxes, and since this is a guideline, I will treat it with common sense. Which in this case says that the non-free-ness of the logo is next to nil, and that none of the arguments that govern NFC logo use are really applicable and don't need to be applied. Unless your one and only hobby is the application of rules to other people's work, in which case what can I do? Nettings (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The heritage Malta logo should be free too, so its use across multiple articles is okasy. But do not try to do this with nonfree logos as you will likely be blocked for willful violation of clear NFC policy on logo use. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Before this thread gets closed for lack of activity, I would like to declare my intention to reinstate the logo on all subpages, this time with proper individual fair-use rationales now that I've come to understand the details of the process. I'm going to argue as I've done above, similar to the rationales for File:Heritage Malta Logo.jpg and other logos which I've found used in a similar way. Of course, it would be even better if it turned out that the logo were not eligible for copyright, maybe someone can comment on this? It should be noted that the circles of the logo are a 1:1 representation of a set of microphone polar patterns which is fundamental to the technique and is found in many many publications that pre-date the registration of the trademark. The only truly original addition is the selective coloring of some of the intersections. Nettings (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter if its technology or a company, the use of a copyrighted logo is only allowable on the page (not sub pages) that goes into detail about the technology to provide cintextualn significance. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Let me clarify that the logo represents the technology, so it is not flat-out unnecessary on sub-pages dealing with aspects of that technology, and reiterate that it no longer represents a commercial entity. And while it would in fact be easy to create a "lookalike" free logo that could serve the same purpose (of visually tying together a group of related pages), I would consider it pretty ahistoric and unencyclopaedic, given that a widely recognized logo with a history exists. I also wonder whether I might pursue the "Too simple for copyright" idea further. The only original aspect of the logo is the coloring of some of the intersections. The circles themselves are just representations of microphone polar responses used in that technology, and this particular pattern actually comes up independently in pretty much every illustration that explains the basics of Ambisonics. Nettings (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a single go-to page that is the top-level article about the technology; there the logo is clearly fine since it's representing some entity. But on all further subpages, which are aspects of the technology, the logo is unnecessary (assuming it is non-free). --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- A complication (simplification?) here is that there is no company/entity/etc.; the company who owned this trademark (and probably took ownership of the copyright in the 1970s when they took over the patent pool associated with the technology) have abandoned it. The logo therefore now only represents a technology. Hence User:Nettings' desire to use it on all the sub-articles associated with the technology seems reasonable. HairyWombat 18:54, 23 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD close of my own discussion due to no consensus on Canadian TOO. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this logo simple enough to slip by TOO and therefore be PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the US, probably, yes. Don't know about Canada. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 28 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD closure as second image has already been removed from article per this discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too many unfree files. Four is way too much. The ad is even only 60 seconds. Beerest 2 talk 04:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, only one shot is necessary of those to give an idea of how the ad is framed. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- As GA reviewer, I apologize for not taking note of this. I have removed two images and left what I deemed the best for illustration purposes. That leaves the infobox (tagline) and another image representing a highlight of the ad. Do you feel this falls within fair use or should we stick with just the infobox? — MusikAnimal talk 05:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the two remaining images serve different purposes. One shows the tagline, and the other is an example of a recreated highlight. If we can only have one image, I'd probably keep the second and put it in the infobox. But if policy allows, I'd rather keep both! Melchoir (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The recreation is much more appropriate (as that's the reason the ad is notable) than the tagline, which is just text over some un-special imagery. I would think for an ad that one or the more recognizable sequences for it is the identification appropriate for an infobox, though arguably this probably works like TV episodes, in that by default an infobox image isn't always justified unless the particular scene is the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The doc for Template:Infobox television advert states the image field is for a relevant image for the film (advert), which should be a screenshot or a publicity image from the associated campaign. Sounds like using the highlight image and not the tagline image would be okay. Note there is also a "slogan" field where the tagline could go. But I agree with Melchoir, if you think WP:NFCCP 3a is met given the images serve different purposes, that is preferred as it offers better illustration. — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The