 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
| Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
_15_Eye.jpg){kind=link}
Clear case of PD-old so I'm going to change the licence accordingly. De728631 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 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 Symbols of Ontario and WP:NFCC#8 in Monarchy in Ontario. Also fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in both articles. Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- "The seal has been used since January 1, 1870 ..." and this appears to be the original work. No matter what copyright law in the world you use, that's PD-old by even the worst case (120 years). --MASEM (t) 13:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Second use of image was correctly removed on 10 June 2014 per WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 17:45, 22 June 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 only covers one use in the article, but it is used twice. Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Do you mean twice in the same article? Is there such a restriction in WP:NFCC?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 01:29, 20 June 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.
Consensus is the posters should only be used on the stand alone articles about the films. TLSuda (talk) 17:46, 22 June 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 posters violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#UUI §6. Stefan2 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed: both films indicated by the posters have standalone articles so the posters are clearly appropriate there, but not needed on the actress's page. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If unfree, this fails WP:NFCC#9 on one page, but maybe it is below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Should fall below US threshold (the curves aren't too complex for originality). --MASEM (t) 03:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The two non-free photographs in the table fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS. One of them also fails WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, this is flat out inappropriate use, particularly since there are other lines with missing images, it's not including just a few NFC to "fill out" the list. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If unfree, this violates WP:NFCC#9. However, it is likely below the threshold of originality in at least the United States but possibly not in Canada. Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Per commons' page on it, Canana though a common law country (which generally have lower thresholds for originally) has put a higher standard that is closer to the US's version of TOO. As this logo would clearly fail US's TOO (and thus uncopyrightable), I think we can safely call the same under Canadian law, and this should be free. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 15 June 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.
Image violates WP:NFC#UUI §17 in one article. TLSuda (talk) 18:02, 22 June 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.
Seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 in National Executive Committee. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 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 essentially the same issue as in #Talk:King Ottokar's Sceptre/GA1#Non-free content use below. I don't think that we need two open discussions about the same file's presence in the same article, so I'm closing this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 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.
Considering this image for inclusion in the recently improved article King Ottokar's Sceptre, currently being reviewed for WP:GA. The image shows the original name of the Tintin adventure, before the adventure was renamed, which supports what is asserted in the article text. There is no free equivalent of the image. Prhartcom (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In cases like this just remove the file, only bring it here if the removal is repeatedly challenged Werieth (talk) 22:03, 22 June 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 image violates WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 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.
In cases like this just remove the file, only bring it here if the removal is repeatedly challenged Werieth (talk) 22:05, 22 June 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 four non-free images violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS, and two of them violate WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 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.
In cases like this just remove the file, only bring it here if the removal is repeatedly challenged Werieth (talk) 22:06, 22 June 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 image violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#9 on User:Jackmcbarn/Sandbox. I'm not sure how to remove the file since the use seems to involve the magic word {{#invoke}}. Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 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.
Clear case of {{PD-logo}}. (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 02:29, 26 June 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 do not accept the claim that this is unfree. Looks like a clear PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-free image violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Clear case of free image. Will fix. (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 26 June 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.
Doesn't seem to meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Peru's version appear to be civil law per commons and thus the threshold is generally higher (eg like the US), so this would be PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 25 June 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.
Clear case of free image. Will fix. (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 02:20, 26 June 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.
Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 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.
@Stefan2: As there has been no discussion in nearly two weeks, I'm procedurally closing this section. As both images in this discussion only have a single use, the images should be taken to WP:FFD. TLSuda (talk) 14:37, 28 June 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.
Per WP:NFCC#8, I don't think that we need the flags in the "Operational History" and "Battle Honours" sections of the page. Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The images of squad and commander menus do not seem to meet WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, I wonder if we can reduce the three shots showing how one map is reused three times (which is fine: this is discussed in the article) by using one map (non-free for the game) and drawing the three circles over it to show the overlap. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 16 June 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.
