Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 44

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 40

←

Archive 42

→

File:Ayala Malls Logo.jpg

Leave image as USonly-ineligible, though if one can clearly ID how TOO works in PHilippenes as to this image, that can be changed later. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 5 February 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 copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The interesting question for EN Wikipedia is whether this is eligible for copyright protection in the United States (see the third part of the introduction paragraph at Wikipedia:Public domain). I don't think this meets the threshold for copyright protection in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as USonly-ineligible. What about copyright in Philippines? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The copyright law of the Philippines is largely a duplicate of the copyright law of the United States, apart from FOP, copyright term, copyright formalities and some other minor things. The threshold of originality of the Philippines is therefore likely identical to that of the United States. Are the brush strokes in the circle eligible for copyright in the United States? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I think one would have to compare this with other works in a similar style where it is known whether they are eligible for protection or not. I am not sure where to start, though, and won't have the time to do the necessary research before next weekend. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe this image is on the borderline for whether or not it passes TOO, and therefore I believe we should have it tagged as non-free unless more concrete evidence is given one way or another. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:30, 16 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.

File:Logo of Ever Gotesco Malls.jpg

Keep as PD US only, until confirmation on nature of TOO in Philippines. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 5 February 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 copyrightable in the Philippines? George Ho (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure about the red word. If the red word were eligible for copyright protection on its own, it might form a more than de minimis part of the whole logo and thus push the whole logo above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the red word is just a font. Its not really too unique and therefore I believe the image does not pass TOO and is therefore not copyrightable in the US or in the Philippines (as most of their copyright law is identical to the US). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the red word is part of a complete font. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:12, 21 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.

File:Goetz Family Coat of Arms.jpg

Very unlikely to be anything but PD-old, retagged. --MASEM (t) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This seems to be sourced to a book from 1701. If so, then it is PD-old, not unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to verify the source through my academic databases. Unfortunately there are a great deal of entries called Armorial général de France, but none seem to (based on a search) include an entry for Goetz. I can't find a specific Alsatian volume, nor one from the 18th century. But, assuming the correctness of the stated source, I agree that this would probably be {{PD-art|PD-old}}. However, if it's a redrawing rather than a photograph, the uploader (or whomever drew it) probably has some copyright interest, in which case this may be an original publication, and therefore failing NFCC #4. I somewhat suspect this may be the case because, looking at the versions of Armorial général de France to which I do have access, have only been digitized in black and white, and do not appear to contain any figures as opposed to heraldic descriptions. That is, I believe the uploader, or someone else, may have created the image based off a description in one of these books, rather than something printed in one. User:Sulbud or User:Prince of Sulbod (the former's userpage redirects to the latter's) needs to respond to this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to not WP:AGF. After much searching, I can see the book does exist, but I cannot find any evidence of the content of it. I am more than happy with the uploader's source and I believe the file should be marked as PD-old. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:43, 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.

File:Doctor Who theme excerpt.ogg

Non-Admin Closure: There is no consensus in this discussion, the most recent relevant Commons discussion, or on recent WP:NFC discussion to blanket remove pre-1972 fair use sound files. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:04, 6 February 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.

Pre 1972 sound sample, per Stefan 2 Fair use cannot be relied on. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment This refers to WT:NFC#Pre-1972 sound recordings. I think that we should finish that discussion before starting to nominate files for deletion citing the discussion. Also, didn't the servers move? In that case, we might need to use the laws of some other state instead.

In either case: This theme song has probably been recorded multiple times, since it has been included in lots of TV series episodes since the 1960s. We would just have to use a more recent recording if it turns out that we can't use pre-1972 ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the issues of the pre-1972 sound recordings, fair use provides the appropriate defense to use the recordings if they are copyrighted, and if they are out of copyright, then we're free to use them under the fair use defense. The issue affects their licensing, but as long as we presume non-free and that they meet non-free requirements (which seems to be the case here), then the image will be fine whether the license is free or non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that pre-1972 sound recordings are protected at state level, not federal levels. State law does not have to use the same fair use criteria as the federal law. There is no chance that this is in the public domain. Independently of this, the musical composition is protected by federal copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this recording was first published outside the US, doesn't it have federal copyright protection? Hirtle footnote 1 leads me to here where in section 7 it says "Furthermore, pre-1972 foreign sound recordings are accorded federal copyright protection — something U.S. sound recordings lack, as explained above". So, it is reasonable to assume the work is covered under federal copyright and fair use provisions apply. Thincat (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep There is an ongoing discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record where Carl Lindberg says URAA specifically restored copyright (i.e.federal copyright) to non-US records. Even if state copyright applies as well, presumably federal preemption would mean fair use would be held to be applicable. In any case copyright on sound recordings is not relevant in this case since this was a soundtrack. not a record, and film/TV copyright applies in UK and US law. This is a snippet and so fair use law applies (in UK law as well). A fair use claim is a priori tenable. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 9 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.

File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the overuse of the image in 6 articles violates WP:NFCC. A fair assessment shows that the image could likely be used in 2-3 articles, including the painter, the work, and one period example. Since the accompanying content is 100 % the same in the three period articles, the suggestion of the painting staying in 20th-century Western Art (being the most specific period) is the best choice. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:54, 6 February 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 file really needed on all 6 articles? especially when it has its own article? Werieth (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It is needed in the various historical articles in which it appears. It illustrates educational articles about the history of western painting as an example of the birth of British expressionism. It visually illustrates the European connection with abstract expressionism as well as the state of important contemporary painting in the UK after WW II...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again this shows the problem with how the Painting article hierarchy is written not using appropriate summary style to avoid reuse of the same works multiple times. With proper summary style, the painting as an example of 20th century western art would be fine but it wouldn't need repeated uses in the higher outline levels. The number of uses can be trimmed to three (work, artists, and one period example). --MASEM (t) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again we disagree - you say 3 I say 5...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you haven't shown understanding oif how to write articles on a visual subject with regards to NFC policy properly. The goal is minimize non free use and this is a clear case of overuse. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The images are needed; the few times it's used are well within the policy guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- No they are if these articles were written in proper summary style. You have nearly the same paragraph text about one painting (this one) in History of Painting, Western Painting, and 20th Century Western Painting, violating both writing style guidelines and showing little discretion for using NFC in only the most limited locations. Particularly considering there is a full article on the work itself. You've written the articles in a poor manner to force and require the use, but the articles structures can be changed to avoid that and minimize nonfree and better present information to the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  - - Personally, I would limit it to one, but two (painter and work) would be acceptable too. Using this image in five articles is just playing too loose with the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

As it is an important work by an important artist, its placement in articles spanning long periods of art history is justified. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 12 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.

Bucky

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the images should not be removed, although no discussion of applicable policy and where the non-free images stand in said policy has taken place. Editors should, in future unrelated situations, remember what Masem points out: Merging images in a user-created montage does not work to reduce non-free, a collage still counts for as many individual images that it includes. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:09, 6 February 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 we really need 5 non-free files for this article? Werieth (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say so, the character has had several drastic notable transformations in its history and there isn't one that would accurately represent the character as a whole.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hang around comic book articles much? Doesn't make it right I know and I know of the other ones exist guideline that I have mixed feelings on...but I do feel this is better than some of that particular media. My two cents is that the article wants to depict him as the sidekick Bucky, along with him being the Winder Soldier and Captain America. Also wants to depicts the depiction of Stan as both Bucky and Winter Soldier. Perhaps a merging like here and this will work for the images that aren't leads. (Separating the comic book aliases from the IOM aliases of course). Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging images in a user-created montage does not work to reduce non-free. The one in Eddie Brock will be considered as 3 separate non-free images even though its all in one file. Only a montage created by the copyright owner can be used and considered as a single non-free. (Note that user-created montages are not never allowed to be used, as sometimes can be appropriate like in the case of the Doctor Who character image) but they simply don't reduce non-free usage). --MASEM (t) 03:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I am glad you got that out of your chest. Although what you said is right. I still think it can help with fair use on a article...and help benefit the article too. Just like Wikipedia guidelines want little images on a list article as possible. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, but replacing X images with a single image that is user-built from those X images (assuming all non-free) does not change how NFC is enforced - that will be considered X non-free images. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that...my only problem with these lectures is that they aren't asking the OP's question. It's about a article just as much as it's about images. Thanks for clarifying that that isn't a solution but it is slowly becoming a different topic entirely. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So yeah to sum it up I agree with what TriiipleThreat then. Unless there is strong opinions otherwise. Forget my own merge image idea that still helps improve articles sometimes (like the Doctor article you mentioned) but doesn't change how many fair use images there is. Which I better understood the first time you said it. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 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.