recreation is much more appropriate (as that's the reason the ad is notable) than the tagline, which is just text over some un-special imagery. I would think for an ad that one or the more recognizable sequences for it is the identification appropriate for an infobox, though arguably this probably works like TV episodes, in that by default an infobox image isn't always justified unless the particular scene is the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the two remaining images serve different purposes. One shows the tagline, and the other is an example of a recreated highlight. If we can only have one image, I'd probably keep the second and put it in the infobox. But if policy allows, I'd rather keep both! Melchoir (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- As GA reviewer, I apologize for not taking note of this. I have removed two images and left what I deemed the best for illustration purposes. That leaves the infobox (tagline) and another image representing a highlight of the ad. Do you feel this falls within fair use or should we stick with just the infobox? — MusikAnimal talk 05:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@Masem: @Beerest 2: Where do we stand with this NFC review? Do we agree that using just the two images qualifies as fair use? If not, as User:Melchoir and I have expressed we can move the "highlight" image to the infobox and retain it as the only image, if need be. I don't want to rush a consensus but did want to clarify this is the only thing standing in the way of the article's GA promotion. — MusikAnimal talk 18:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- We'll have to wait for an uninvolved admin/closer to determine the results, but I would definitely think only one image is needed. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem. Only one image is needed. File:Nike_Second_Generation_35;02.png should be kept and moved to the infobox. It can be referenced later in the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} I will await proper closure before promoting the article to GA status. Thanks for helping better the understanding of this policy on non-free content usage. — MusikAnimal talk 21:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- MusikAnimal It may very well be sometime before this discussion is officially closed. You might try to seek out an uninvolved administrator or editor to help the process along. Enough time has passed and there seems to be a consensus, it just needs closing now. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- {{done}} I will await proper closure before promoting the article to GA status. Thanks for helping better the understanding of this policy on non-free content usage. — MusikAnimal talk 21:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem. Only one image is needed. File:Nike_Second_Generation_35;02.png should be kept and moved to the infobox. It can be referenced later in the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Replaced with free image. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:40, 24 December 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
{{archive top}} In my opinion this image does not provide any significant contextual information over and above a free image of Peter Capaldi would (fails Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#policy point 8). The image is not of the 12th Doctor in the costume that he will be known for wearing. There will be publicity shots available in the future which better suited for the purpose which this is being used currently. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:51, 29 December 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.
Non-Admin Closure: As there is only one use of this file, and the request is for deletion, the file should be listed at WP:FFD (where it was listed by User:Black Kite: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 5#File:Zimbru Crests.jpg.) Two discussions open at the same time is counter productive. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatant attempt to bypass WP:NFG by creating a user created montage. Werieth (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is permited. I visited more articles about football teams and i saw there this method to bypass your rules. Is a single file, is under fair use license - and is justified. So, no problems. // XXN (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- If the club created that image, then it would be considered a single use. But you assembled it from 8 different images making your version a derivative work eight times over. If this is being used on other football articles, and the images didn't originate from the club, they are also in violation. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Club logos are part of club history. I must somehow to represent them in article. This is the best option, since you do not accept galleries. This is a single file, and is justified under fair use license. I do not want to violate any right of club. If you want, on file page, in file description i can write with font size=72 ”All rights reserved to FC Zimbru Chișinău ©{{CURRENTYEAR}}” XXN (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- But if there is no discussion that explains how the logos have changed over time, then we can't include it. Just adding the copyright notice does not change this. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Club logos are part of club history. I must somehow to represent them in article. This is the best option, since you do not accept galleries. This is a single file, and is justified under fair use license. I do not want to violate any right of club. If you want, on file page, in file description i can write with font size=72 ”All rights reserved to FC Zimbru Chișinău ©{{CURRENTYEAR}}” XXN (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the club created that image, then it would be considered a single use. But you assembled it from 8 different images making your version a derivative work eight times over. If this is being used on other football articles, and the images didn't originate from the club, they are also in violation. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Eight non-free images still equals eight usages, even if they're in one image. This is a blatant attempt to bypass NFCC and I have removed it from the article and nominated for deletion. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this article really need 10 Non-free files? Werieth (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably yes, since I know I put 8 of them on the page with proper justification (all but the combat screenshot and the last patriotic poster), given the amount of debate about this game. One of the non-frees, the redone war poster, I called non-free though it has been suggested the cleanup to it doesn't justify a new copyright on the public domain image. But of the other 7, they are all parts discussed in text by sourced comments. I'm not keen on the other two additions that I didn't so. (I will note that we are talking about splitting that up to move development and marketing into a separate article, that would move 3 of the non-frees from that). --MASEM (t) 07:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The split of the article has now occurred, and that moves 4 of the images to Development of BioShock Infinite), leaving 6 on the main page. Of those, I've updated one that does the same job but was also of discussion (a Tea Party group actually used it briefly on their page), so I'm better on that, and the combat one shows the elements of the Sky Line and combat on that, so I'm a bit more satisfied on that. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Given the scope, 6 is far more reasonable than the previous 10. As such Ill close this section as no further action needed. Werieth (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The split of the article has now occurred, and that moves 4 of the images to Development of BioShock Infinite), leaving 6 on the main page. Of those, I've updated one that does the same job but was also of discussion (a Tea Party group actually used it briefly on their page), so I'm better on that, and the combat one shows the elements of the Sky Line and combat on that, so I'm a bit more satisfied on that. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A single image with a single use should be discussed at FFD (since removal will likely result if deemed inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 with no critical commentary and absolute need for understanding the biography article Soumitra Chatterjee. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn, I found the original date. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With no known date of publication, and no original author/source, we cannot tell if this painting was made in the lifetime of McCauley which would indeed make it pd-old or if the image is a more modern painting based on photographs or such, and therefore possibly still copyright. Should this file be marked as non-free? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:26, 24 December 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.
Not to be used in the article Obi-Wan Kenobi while another non-free image shows the same actor and adaption. Image has been removed from the article and must not be re-added without a specific fair use rationale for Obi-Wan Kenobi and without removing other non-free screenshots of the same actors from the page. De728631 (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the rationale was added for the character article, it isn't needed there as there's already a nonfree of the Ewan version of the character there. ---MASEM (t) 20:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and probably the other image is preferable. Thincat (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are we discussing the image use in Obi-Wan Kenobi and/or are we discussing the image use in Jedi that was closed here a few months ago? If it is just the former, then the promotional shot is better simply for the fact that the character is facing the screen. Aspects (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was certainly referring to the images in Obi-Wan Kenobi and I thought (and think) the people here are as well. Thincat (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- The ObiWan article here too as it is what is lacking a #10c rationale. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was certainly referring to the images in Obi-Wan Kenobi and I thought (and think) the people here are as well. Thincat (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are we discussing the image use in Obi-Wan Kenobi and/or are we discussing the image use in Jedi that was closed here a few months ago? If it is just the former, then the promotional shot is better simply for the fact that the character is facing the screen. Aspects (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, and probably the other image is preferable. Thincat (talk) 21:25, 30 December 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.
Not copyrightable in the US but original enough in the UK and its former territories. Permission and description have been adjusted. De728631 (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I dont think this meets TOO Werieth (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly doesn't meet the threshold of originality of the United States, but definitely meets the threshold of originality of the United Kingdom. Malta used to be a British colony and might use the same threshold of originality. Retagged as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but someone needs to convert the FURs into an {{Information}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 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.
Permission has been changed to {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a clear PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fair use image used in now deleted Feith Systems. No other uses, uploader won't be using this as they have been blocked for sockpuppetry. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.