Consensus is second cover is not necessary, and only one sound file is necessary. TLSuda (talk) 14:13, 27 June 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 two covers are similar, and do we really need three sound samples? Werieth (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- All three sound samples appear to be from songs with their own articles, so only one sample is needed here to describe the sound of the album. Agree that the second cover is duplicative with a similar style as the first. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we really need two logos in the infobox? Note that some of the other logos in the article have been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 June 16. Stefan2 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article should only need one logo. Stefan2 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also noting that the second logo (the 1st season one) does not fail the TOO, and still copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can this article really support 5 non-free files? Werieth (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a large article. It discusses each in the relevant depth. Which ones do you claim suffer from overlap? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- The covers in the "Cover versions" section seem to be covers for non-notable side products. This essentially looks like the situation that we want to avoid in for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- If they're non-notable "side products", then delete them. If they belong in the article, they belong enough to potentially justify illustration. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, we don't illustrate things with non-free just because they can be verified. Even the music project recognizes this when they limit illustrations, it is just tht we have a few editors that have overworked various Michael and Janet Jackson articles to excessive non-free use. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- If they're non-notable "side products", then delete them. If they belong in the article, they belong enough to potentially justify illustration. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- The first three files - cover, sound sample, and music vid shot, are fine. The cover art of the covers do not have independent notability or discussion of the art, and should be removed. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 17 June 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.
Consensus is image (File:Magnetic_mirror_effect_in_a_gas_chamber.jpg) is replaceable, including potentially by a 3D rendering. TLSuda (talk) 14:25, 27 June 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.
Files fail WP:NFCC#1,3,8 Werieth (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty confident this is right - the picture of one of these units looks like something anyone can take, just because no one has does not give allowance for it. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Who's going to take a picture of something that only exists in a single lab that isn't open to the public? — Omegatron (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's described as "a" polywell, so more may come into existence later where a free image would be possible. Additionally, we can have someone easily render a 3D representation (you can't copyright designs of utility objects) that would do the equivalent job. It is also not something very remarkable to look at. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. Is there a reason to believe 3D rendering is easier than photographing a proprietary product? I mean even I shiver to look at Blender. Or is there a WikiProject to request such a thing?
- Well, it's described as "a" polywell, so more may come into existence later where a free image would be possible. Additionally, we can have someone easily render a 3D representation (you can't copyright designs of utility objects) that would do the equivalent job. It is also not something very remarkable to look at. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Who's going to take a picture of something that only exists in a single lab that isn't open to the public? — Omegatron (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have a Graphics Lab for that reason. And NFC doesn't care about "ease" as long as it is possible without legal infractions; this is certainly an equivalent free replacement that can be done. Yes, it might be possible for someone to ask permission to get into the lab and take a photo of the device that would be free, but this is not an assured possibility (if the lab says "no", and we can't control that); it would be another way, but it's not the assured way. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 20 June 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.
Second cover image (File:True Crime HK cover art.jpg) fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:27, 27 June 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 is no need to have two cover images in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the True Crime cover, I agree - there's no discussion about the cover of the game in its prior iteration. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 19 June 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.
_15_Eye.jpg){kind=link}
We allow for the first instance of a tv season to use the new logo, as long as there is discussion in the article (in this case there is.) Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:33, 28 June 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.
WP:NFC#UUI §14 and/or §17 might say that this only should be used in one of the two articles in which it currently is used. Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have generally allow the first instance of a recurring event (tv season, sporting event, sporting team season, etc) that uses a new logo to use that logo for the infobox for that instance, even if it the current logo - as long as that logo is not spammed to every instance of the event subsequently. This is typically on the assumption that the fact there is a new logo is discussed in the article - if this distinction is not made, then no the logo should not be there. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 20 June 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.
There is a consensus that the images are not necessary to the understanding of the article, and therefore as non-free files should be removed. TLSuda (talk) 18:51, 27 June 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 three non-free images fail WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's a problem there, but I'm not sure if simple application of NFG/#8 is right. The issue that is discussed - though without sourcing - is the idea of consumer confusion over what a GB is, and thus a photo to show how a hard drive might be branded "160 GB" comes out with apparently much less space is possibly reasonable. That said, I think that this easily could be described by text alone instead of using 3 non-frees; even a free image that explains the different in diagrams might be better. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 20 June 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.
Consensus for File:Red rain Kerala.jpg to be removed as as WP:NFCC#1 violation. No consensus on other non-free image. If deletion is still required, please take the file to WP:FFD. TLSuda (talk) 18:48, 27 June 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 doesn't seem to need all of the non-free images, per WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of the non-free, the only one that seems unnecessary is the rain collected in buckets. We have two other shots (one free, one non-free) that shows the color tint of the rainwater. The two microscopic slides are fine, as this was (best we can tell) a single time, past event and so samples of the rainwater and what they contain are not expected to be readily accessible to allow a readily-free replacement, and the existance of the spores and their nature are subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 20 June 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.