File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is passes the Threshold of Originality as the image contains gloss effects. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:44, 6 February 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.

Starting to think this is pd-ineligible; it is just a sphere with basic gloss effects in it (even more basic than the previous) ViperSnake151 Talk 18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gloss effects likely make it copyrightable - they are similar to the idea of photographers having copyright on 3D works for lighting and shading even if they are photographing a PD work. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I don't know about that. There is an image on Commons with the same exact look, and it hasn't any attention from anybody to think that it's copyrightable. Blurred Lines 18:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The most recent example that has been reviewed is the Oreo logo File:Oreocookielogo.jpg which had been on Commons but review there pointed out that the 3D/glow effect was too complex to be uncopyrightable and moved here. That ABC logo on commons is probably not appropriate either. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 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.

File:Gone with the Wind cover.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in two articles and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:02, 6 February 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.

In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state) and Arts in Atlanta, the image fails WP:NFCC#8, as the book cover is not the subject of discussion in the article, but rather the image is being used decoratively. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. File:Crescent Apartments, Atlanta, Georgia.jpg can be used instead (a free image where margeret mitchell lived while writing it) to showcase this. --MASEM (t) 04:26, 8 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.

File:Smokey And The Bandit Poster.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in the article and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:04, 6 February 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.

In Culture of Georgia (U.S. state), the image is being used entirely decoratively, in violation of WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 8 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.

File:Official-Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in one article and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:06, 6 February 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) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if a raionale was added for that second article (about the founder) it would be inapproprite given the organization has its own article where the logo is otherwise appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, the point of debate is whether or not this logo can be used in this article? If that is the case, then why not simply remove it from the offending article and only allow it to be used on the organisation's own page? Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 22:28, 12 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.

File:Jimmy two-shoes titlecard.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article and should be removed as this issue has not been addressed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:09, 6 February 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) 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in Jimmy Two-Shoes (season 1). The image is not essential for a readers understanding of the article, nor would its removal be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. Doesn't seem to fall into one of the categories listed at WP:NFCI, unless the use is considered similar to a titlecard and as such covered by WP:NFCI#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the season 1 titlecard is different from the season 2 titlecard, it would appear to perform the quite useful service of helping watchers of an unknown episode identify which season the episode is from. But the basic rationale would seem to be exactly that explained in WP:NFCI#1 -- for identification, and to show how the show was presented/marketed. Jheald (talk) 21:01, 21 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.

File:On Earth's Furrowed Brow.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in one article and the image has previously been removed. Tagged as Orphaned fair use. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:11, 6 February 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 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the use in Timothy Lee Barnwell violates NFCC#8 and should therefore be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:04, 12 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.

File:The Face of Appalachia.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in one article and has previously been removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:12, 6 February 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 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, should be removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:05, 12 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.

File:Hands in Harmony.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been removed from listed article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:12, 6 February 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 and WP:NFCC#10c in Timothy Lee Barnwell. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 12 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.

File:ABS-CBN logo 2014.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is not above the TOO and therefore is pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:14, 6 February 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) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't look original enough for copyright. I'd rather change it to PD-textlogo or at least {{PD-USonly}}. De728631 (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I, too, expect that the United States copyright office would refuse to register it on the grounds of lacking sufficient graphical authorship. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:50, 12 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.

File:Sun Shenlu PLAAF.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFLISTS in one article and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's several images on that page that also fail NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now wait a minute, WP:NFLISTS also apply to unique historical photos as well? Even when the photo is only thing that readers can use to identify historically notable persons that the list discuses? Jim101 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We have individual articles on the fliers represented by these photos (according to that table), so the identification is fine on the respective pages dedicated to the individual pilots. But not on the list page. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 13 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.

File:Li Han PLAAF.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFLISTS in one article and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This appears to fail the first main test at Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and as such to be in the public domain in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The first main test at Commons:Commons:URAA-restored copyrights requires that it was published in an eligible country. The country of first publication was presumably China, which is an eligible country. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the first test requires that this had been published in China (or another eligible country) in order for URAA to restore US copyright in this work. I see no evidence that this image had been published in China (or another eligible country) prior to the publication at the site specified as the source of this image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The image looks like a scan of a paper publication, so it was definitely published somewhere. Unfortunately, the only source is "图片来源：新华网", i.e. "Photo source: Xinhuanet", the website where it is hosted. Also note that URAA is irrelevant for unpublished photographs; such photographs instead have to comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}, regardless of their source country. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question on the definition of published vs unpublished due to China's stupid two tiered publishing system...what about publications, which by law, can only be made available to certain members of a society (in China's case it would be card carrying party members vs. everyone else)? does that count as published or unpublished?

Also, an extension on the previous question...what about mass media sources (People's Daily, PLA Daily, etc published in the 1950s) which were originally available to public, now were restrict to research achieves controlled by the Chinese government...does that count as published or unpublished?

Anyway, those are just questions on what to look for and what to upload if I go on my next research trip. Jim101 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In the United States and before 1978, "publication" would typically mean that any member of the public could access the newspaper. If access to certain newspapers was restricted, then this might count as "limited publication" (which doesn't count as publication), but I'm not sure. This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure exactly how a US court would argue here. To make it further complicated, there is also the possibility that photos like this were published outside China. If the publication in China didn't qualify as "publication", but the publication outside China did, then USA would consider the other country to be the source country, which may result in different URAA considerations.

It shouldn't matter whether access is restricted for the moment, if they were originally published in the 1950s. Compare with things such as ancient books. There might only be a single copy left of certain 15th century books, and if that copy is held by a private collector, then the book might not be easily accessible for other people, but the book still counts as "published". --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 17 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.

File:Washington Avenue in the 1940s.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLD closure as there is no opposition to the image being in the public domain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:24, 6 February 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.

1940s postcard. It's a bit dubious if things like this were renewed, so likely PD. Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 13 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.

File:George Ferguson manifesto.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC#1 as it could be replaced by a free image. Note: There is another deletion discussion open: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 28#File:George Ferguson manifesto.jpg-- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The subject, George Ferguson (architect), is alive, kicking, still making public appearances as Mayor of Bristol and still wearing red trousers. There is therefore no true bar to creating a free replacement. William Avery (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This might be justified if it was in a context of "George Ferguson, as he presented himself for his manifesto photograph". Certainly the wearing of what looks like a white poppy and red poppy together is politically significant (that alone would justify the image, if anyone cared to write content discussing it).

If it's being used as merely a Ferguson mugshot though, it's a clear fail. If you just hold a camera up in the middle of Bristol, Ferguson will materialise in front of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The current rationale says "The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, illustrating a single educational article", so I would say it is being used as a mugshot. The article where it is used contains no discussion of poppies, or how he presented himself, beyond a mention of the standard red trousers. William Avery (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And if he is as public as that, I would not be surprised if one can convince he to dress and pose for such a photo to match the manifesto one, if that appearance is critical. But yes, this image is completely improper. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 16 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.

File:Wang Hai PLAAF.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This ridiculous situation is a perfect argument to move Wikipedia into a place with a less broken legislation, fast. US disregard foreign copyright, they get publicly slapped in the face for it, they "fix" it in the usual convoluted lawmaking style, and end up disregarding foreign copyright expiration. If it were possibly to buy a nation a cookie, here's a good reason to do it. All the while, the Wikipedia content police have everlasting fun. No, this is not a call for action, just a remark :) Nettings (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You're going to find the same copyright issues anywhere in the world. The laws are not unified to any significant degree, and if we were to move the servers to say, Europe, you'd still find lots of problems with foreign copyrights. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the same kinds of problems exist in all countries. For example, Japan discovered an interesting bug in the Berne Convention: by simply refusing to recognise the statehood of a country, you can refuse protection to works from that country. See this case between a North Korean film producer and a Japanese TV broadcaster. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 18 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.

File:Fan Wanzhang PLAAF.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. (see above discussion) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 16 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.

File:Zhao Baotong PLAAF.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. (see above discussion) -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:NFLISTS in List of Korean War flying aces. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 16 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.

File:Weirton Medical Center Logo.gif

Non-Admin Closure: Previously deleted by Admin Mark Arsten -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:34, 6 February 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 simple so ineligble? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Note that the article Weirton Medical Center is up for speedy deletion as A7, so the file might become useless to keep anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 19 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.

Love for Sale (Boney M. album)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the use of two covers in this situation is acceptable and meets criteria of WP:NFCC. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:36, 6 February 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 article has two different covers. I added details about the racy cover. I wrote the details about alt cover as "different", but I can't find sources discussing the alt cover. Does use of both covers meet NFCC? George Ho (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The covers are very different. The U.S. was the biggest music market in the world at the time, and so a hugely important market for any band. So it would seem to fit the criteria. Jheald (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably likely that the US cover was done to reduce the racy-ness of the common cover at the time, so while it is okay to use both, I bet some research can find out why the US cover was done differently if you can already source how the main cover was considered racy. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked through vinyl editions. I realized that the front US cover is also the standard back cover. Therefore, should I use the back cover that contains the tracklist, or should the American/Canadian front cover remain? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd keep the normal US cover, this emphasizes how they dropped the racy cover for the less controversal one. (At least they didn't make it all black....) --MASEM (t) 18:01, 22 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 Otto Show

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus supports the inclusion of an episode poster. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:37, 6 February 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 the poster that promotes this episode. I also found the drawing promo. Should either image be used? George Ho (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A promotional poster for a specific episode (eg its branding by the copyright holders themselves) is reasonable to include as an identifying image. I know a handful of other Simpsons episodes have these and they are reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Added poster. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 22 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.

This Is Spinal Tap

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus supports using a movie poster, and in this situation the re-release poster is acceptable. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:42, 6 February 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.

Should I use either the VHS release poster or the screenshot to replace the re-release poster? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would completely avoid VHS release posters over the film poster, as , as this shows, the VHS poster is filled with ad-speak and less visually helpful. The re-release here is fine. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What about screenshot? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the film never had a movie poster (some of the really early ones, and today, some more independent ones), we would not use a screenshot over the poster. The movie poster in the standard format will give a lot more information (actors, production company, etc.) than the screenshot. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 22 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.

You Kent Always Say What You Want

Non-Admin Closure: There is no consensus for the use of either described image. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:47, 6 February 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.

Should I use the poster of streaking Homer to represent the episode? George Ho (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be reasons if you can get a clean version of the poster (digital image ideally). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Also, you mean that you'd approve, regardless of image quality? --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A photo of the ad (which at one point was likely a digital image somewhere) like the one you have isn't good enough quality to justify that; but if instead you can find the ad as a digital image, then that would seem to be fine. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the 300-parody poster? --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems more like promoting the benchmark than the episode, so probably not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 28 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.

At Long Last Leave

Non-Admin Closure: There is no consensus to support the inclusion of the listed poster. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:47, 6 February 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 hope the poster represents this episode. This should be the last request I make about posters of episodes. George Ho (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that helps in this particular case as the poster simply marks the milestone of 500 episodes and not anything specific about it (compared to other posters). --MASEM (t) 15:55, 23 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.

File:Ricky B. Byrd, Jr.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free image is replaceable and has been tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:48, 6 February 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.

Uh... is any user allowed to upload their copyright work into Wikipedia services? Blurred Lines 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not under a non-free license (all user-made contributions are expected to be GFDL, CC-BY or the like, including text and images). --MASEM (t) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The current status fails our non-free content criteria and as an unused user-photo it has no educational value for the project. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Another policy states that people who are still alive in copyrighted photos shouldn't be here anyway, so I don't know if I should nominate it for a replaceable fair use nomination. Blurred Lines 13:25, 27 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.

Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of blank Episodes

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is it is proper to remove logos from lists of episodes as it should only be used on the main article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:50, 6 February 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.

Recently, there has been altercation with the removals of the logos from the lists of episodes of Family Guy, American Dad!, and maybe even more to be exact. I posted on PeeJay2k3's talk page about this situation, and his responds was this. Do you agree with the conclusion that non free TV logos that are used in list of episodes should be all removed? Blurred Lines 05:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a proper removal. The logo for a TV show - if non-free - only has one allowable place, barring any additional critical commentary on the logo itself, and that's the main show page. We can't use non-free logos on subpages. Free, word-based logos would be fine (and it's unfortunately that there's that TV in the "Family Guy" logo, as without it, it would be a free mark). If you need illustration, this is often where you turn to free images of the people involved, like a pic of Seth McFarlene on both pages mentioned would be fine. --MASEM (t) 07:44, 26 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.

File:Go Rentals logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:51, 6 February 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 {{PD-textlogo}}? Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes (US company). --MASEM (t) 01:31, 27 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.

File:Minuet.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is screenshot is pd-ineligible whereas photo is shown to be PD-self. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:54, 6 February 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 {{PD-ineligible}}? See for example Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was just the screenshot (and not a photo of the screen), arguably yes. But being a photo, hmmm, I'm not sure how much new originality could be claimed on that. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that it says that the uploader took the photo. The uploader used {{PD-self}} in the initial revision of the file information page, although User:Ilaiho later removed the tag. It is therefore not important to figure out whether the photograph added additional creativity. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 27 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.

File:Wcau70s.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is pd-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:56, 6 February 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.

PD-logo? RJaguar3 | u | t 01:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

PD, but probably could be remade in SVG to be truly free. (Graphics Lab request possibly?) --MASEM (t) 02:11, 27 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.

File:IOS 7 home screen.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFCC in duplicate use, but image has previously been removed from article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:58, 6 February 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 in IOS 7: used twice in the article, but only has one FUR. Second use fails WP:NFG. Current revision fails WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not needed a second time particularly as the image is within a screen's worth of the text discussing the icons. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 27 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.

File:IOS 7 Control Center.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image has previously been removed from article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:59, 6 February 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:NFG in IOS 7. Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 27 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.

List of senior secondary schools in Ghana

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free images fail WP:NFCC and have all been removed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The non-free images in this article fail WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Obvious violation removed. Werieth (talk) 21:45, 27 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.

File:TheCompleatWitch.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image below the TOO and therefore PD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The FUR is incorrect as the article isn't specifically dedicated as a whole to a discussion of this cover, but maybe the cover is below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

US novel, so yes the cover is below the threshold of originality. This makes File:TheSatanicWitch.jpg inappropriate as 1) that one is non-free, regardless how you slice it and 2) replacable with the original book cover. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 29 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.

File:WEDX New Logo.png

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 4 February 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.

Surely this logo is PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't seem to understand: The file is tagged as {{PD-textlogo}} and is on Commons. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the local version was changed then deleted (03:13, 3 February 2014 Magog the Ogre (talk | contribs) deleted page File:WEDX New Logo.png (F8: File available on Wikimedia Commons under the same name). Withdraw as its now updated. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38, 4 February 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.

File:2014 Winter Olympics logo.svg

PD-text image, tag changed

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 looks like PD-Text to me (text is so simple as to not be copyrightable, Olympic rings are PD). Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it is PD-Text --MASEM (t) 00:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, changed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 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.

File:955 PGC logo.png

Clearly PD-text --MASEM (t) 16:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This is {{PD-textlogo}}, right? Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 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.

Star Wars music

All participants but one agree that musical notations are superfluous. The counter-argument of Wikidwitch falls flat against fundamentals policies: Wikipedia is meant to impart free knowledge; in fact, it goes a long way to stress on the "free" part. As for removing some of the audio samples, I can see that there is a consensus on doing so but nothing on how to do it. I advise either a bold edit (which may follow with BRD sequences) or more discussions. However, keeping this discussion thread open won't lead to said discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 February 2014‎