Consensus for File:Red rain Kerala.jpg to be removed as as WP:NFCC#1 violation. No consensus on other non-free image. If deletion is still required, please take the file to WP:FFD. TLSuda (talk) 18:46, 27 June 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 should presumably not contain a single non-free image, per WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- The microscope slide is fine (it is part of what could make blood rain), but like above, the pails one is not needed; the free image on the previous case that shows the example of blood-like rainwater is better (image-wise and NFC-wise) for this. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 20 June 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.
Consensus is additional logos from current ones fail WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:30, 27 June 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.
Im not seeing anywhere near the justification needed for 19 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- All the logos apart from the current one need to go. This isn't an article about the logo and they aren't discussed per NFCC8 in any way that passes the criteria. Black
Kitekite (talk) 20:34, 20 June 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.
No evidence of Public Domain, non-free file fails WP:NFCC#1. TLSuda (talk) 14:37, 27 June 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.
Claimed to be unfree, but EXIF says public domain, for an unknown reason. Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- If unfree this shouldn't be used at all because it's a replaceable photo of a living person. De728631 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The source is listed as http://www.dartmouth.edu/~religion/images/heschel_300dpi.jpg which is no longer working. I found two copies of the image through the Waybackmachine, but they both lack the copyright information in the EXIF. There is therefore no evidence that the EXIF statement is correct, so I will tag the file as orphaned fair use. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 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.
Image consists of typeface only and is not copyright-protected in U.S. {{Do not move to Commons}} to address the issue of potential copyright protection in its home country. (non-admin closure) Codename Lisa (talk) 02:05, 29 June 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.
Claimed to be unfree, but seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}. Stefan2 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Second opinions would be appreciated at this GA review, if anyone has a couple of minutes. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Former logo fails WP:NFCC#8 but likely below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Squiggly nature of outline pushes outside TOO (it is copyrightable). If the station lacks a more current logo, that use as its present logo seems okay, but otherwise should be removed. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 24 June 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.
Consensus is File:When You Say Nothing at All Ronan.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8. No consensus on other images. TLSuda (talk) 20:39, 29 June 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.
Apart from a picture of the disc, there are also cover images of two other products in the article. The covers of the other products seem to fail WP:NFCC#8 and should only be used in separate articles about those products, not in this article. Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Karuss cover actually seems okay - the cover song appears notable to be able to justify its own article (but per SONGS standard, is grouped with the original song). The second cover is not needed as the notability of that version is questionable. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in The Colbert Report. Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - the image is appropriate to describe the "character" of Colbert (its other use), but unneeded on the show page. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 24 June 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.
Consensus is File:"Lili Marleen" - Connie Francis (1962).jpeg is not necessary to the article, and therefore fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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 seem to be too many images of different editions of the song. Possibly none of them should be in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The image of the label for the Marlene Dietrich version is fine as that cover is notable on its own. The other cover is not needed. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 24 June 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.
Article should have only one logo, and it should be used only once, per WP:NFCC & WP:NFG. TLSuda (talk) 20:30, 29 June 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 shouldn't contain more than one logo. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- No discussion of previous versions. Not appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 24 June 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.
Article should have only one logo, and it should be used only once, per WP:NFCC & WP:NFG. TLSuda (talk) 20:30, 29 June 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 shouldn't contain more than one logo. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 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.
Article should have only one logo, and it should be used only once, per WP:NFCC & WP:NFG. TLSuda (talk) 20:29, 29 June 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 page should only contain one logo, and it should only be used once. Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 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.
Only one non-free logo should be used per article per WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 20:27, 29 June 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 should only contain one non-free logo, and it should only be used once. Stefan2 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 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.
Consensus is the non-free photo might be free, but we have no evidence, so we have to treat it as non-free and the image fails WP:NFCC#1. Sports logo fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 20:04, 29 June 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 photo seems to violate WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The sports logo seems to violate WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- That photo might be free. It appears to be something taken ca. 1915 so there's a possible free nature to it, but I can't immediately tell. As for the sports logo, there is no separate page for the atheletics department, and this would be a case I would think it reasonable to include there as that's where "Emory Eagles" redirects to. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, there might be a couple more non-free that can be had from this page: [1], but someone needs to look a bit more to assure details on dates. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 23 June 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.