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 18 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The music notation is absolutely unneeded (reading through shows no discussion of the musical composition, and the average reader is not going to be able to appreciate those for what they are) so that's half the non-frees gone. But I would think that the iconic nature of the Star Wars films and its music can justify a larger number of music samples, but I think there's maybe 2 or 3 that are too many (Princess Leia, Han Solo + Leia, and Yoda seem less icon than the other themes given). I'm also confused by the use of MIDI over .ogg for this - it wouldn't affect NFC outside of removing any possible creativity on the MIDI version from a soundtrack-ripped .ogg, and the .ogg would clearly be a better representation (even at the low quality we ask) for understanding the orchestration of the music. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The musical notation is absolutely needed if an article is going to discuss thematic material. It doesn't matter what "the average reader" is going to appreciate - apart from this being a highly subjective measure, Wikiepdia is meant to impart knowledge, not limit its content to what the reader already understands. There's always the option of replacing the notation with a text description - something along the lines of "the tune that goes dum-dum--dum dah-dahhhh dadada daaah da" - but failing that, there's no more effective way of illustrating a theme than with a couple of bars of notation. These fall completely within Fair Use and I don't know why anyone would want to go to the trouble of deleting them when their presence is perfectly justified. Take these out and the whole article is diminished - like a seventh.Wikidwitch (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need that many musical notation files, however. "Yoda's Theme", "Parade of the Ewoks", "Han Solo and the Princess", and similar don't seem nearly as significant as some of the others. We also should evaluate the need of these files strictly in terms of what sourced textual content is present in the article. In other words, if there's less than one or two sourced paragraphs dedicated to the material depicted in the fair use files, we should remove the fair use file as not necessary to coverage of the material. The project considers fair use files to be harmful, and only acceptable when necessary. Unless the editors involved in the article can demonstrate the significance and complexity of the material by adequately supporting it with sourced text in the article, the file doesn't belong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Mendaliv. "Princess Leia's Theme" is probably also non-essential. The main theme, the Imperial March, and the Force theme are the most important pieces of music in the series by far. Whether or not the Rebel Fanfare needs to stay is up for debate IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no description of the musical themes, however, to require the notation. Nothing about chords, notes, rests, etc. that show an appreciation of the music composition that otherwise can't be heard. Spot checking other articles on musical works, I don't see a lot of musical notations being used even when the thematic contribution is discussed in depth, opting to describe what the reader will hear aurally as opposed to the score. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a need for the notations either. They are not discussed at all in prose as far as I can see, with the exception of one sentence in the Rebel Fanfare bullet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There are way too many non-free music samples. We definitely need to get rid of many of them. I do not, however, have a good opinion of which should stay and which should go. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:36, 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.

Taskbar

As a result of this discussion (direct or indirect), number of non-free images in the article are reduced to five (from the original eight). Mac OS X dock image is deleted, Windows 8.1 screenshot survived deletion on Commons, Windows 8 screenshot moved to Commons. Argument for removing Windows 7 screenshot can also be made, on the grounds of redundancy, but in this discussion there is no consensus in favor of its immediate removal. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 7 February 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 8 non-free files when we have free examples (Unix based OSes) Werieth (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep. They're very usable as images of Windows of which a large part of the article. So I don't see any problems with them. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images is a subset of non-free content. Just because a large part of the article is biased towards Windows doesn't mean that it is correct. Werieth (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

What bias? Windows was the one that originated and shaped the concept of the taskbar, as well as the most well-known implementation, so it's only natural for the article to be largely centered on it. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be trimmed down drastically. The changes in the task bar for windows, for example, should be tracked in the article about Windows (along with all the other major UI changes). Really, all this article need is one image that can even be a free mockup to show what the typical features of a task bar is, and then leave the individual OS pages to go into any appropriate details there. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The 8.1 and 8 taskbars can easily be "free" if its only loaded up with open source programs (8's logo is definitely pd-ineligible). ViperSnake151 Talk 04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To Masem: I fail to see the problem with showing the taskbar's history. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The Windows taskbar and its pictures are an important part of the article, as they show the concept's origins, its evolution, and its most well-known implementation, which is the one most versions are based on. Removing them would hurt the article. - 190.30.212.61 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns myself as to whether an excessive number of non-free icons on some of the images (particularly File:MacOSX Leopard Dock Overloaded.png) violates minimality (NFCC#3). RJaguar3 | u | t 18:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I have nominated File:Windows 8.1 Taskbar.png for deletion but other than that, I categorically disagree with Masem. Keeping a low number of non-free contents in an article is good but we must not contract a psychological condition in which we are averse to seeing more then two non-free images in close proximity or more than four images in an article, not matter what. Replacing non-free images with mockups is against the spirit of WP:NFCC. Fleet Command (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

How does the replacement of nonfree with a freely created mockup go against the spirit of NFCC?? That's exactly what NFCC says should be done. --MASEM (t) 09:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very dangerous argument. "Freely created mockup" is very close to falsification/misrepresentation. This is where NFC over-policing is clearly harming Wikipedia. I'm really sure I don't want to see "freely created mockup footage" of current news, for example. This page is an overview and historical timeline of taskbars. This warrants as many non-free illustrations as the article wants to discuss. Keep.Nettings (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A mockup of what the general concept of a OS taskbar (showing common elements like a launcher button, running tasks, etc.) is not misrepresentation and completely appropriate. A mockup of a specific OS version of a taskbar would be ( and also likely a derivative work and thus not free as well). The article is only about the concept of the taskbar so we don't need examples from every version of every OS. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What "we" need or don't need is really an editorial discussion that should be held on the article's talk page, by people willing to contribute to the article. There is no blatant NFC violation here that requires intervention or forced deletion of any of the NFC content. People who would like to suggest ways to reduce the use of NFC in a constructive way should really take that discussion to Talk:Taskbar. Until then, talk about what an article needs or doesn't need, is cheap. Nettings (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. NFC is a global concern, and cannot be discussed in the vacuum of the article's talk page where retention of images will be desired. This NFCR process is specifically designed to discuss problematic issues and solutions in a global board since NFC is a core policy required by the Foundation, no different from handling BLP issues at a global noticeboard.--MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

FleetCommand, you didn't nominated it for deletion, you've just marked it as copyvio, that's difference. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 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.

File:Autumn Rhythm.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the image fails WP:NFCC for being used on too many articles. And should therefore only be used on the main article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:49, 7 February 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 file really needed on 9 different articles? Werieth (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an important painting by an important artist and has it's own article. It's use as an example is useful in most of if not all those articles. freshacconci talk to me 15:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This only seems to satisfy WP:NFCC in Autumn Rhythm (Number 30). In all other articles, it fails WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFG, WP:NFC#UUI §6 and similar things. In the article Jackson Pollock, where WP:NFCC#3a is the issue, one could however choose to remove two of the other images instead and keep this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 21 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.

Le Pont de l'Europe

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image fails WP:NFG and should be removed from the specified article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg is being used in violation of WP:NFG with zero supporting critical commentary Werieth (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is improper. On the other hand, the now-PD painting can be used on the JEff Wall article to show how "Mimic" borrows that arrangement. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 6 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.

Jimi Hendrix

Non-Admin Closure: Procedural close as there are more specific discussions about specific images on the articles talk page and below at WP:NFCR. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:36, 9 February 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.

How many unfree files does this article need? There appears to be a dispute over the arrest photo in the Drug use and violence section. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with - excluding the arrest photo - the 4 photos and the 3 sound samples for how notable an artist Hendrix is; that's a completely fair number and if anything there's only one (the smaller one of him playing solo). I don't think the arrest photo is necessary to discuss the fact he was arrested. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 7 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.

Charlotte Salomon

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is the non-free images are of acceptable use in the article with proper sourcing. User:Bus stop should be reminded that Wikilawyering is not an acceptable form of discussion and arguing against someone who is trying to assist your case for inclusion is rather unhelpful. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:42, 9 February 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 all 7 files on this article Werieth (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is a bit harder to see where to cut down. The three images that are used to make up the "Signature images" appear to have to be discussed as a whole together based on the sourcing, and while it would be nice if we could do that with one file containing all three images, I don't immediatley see this type of image out there (And a user montage of course would be improper). So these three need to stay. Of the others, then, I would likely consider replacing the self portrait with the photograph as the lead image and remove that self-portait (it isn't a particularly good example of her style). The other images all appear appropriate so, six images should be fine given the nature of 3 of them. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User Werieth didn't notify me,the uploader of these images, that he had made this request for a review. Rather he began by nominating the article for an AfD, then edited that to indicate it should have been an NFCR without either deleting the AfD nor notifying properly the NFCR.

Masem's analyis is a good one I think, and he's right to say the self-portrait is not characteristic of her work. I don't have any objection to replacing the portrait by the photograph (though the portrait is referenced in the note about Griselda Pollock's criticism of the 1981 edition of Salomon's work). It's also rather iconic. Worth stressing I think that Salomon's work came into PD in EU this year and there's no question of lack of respect for commercial opportunities here. Just an attempt to get work illustrated in an encyclopedia mounted on US servers. In the past the Charlotte Salomon foundation has been very protective of her. I wrote a blog a few years back on her for Holocaust Day, illustrating it with a single image (sitting alone in an hotel room after leaving Berlin, not one of the images I elected for the article), and was astonished to receive an email from the Foundation reminding me that her works were still in copyright! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I used to leave a {{non-free review}} on the article, but a recent RfC determined that such a notice should not be left on an article. I am not an administer and I cannot delete AfD's, However I did tag the AfD for deletion and it was later deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Salomon. Werieth (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. Understood. Thanks for that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Many Colours—I haven't seen any source suggesting that this is "not characteristic of her work"[1]. Also I don't think we are restricted to including images that are "characteristic". Notability for this individual is not limited to activity in the visual arts but also for being a victim of the holocaust. The dual notability of artist and victim of the holocaust is, in my opinion, addressed by the self portrait. In it she presents a subjective though (in my opinion) seemingly accurate image of herself which might compare favorably with a similar photographic portrait. I don't think the self portrait should be removed from the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust, then that's reason to keep as well. I would, however, still switch the photo and that, since the photo is appropriate for identification but otherwise not the subject of commentary and thus fine in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—from where are you deriving that there would be a need to "source that her self-portrait is known to have been drawn in a bleak style by her, or as interpreted by experts, due to her experience in the Holocaust"[2]? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been told several times what NFCC#8 "contextual significance" requires, particularly in the case where there are multiple appropriate non-frees that do the same job. If this picture is different from those, we need to know why to justify their inclusion, and that means backing up the claim "it's influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience" with sources to include. Which sounds like it can be done, but that does need to be done. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—from where are you deriving that the self-portraint is "influenced by her traumatic Holocaust experience"[3]? Who said that? Did somebody say or imply that? I certainly did not. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Coat seemed to imply that the dullness of her self-portrait is based on Holocaust-related experiences. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And a simple search reveals at least a few such sources exist [4] to support that after learning many of her relatives were killed, her self-portrait reflected the bleakness of her situation in the early 1942. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The "uncharacteristic" remark comes from Griselda Pollock noted at note [1] in the article. But Pollock was at pains to open new spaces for a critical appreciation of Salomon's work other than merely autobiographical ones (starting her piece with a quote from Walter Benjamin , another holocaust victim - he committed suicide rather than face a concentration camp, "Reminiscences, even extensive ones, do not always amount to an autobiography ..."), and those spaces would certainly include viewing her work as a holocaust document, which is where we should all find common ground (and which indeed I had lost sight of), so I do support Bus and would really prefer to see the self-portrait kept. It is her only self-portrait. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that I've looked up to verify, I think the self-portrait can be kept (along with the rest), but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described to explain the situation she was facing when she painted it so that we assure no further issues with NFCC#8 are there (this possibly can be more in a biographic context). --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—in this post you linked to this source. You are saying in this post: "…but I would recommend that adding sources like the one I described…". Can you please tell me what material from that source you find applicable to the image of the Charlotte Salomon self-portrait? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't copy and paste from Google Books but it the point where it says "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggled of uprooted people everywhere"... and where it ends "her self-potrait magnified a life that was expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless, and Jewish." This is not the only valid text but representative of making a strong case for keeping the image without question. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—you refer to "making a strong case for keeping the image without question". Who are we "making" this "case" for? Can you please tell me who we are trying to convince that justification can be found for the inclusion of that image in this article? The image is of a painting made by the subject of this biography. I believe this is the language in your source that you are referring to: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." Maybe I'm overlooking the applicable text. What do you find in that excerpt that is applicable to our article? I am not sure I really find language in that excerpt that is applicable to our article. Nevertheless I think there is justification for adding the image to our article because it is an image of artwork made by the artist who is the subject of our biography. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Because as everything is currently presented on the page, the image would otherwise violated NFCC#8 (there's no contextual significance give for the self portrait), and NFCC#3 (it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo, and other more significant examples of her artwork); thus to avoid any of these images coming up in question again in the future for different people, these must be addressed. Yes, this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article but that means that a different person reviewing non-free use may come across it and reach the same issue, that #8 and #3 are not met if they are unaware of this discussion.
The importance of that source (and others like it) point to the fact she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that. That's not an inference we as Wikipedia editors can make but we have secondary expert sources that do that for us so that allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life, making its inclusion crystal clear in meeting NFCC#8 and being a unique style that the other non-frees don't capture, allowing NFCC#3 to be met. We don't just include artwork painted by a person on that's person's page just because they painted it. It has to have contextual context to assure that it is an appropriate exception of non-free allowance as required by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it to others to make an edit here. I don't really feel confident about making one myself. I simply don't know her work well enough and there's been rather a lot written about her in the last 30 years or so, much of it very closely argued. Regarding the self-portrait I doubt there's much known about it. All I was really at pains to do was to try finally to get her article illustrated. I don't think there's an unreasonable number of images there, but I'm content to let the community judge that. Perhaps some brave soul will split Life? or Theater? into a separate article (I couldn't possibly myself, but I should be happy to assist: I'll keep the page watched). That should help. Thank you all for your time and input here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally I thought to try to upload some of these images to the French page, expecting I could do so on a local upload. But when I tried I found myself at a Commons upload (where of course these images aren't allowed because they're not PD in the US until at least 2059). Is that right, or is it just because I wasn't trying on a French server? It strikes me as slightly odd that we can see these images (or at least some of them) on the English pages hosted on the US servers on a Fair Use rationale, but not on EU pages where in fact Salomon's work is now PD. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the technical problems, but unfortunately as en.wiki and commons are on US soil so we have to treat them with US copyright laws, which have longer terms. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—the photo is not an artwork by the artist that is the subject of this biography. You are saying that "it would be excessive in that there is a second identifying image, the photo"[5]. The self-portrait clearly has "contextual significance" because it is an artwork of the subject of this biography. I understand that you disagree on this point. You have expressed that before. But we must look at the language in our policy. You are implying that we should include language conveying that "she drew it while learning of the fate of loved ones during the Holocaust as well as her own experience, and as such, the portait's bleak nature is a reflection on that."[6] The inclusion of any language approximating that in our article is entirely optional. Policy does not require the inclusion of language as a justification for the inclusion of a Non-Free image. You say that your source "allows us to tie the manner of which the painting comes across to the trauma she was facing in life"[7]. That is probably original research. I don't think your source draws a connection between the appearance of the self-portrait painting and the "trauma" in her life. We are doing more than just justifying Non-Free images. We are writing an article. Any language in the article should contribute to the overall article. We should not contrive to include unlikely or dubious commentary as a justification for the inclusion of Non-Free images. Policy does not call for this. We should almost always opt for the inclusion of text in the article if it advances the quality of the article. But when text is problematic in some way, its inclusion should be avoided. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly being tenacious and wikilaywering and there's no point in continuing to repeat policy at you. The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—you say "The image use can be justified, sourced discussion that clearly exists can be added to do so." You should not degrade the quality of the article to "justify" the inclusion of a Non-Free image especially as no language in policy is compelling you to do anything at all. As you have said, "this discussion could close now with the self-portrait being kept and without touching the article"[8]. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you are twisting my words. Please stop now. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—WP:NFCC#8 calls for: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This says absolutely nothing about the presence of text in an article providing justification for the inclusion of a non-free image. The language in policy could very easily say that text was required if this were the case. It does not. If you wish to change policy then that is what you should be endeavoring to do. You should not be endeavoring to enforce nonexistent policy to the detriment of an article. Sources are used to advance the interests of quality in an article. We should not be contriving to concoct language perhaps tenuously supported by sources if that language does not add to the overall quality of the article. In this case it is perfectly clear that the artwork is contextually significant. The subject of the biography is an artist and the the artwork is her self-portrait. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't meet "contextual significance" without discussing it in the text" - that's the meaning of that phrase which has been made clear to you many times. And to say that adding the fact that her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing as a result of her experiences and the loss of her relatives in the Holocaust is going to make the article worse, how? That seems like extremely compelling information to add to the article not only for helping non-free but to explain what influenced her style. And that all can be sourced without original research. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—you say "You can't meet 'contextual significance' without discussing it in the text"[9]. But this is not found in policy, and in many instances incorrect. Policy language is perfectly capable of alerting us to a requirement for text in an article relating to a non-free image, as a justification for the inclusion of that non-free image. You repeatedly point to WP:NFCC#8 as a source for such instruction in policy. It is not found there. WP:NFCC#8 reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about "discussing it in the text"[10]. Bus stop (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Masem—here again is the quote from your source: "Charlotte's work symbolizes the struggle of uprooted people everywhere, for the thousand parts of her self-portrait magnified a life which was considered expendable - the life of someone who was female, stateless and Jewish. In those years the making of diaries, autobiographies and self-portraits shows just how intently Jews cultivated an individuality that the Nazis sought to obliterate." What would you add to the article about the self-portrait, based on that excerpt from a source? You say "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing"[11]. The source, an excerpt from which I quote above, does not support your assertion that "her artwork (at the time she did her self-portrait) was bleak and depressing". As concerns "contextual significance", would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Gouache? Why not? The self-portrait is executed in gouache. But is the self-portrait significant in that context? Probably not. There are many examples of artworks executed in gouache, some of which would be free images. Would we be justified, based on our policy on "contextual significance", in including this self-portrait in our article on Charlotte Salomon? Probably we would. In the context of an article on the artist, Charlotte Salomon, a self portrait by that artist would have "contextual significance". In that context, a self-portrait of Charlotte Salomon is very significant, and it is not likely that any free images would be available to substitute for it. Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You continue to wikilaywer and refuse to get the point, especially when the discussion to be added would improve the article and the non-free justification. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 13 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.

Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen)

Non-Admin Closure: As the work is now in the public domain, all non-free recordings are replaceable by free ones thereby failing WP:NFCC#1 and should be removed accordingly. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:44, 9 February 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.

Given that the work is PD-1923 all the non-free files are replaceable Werieth (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - the recordings will still be copyrighted but we can now use a MIDI version created by a user put to the CC or PD to replace those now that the original score is no longer copyright. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged the sound recordings as replaceable non-free files. The images should in my opinion just be retagged as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} as there is nothing there which is copyrightable apart from the lyrics and musical compositions which are in the public domain because of age. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 12 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.

Gallery of country coats of arms

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free images on this article fail WP's non-free policies and should therefore be removed. As of now, it looks as if there are not any non-free files included in the article, but if one is found, any user can remove that image per the consensus established in this discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:52, 9 February 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.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which may have articles about everything which has notability. Every independent country in the world is notable enough to write about. I think everyone would agree on that statement.

The most prominent symbol of an independent country is its coat of arms. It may not be the most well-known symbol (that is normally the flag), but it is arguably the most prominent, as it stands for the government and its power, is displayed at central government buildings, at embassies, at border crossings, on official stamps and on the cover of passports etc. So I think the coat of arms of an independent country is notable enough to be displayed on Wikipedia. To display these coats of arms together and with links to the articles about each one of them is what an encyclopedia should be about, in my opinion. This is encyclopedic, fair and well within the limits of what is allowed for the images we have. I believe that the use of these works, to illustrate the object in question together with its corresponding symbols for other countries, where no freer equivalent is available on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Some people think that some (but not all) coats of arms should not be allowed to be displayed on that page. This is not consistent. Either we have an encyclopedic gallery of the coats of arms of all independent nations, or we delete the gallery all together. To treat some of the coats of arms as not free enough for this gallery is not rational.

The way they want the gallery to be displayed, seems to indicate they wouldn't even think it proper if the images they find to be non-free would be replace by other, acctually free images. They want these coats of arms not to be present at all in the gallery, as far as I understand. Arms Jones (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, first we are not to have articles about everything notable. Being notable means you can have a stand alone article, but we do not require it, nor is it practical.

Second, indexes based just on visual image identification, even if they were all free, is against how we work we images, per WP:IG. We link to Commons for galleries of free images, and we don't allow non-free in pure picture galleries, which this article presently is. Add to the fact that most people will not recognize their own country's coat of arms, less that of other countries - the better way for a reader to find this is to go to the country article where the coat of arms will be present in the infobox - whether free or not. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote may, not must, have articles about what is notable.

Commons is for plain image galleries, not for galleries with links to the apporpriate articles on each symbol. If people do not recognize the arms of their own country, then there's even more reason to have this. The gallery is for comparing coats of arms with eachother, which you can't do if you have to go in and out of articles all the time. What if more comparative text was added to the article? Should we delete the gallery of national flags too? But that's not the question here, the question is the rationale for displaying the arms. Arms Jones (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no text to guide the reader for comparing the various costs, so there's no reason to include all the images for that purpose. And yes, the gallery of national flags should be deleted too even though most of those are free images. It still fails WP:IG. --MASEM (t) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd put it slightly more softly than Masem, but the point is correct - from WP:IG, "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images." Note that it doesn't say "prohibited," just discouraged. However, replacing any fair-use imagery with free versions would certainly overcome one of the concerns raised. Repeated AfD's going back to 2008 have shown there is consensus to keep this page, but genuinely comparative text would also seem an important requirement. Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that each one of these coats has its own article it looks like this is a WP:NFC#UUI#6 violation too. I cannot see justification for non-free media in this gallery, especially when most of these coats have their own article which goes into fairly detailed information. Werieth (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Consider what you'll find in a print encyclopedia. Galleries are extremely rare in such a context, but the few exceptions I can remember seeing include flags and coats of arms — if we ignore the copyright issue, there's no good reason to prohibit such a page, since we shouldn't presume to tell the professional encyclopedias that they've included sections that aren't encyclopedic. Now back to the copyright issue: the whole reason for the existence of this page is to highlight the coats of arms themselves. You can't have a proper depiction of coats of arms, a proper kind of page to facilitate identification, with a thoroughly unprofessional Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies notice. Professional encyclopedias can include such sections because of fair use; if such a use be fair for dual educational/commercial purposes, it will definitely be fair for our purposes because we're nonprofit, and again it's absurd to think that omitting constituent parts of the gallery makes ours better than ones that the professional encyclopedias provide. The only good reason to exclude an image on copyright grounds is the issue of replaceability, since fair use provisions mandate that we use a PD or freely-licensed depiction of a blazon in place of a nonfree depiction of the same blazon. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  - No, you've completely omitted the fact that we're trying to minimize non-free use. Replacability is not the only reason to not use non-free images; if the non-free image is more appropriate in the academic context on one page, we should be limiting its use to that page, and reusing elsewhere where the context is much weaker is not appropriate. In this case, just to have a gallery of coat of arms with country names doesn't provide any context, when the individual COAs are used on the various country pages and probably with explaination of why the COA is like that, is way against the free content mission/non-free content resolution. Yes, it would be fine by fair use, but its not appropriate per non-free. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    - What we are discussing here is wether this is fair use or not for Wikipedia. Nyttend has clearly understood the implications of the questions, Masem has not. Still, Masem says "it would be fine by fair use" but then doesn't reach the logical conclussion to agree to allow this. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep removed Non-free content must meet every requirement of NFCC, not just some of them partially. A gallery should not display copyrighted images considering the lack of significant content (criterion #8) required to explain why non-free content is needed on the article. We can certainly including content on the gallery page that 'due to some coats of arms being held in copyright, that <insert countries here>'s coats of arms could not be displayed on the article directly', and link to the article's coat of arms. This would be the clear alternative, not to violate NFCC. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text already existing on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") It is quite possible to meet criterion #8 with the right explaining text, so there is no reason deleting the images just because such text does not exist there at present. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  - Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete all Non-free coat of arms images almost always violate WP:NFCC#1 as a free replacement can be created from the blazon. See for example Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 17#File:Arzachena-Stemma.png (and the following sections on the FFD page). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You have a point, but the people who started this did not want the non-free images to be replaced by free images but wanted the arms of those countries to be omitted for ever from the gallery, regardless of if there are non-free images or not, as can be seen in the explaining text which already is there on the page (it says "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies", it doesn't say "Some images can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies.") Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  - Please note that you are placing words in my mouth that I never said. What I stated that is if a free image can be made we shouldnt have a non-free file (see {{Di-replaceable fair use}}) In a case where it is possible to create a free image without violating copyright issues it should be done, and I have no issue with that. However I did state that may be a problem if the coat is still under copyright. Werieth (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    - I have not placed words in your mouth that you never said. You are the one who have wanted the text "Some coat of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies". I even asked you if you could accept free images but you didn't reply to the question even if you commented on it.. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      - Im going to have to place a {{fact}} tag on that statement. I have said that wikipedia policies forbid the use of copyrighted CoA's in galleries. To my knowledge if a CoA is still under copyright there is nothing we can do but except that fact and treat the image as we would any other under WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        The copyrighted image is one thing, the coat of arms is another. What if there was a free image of the same coat of arms? You have to understand, the same coat of arms can be rendered in many different images. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        Not necessarily, If the underlying CoA's is copyrighted anything based off of it is covered by the same copyright. (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). Copyright is a fairly large can of worms. If you can get an image that is under a free license and that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is under a free license there is no issue. However in many cases that may be difficult or impossible to do, due to the nature of copyright. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        You mean if the blazon is copyrighted? Well, normally it isn't, because it is protected legally by other means. The grant of arms is what protects the arms. Just like an invention is not copyrighted either but rather protected by a patent and a trademark is not copyrighted but protected by trademark registration. The coat of arms as such is never copyrighted, because it is another kind of intellectual property as compared to works of art or literary texts. So yes, there is a good chance there could be a free image of the arms, in a copyright sense, which possibly could be used. Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        Never use the term never, If you can provide solid evidence that the image/blazon is not under copyright that changes the media from non-free to free. However that evidence must be solid. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        As I said, the coat of arms as such is never protected by copyright but by other laws and regulations, and an image of the arms can be copyrighted while another image of the same arms can be free for use. You must understand this difference between the arms as such and one image of it before we go any further in this discussion. I have the feeling you don't understand it. Arms Jones (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Remove non-free images this article is about a clear a failure of NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 as you could see for any image that is not free, and it could be argued strongly that the whole thing should be deleted due to its obvious failure of WP:IG as well. Howerver, for the time being the most important thing is to remove the non-free images and at least get it in line with our policies. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. Why is this a "clear" failure of NFCC #3a and #8? I don't read them as you seem to do, I don't see any violation of those guidelines, so I don't understand your reasoning just because you say it is a "clear" failure. Also, consider the nature of this gallery - that's part of the question. Arms Jones (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think most people here do not fathom the nature of coats of arms or national coats of arms. They seem to see this as a gallery of just any kind of images, without thinking about how this is intended to be displayed to the user, that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia giving information to people and that national coats of arms do not follow the same copyright rules as most images do. They also don't seem to have any intention of trying to solve the problem they see, they just want to delete instead of trying to find a solution that could benefit Wikipedia. I have created a place-holder image which I think could be used for those arms where Wikipedia does not have a free image (even if I still think the use of the images is fair use in this gallery) but perhaps you don't like that either? As I understand the suggstions from some of the deleters, it wouldn't even be possible to use this, because I understand they think, if a country has had a coat of arms image up to now which was non-free, it should stay out of the gallery even if a totally free image were to be uploaded to Wikipedia. Have I understood this correctly? Arms Jones (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was about to replace the non-free CoA's with File:No shield available.svg on 10 January before I noticed there was a revert war going on. A placeholder image does look better than notices that say "some coats of arms can't be shown in galleries according to Wikipedia's policies" (which also seems to violate WP:SELFREF). What about creating an image that says "See article" (or something else that makes clear that the CoA can be seen by clicking the link beneath the image)? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So why didn't you? You didn't want to interfer with the war? I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I think what you are saying sounds like a retrospective rationalisation. Arms Jones (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't because multiple users editing the same article simultaneously results in edit conflicts or unwitting reversions of each other's edits. Also, the text "No image available" shown by File:No shield available.svg doesn't actually apply in this case (there is an image available, though it can't be shown in the article since it's non-free). Do you agree with the rest of my comment? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The rest of your comment actually seems like a good idea. Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you haven't understood a number of things. Firstly, as far as this article is concerned, any free image is fine. Secondly, you're clearly missing the point with "I still think the use of the images is fair use". Wikipedia does not operate under the fair use laws of the US, our stance (and policies) on copyright are far stricter than that and are listed at WP:NFCC. The non-free images here fail NFCC3a (because they are excessive, being used elswhere), and NFCC8 (because there is no critical commentary, because this article is merely a list). Galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are loads of images used on Wikipedia with fair use rationale, and you say fair use is not used on Wikipedia; I don't follow. Using some of the commonly explained fair use rationale, Wikipedia should be able to use the images in a gallery like this. I can't see the problem with them being used elsewhere too: Of course they are used elsewhere too, since this is a list directing the reader to more extensive information on each coat of arms - just like the list on countries direct people to more extensive articles on the countries as such. As for critical commentary, what about it? I could write some, but so far most of what I have tried to do to make this gallery better has just been reverted. Then you say yourself that galleries of non-free images are almost always deprecated because of these rules. Almost always. That means you can accept that his gallery could perhaps be developed into something which everyone would accept? Arms Jones (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of lists on Wikipedia with images illustrating the list. Look at all the lists of prime ministers and presidents, where there are portraits of the people who have held the positions. Should all the images in these lists be deleted too? Arms Jones (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ill make several points, the use rationales are not fair use rationales, they are non-free use rationales. Those lists you are talking about? guess what they use free images. usage of free media has almost no restrictions, where usage of non-free media is on the other end of the spectrum. Werieth (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The rationale is about the use of non-free media, but the rationale is usually that the use of it in spite of it being non-free is that the use is fair and reasonable in the context where it is used. That is what I mean. That is what we are discussing here, not wether the individual files are non-free or not. Arms Jones (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if this debate is not over (far from it, it seems), I have made another suggestion at Talk:Gallery of country coats of arms#Suggested change to this page. If you would be so kind to give an opinion there? Arms Jones (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Placeholder images

Do the other users support replacing the non-free coats of arms with a placeholder image (the image created by Arms Jones, my suggestion, or something else)? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If an "image block" is needed for formatting, placeholder images would be okay. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "image block", though IMO a placeholder is better than text underneath the gallery pointing to a project page to explain why some coats of arms are missing. Removing the non-free coats of arms entirely, without the current text, results in many talk page comments pointing out several countries are missing (as can already be seen on the article's talk page). SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New style

What do you think about the new style of the gallery now implemented under A and B? Is that enough for the use of all images? Arms Jones (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know enough about WP's non-free content criteria to answer the second question, though I'll ping some users who have commented above: @Masem, Werieth, and Black Kite:. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose they will check in on this discussion, since the matter is not settled yet. C has the new style now in the gallery and I added a rationale for the use of the Canadian arms. Arms Jones (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have re-removed the non-free media, you cannot use it on that page. Werieth (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And WHY NOT??? You can't just state that like a fact, when there is a rationale for using it. Come on and argue for your case! Arms Jones (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually your rationale is invalid. One can link to Arms of Canada and get everything on that page and more, making a link replacement a better solution. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it invalid? You have to explain yourself. Arms Jones (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A rationale is more than just a template, it is justification for a particular usage of a file, and verification that every use meets all points of NFCC. Given that, my previous comment One can link to Arms of Canada and get everything on that page and more, making a link replacement a better solution. is exactly why the rationale is invalid. Werieth (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You just said that. I am waiting for your reasons for that opinion. The fact that information is attainable in another article too is not an argument - it's just stating a fact (which you make to an opinion by claiming it is a "better solution"). You have to explain why the image is not allowed on this page, why it is better to have it in the other article and in the other article only. You don't explain that. In what way is it easier to compare it to the coats of arms of other countries if it is only present in its own article? Why can't you try to be reasonable and try to work things out instead of just repeating yourself? Arms Jones (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given we can provide a link to a second article where no information is lost, and actually more information is provided means that it fails WP:NFCC#1's replaceability clause. And it also means that WP:NFCC#3 we keep the usage of non-free media to a minimum. I dont need to provide other arguments that obvious facts on why the file is unacceptable. (I prefer not to pollute arguments with personal opinions when not needed.). Werieth (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not helping. It seems, whatever anyone would try to do, you will find the use of this image in this article wrong and will remove it, regardless of how the text around it would be developed, instead of trying to find a way to be able to display the image in the article. I think you are biased against the whole article, even if you are claiming that you have no personal opinion and are just stating facts. Arms Jones (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You're making the situation worse by now duplicating information about the heraldry from other pages onto this one as to try to justify non-free in a table. The fundamental problem here is why does the user need to see all the various coat of arms on a single page? There's no discussion of comparisons of the various coats between each other, so this is just basically a big navigation list, and as a list, it should minimize on imagery, not include every single one, much less include all non-free ones. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a work in progress. So far, the descriptions are mostly just texts collected from the existing pages but I am planning to rewrite most of it, but it will of course take time. To have a "type" set for every symbol is a start. What I want feedback on is the structure. The comparisons are of course what the page will be all about. Arms Jones (talk) 17:11, 3 February 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.

File:Russian Football Union.png

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLDly fixed issues. No longer concern. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:55, 9 February 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) 18:57, 12 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.

File:East Wind Over Weehawken, Edward Hopper 1934.tiff

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus and evidence show the copyright of the image was likely not renewed and therefore the image is in the public domain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Violates WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#10c in List of works by Edward Hopper. Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This may be free. Hopper's big work, "Nighthawks" in '42 lapsed into the public domain, so the same might be the same here. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think this is PD...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Checking around like I did for Nighthawks, I think we need assurance that the work was not renewed 28 years after its first display (presumably 1962 for renewal), which is why Nighthawks is in the PD. We can't assume Hopper or his estate failed to do that on this as they did for Nighthawks, but the possibility is there. (Note that if it is non-free, the use is improper there. And a suggestion would be to avoid using inline images - even if they are free - and select 5 or 6 good representative free paintings - including Nighthawks - to illustrate that list on the right side, as then it can easily go Featured) --MASEM (t) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no entries for this image in the copyright catalogues of 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966. So if it ever became effective in the 1930s, the copyright has not been renewed. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the first publication was in a book, newspaper, exhibition catalogue or something, then don't you also have to look for the book, newspaper or catalogue by searching for the title of that publication? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The copyright for books, newspapers, catalogues etc. first of all applies to the text and the general arrangement of text and images. But images by individual artists published in a book are always copyrighted separately. De728631 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't know exactly when it was first publicly displayed - the point considered "published" for artwork. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 13 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.

File:Exploration Flight Test 1 Delta IV Heavy.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there is no evidence supporting that this file was created by NASA, and therefore the image fails WP:NFCC#10a for not having an appropriate source and WP:NFCC#1 as being replaceable by free NASA created images. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:59, 9 February 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.

If the NASA claim is correct, then it is {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. Insufficiently sourced. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TinEye gives no results for this image. Hard to tell where exactly this comes from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If it can't be verified that it is from NASA, then WP:NFCC#10a isn't satisfied, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And peeking around nasa.gov, there's clearly plenty of PD-NASA free imagery there to replace this. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It might come from here, found via Google. Also found it here, but that appears to be a cropped version of the original. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:45, 12 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.

File:Alexander Pushkin Foggy Bottom, Washington.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLDly removed image from list article per WP:NFLISTS and from artist's article per WP:NFG. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:03, 9 February 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 two articles. Stefan2 (talk) 14:45, 13 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.

File:Fighting Illini coach Fletcher Lane.png

Non-Admin Closure: No source given for image. Image is nowhere to be found at Illinois archives. Removed and tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:10, 9 February 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.

Incomplete source, see WP:NFCC#10a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 13 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.

File:Windows Phone Store.png

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is for image removal for failing WP:NFCC in multiple articles and containing non-free Sega imagery that is not relevant to the articles. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:13, 9 February 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 in one article and WP:NFCC#10c in the other. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even really needed since the design follow the bare Metro style (save for the backing image here, but that itself is a separate copyright to Sega). --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 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.

Rhythm Nation

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is for the removal of some non-free files in the article. No specific non-free files have been discussed, but a few have been removed as a result of this discussion. If further discussion on the non-free content of this article is required, specific images should be discussed by the nominator for why they are not needed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:16, 9 February 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 really dont think 17 non-free files are needed. Werieth (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, given those montages which appear to be user constructed, I get at least 86 non-frees on this page. Way too many, even if one can document the influence of the video on other videos.

Infobox cover is fine.
Song sample is fine.
Of everything else given, the only other example I would think reasonable is a video clip of the video to demonstrate the choreography, since this is 1) an element of discussion on the video and 2) difficult to show by stills.

Everything else is inappropriate - we don't need to see the full album cover on the single, and the use of films and TV show shots to show where the video's influence has gone is inappropriate as well. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some images from this article. Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 19:48, 16 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.

File:Allmonsters.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: As image is only used in one article, and the discussion is about removal (which would lead to deletion) the image should be more appropriately discussed at WP:FFD. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The use in All Monsters Attack violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:12, 16 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.

File:Kuwait FA.png

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLDly fixed WP:NFCC#10c issues. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:22, 9 February 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) 13:06, 18 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.

Walker (Star Wars)

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is to remove all non-free files except the Hoth AT-AT and the AT-ST. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:33, 9 February 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.

Cant we trim this down to 1-2 examples? Werieth (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The only two canonical ones are the AT-AT and AT-ST. If you keep the Hoth AT-AT and the AT-ST pictures, that's sufficient. This is not a fan guide. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 22 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.

File:Style 360 (logo).png

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLDly updated to PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:38, 9 February 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 simple. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 24 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.

File:Woodland Scenics Original Catalog.pdf

Non-Admin Closure: File fails WP:NFCC#3b and potentially WP:NFCC#8. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't think that WP:NFCC#3b permits us to include four pages of a catalogue, but maybe this is the entire catalogue? In that case, it might qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}}. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that old of a catalog (it is no older than 1975) so it's doubtful it's PD. The only thing appropriate to even include from it is the company logo assuming it is the same one. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 27 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.

File:Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is image is below WP:TOO and therefore PD-textlogo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:44, 9 February 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 perhaps below the threshold of originality? The three lines to the left do not look particularly artistic, and the rest is just text: "여성가족부" and "Ministry of Gender Equality & Family". Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There's an explanation of the meaning of the logo on the site here. According to the site, the three bars stand for E, which is the first letter of the words Equality and Expansion. The blue bar represents hope and teenagers, the purple bar equality and both genders, and the green bar harmony and family. The logo also represents the 'firm desire of the ministry for a peaceful and cooperative creation of societal groups. Thanks! -KJ ^{click here} 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how the intended meaning has any bearing on WP:TOO. I agree this does not meet the threshold of originality necessary for copyright. Uzume (talk) 18:34, 1 February 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.

File:IOS 7 Notification Center.png

Non-Admin Closure: Image is only used in one article, there is no WP:NFCC#10c issue anymore. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:50, 9 February 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) 13:22, 27 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.

Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is non-free images except the lead image and her apology violate WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 and have been previously removed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

There are too many non-free images in this article. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The only two justifiable and needed images are that of the actual act (the lead image), and the shot of her apology on television. No need to see the dance before or her interview (not apology) on TV, when particularly for the latter a free image of Jackson would work. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 27 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.

File:Merrium Apartments West Facade.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: WP:BOLDly removed violation per WP:NFLISTS. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:56, 9 February 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) 21:37, 27 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.

Microsoft Office Mobile

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is there are too many non-free images on article and that OneNote and Powerpoint images are not necessary. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:47, 9 February 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.

We dont need 4 screenshots for the different programs that make up the suite in addition to the primary logo image Werieth (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that Word and Excel versions are near-equivalent versions of the desktop programs, it is reasonably fair for those two images to be used to demonstrate how the mobile version looks, but the other two are of little interest. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 28 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.

File:Waar (film poster).jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image is only used in Waar now, no violations present. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:59, 9 February 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 and WP:NFCC#10c in Pakistan. Stefan2 (talk) 14:17, 28 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.

File:HMS Hero (H99).jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image is not used in any articles. Tagged for deletion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:37, 9 February 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.

Superseded by an OGL release of a higher resolution version from the IWM. Fæ (talk) 08:40, 2 February 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.

File:KONI logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn due to better quality version. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:08, 9 February 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 logo is also PD-textlogo? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete It's {{PD-textlogo}} but File:KONI (FM) logo.png is better. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 8 February 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.

File:Stephen Webster logo.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Image has been moved to File:SW Logo Black no symbol.jpg but has been nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. Discussion should continue there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:06, 9 February 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.

Simple text. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 3 February 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.

File:America the Beautiful quarter, obverse.jpg

Can't find any reason this shouldn't be PD (There's some cavaets on US Mint images but this does not appear to fall into those.) --MASEM (t) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Why is this marked as fair use? Is there any reason why this isn't simply {{PD-USGov-money}}? Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 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.

File:3amdigital.jpg

Non-Admin Closure: Withdrawn. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:53, 10 February 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 album cover PD-text? It seems to be just simple fonts. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, yes. This is also what it currently says. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 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.

Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of *blank* Episodes

Gallery of country coats of arms

Placeholder images

New style

Copyrighted TV logos used in Lists of blank Episodes