Consensus is the image is non-free and should be removed from userspace pages. TLSuda (talk) 19:58, 29 June 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}}? If not, then it violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Template {{Non-free use rationale logo}} is used for thousands of logos. What is wrong with this one? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Secondarywaltz: the question is about if it is even copyrightable or not. If it is copyrightable usage on the two user pages need removed. Werieth (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- IMO this is too simple for U.S. copyright. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- @De728631: I question the bottom right part of the final letter. I suspect that that puts it over the limit. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree that unique foots to the first and last letter (to imply the bus shape) deviate from the standard font and to give the impression of the bus is edging towards creativity (Eg non-free). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. So we should better treat this as non-free and remove it from user space. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. I never noticed it was in user space, because I was distracted by why it could not be kept as a non-free logo. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good point. So we should better treat this as non-free and remove it from user space. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have to agree that unique foots to the first and last letter (to imply the bus shape) deviate from the standard font and to give the impression of the bus is edging towards creativity (Eg non-free). --MASEM (t) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @De728631: I question the bottom right part of the final letter. I suspect that that puts it over the limit. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 22 June 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.
I've taken the steps to move the covers to their individual album articles and updated the rationales to match (along with fixing their image names to better). --MASEM (t) 22:54, 29 June 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.
Album covers shouldn't be used in the article about the singer. Stefan2 (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The fair usage reasoning states that this is a screenshot of a web page, but that's not correct. This file does not represent a website. It's a file of a living individual, meaning it fails WP:NFCC, since a free equivalent could be created. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 2 July 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.
WP:NFCC#9 issue resolved, no consensus on WP:NFCC#8 issue after 30 days. TLSuda (talk) 15:54, 8 July 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.
Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 in List of Haruhi Suzumiya light novels. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removed the obvious NFCC#9 issue, but no comment yet on its other uses. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 8 June 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.
All of the screenshots are not necessary, as they are not discussed/compared in second or third party sources. Mere descriptions of these different styles are not enough to require the screenshot to be seen, thereby failing WP:NFCC. No specific images have been discussed. I've preliminarily removed the three screenshots which are used on other articles. These specific article/sections can be linked to. TLSuda (talk) 16:03, 8 July 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 all 8 screenshots? Werieth (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. How else do we compare the visual styles used in Windows XP? They're not something that can be described with prose. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are no third-party, secondary sources that compare and contrast the various styles. As such the images, and the article itself, is unnecessary on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are actually plenty of sources that compare the different visual styles, and just about everything else but that's really irrelevant. The screenshots are primary sources and are being used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. If you believe the aticle is unnecessary then the place to solve this is AfD, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- And we need secondary sources for comparison and contrast, primary sources do not work for that. Just documenting a set of features in a program is not an appropriate encyclopedic article, much less an allowance for 8 separate images. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's not entirely accurate. A side by side comparison of images is a lot better for our readers than reams and reams of text. It allows them to visually compare the different styles without falling asleep. We don't need secondary sources in that case. But like I said, if you think the article is not appropriate, take it to AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- If no one talks in depth about the images, then we shouldn't be covering it in depth ourselves. The article fails notability on that point. XP has visual styles - that's important and described in the XP article - but we don't need to document every shipped one. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- The images in the article aren't what establishes notability. Per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". In the article six of the 10 citations are from secondary sources. Notability of the subject is established. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- If no one talks in depth about the images, then we shouldn't be covering it in depth ourselves. The article fails notability on that point. XP has visual styles - that's important and described in the XP article - but we don't need to document every shipped one. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's not entirely accurate. A side by side comparison of images is a lot better for our readers than reams and reams of text. It allows them to visually compare the different styles without falling asleep. We don't need secondary sources in that case. But like I said, if you think the article is not appropriate, take it to AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- And we need secondary sources for comparison and contrast, primary sources do not work for that. Just documenting a set of features in a program is not an appropriate encyclopedic article, much less an allowance for 8 separate images. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are actually plenty of sources that compare the different visual styles, and just about everything else but that's really irrelevant. The screenshots are primary sources and are being used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. If you believe the aticle is unnecessary then the place to solve this is AfD, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are no third-party, secondary sources that compare and contrast the various styles. As such the images, and the article itself, is unnecessary on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 16 June 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 discussion is a bit all over the place. Per WP:NFCC there are a few issues, which have garnered consensus to remove. This includes removing File:Windows XP Classic.png, File:Windows XP Royale.png, File:Windows_XP_-_Program_Access_and_Defaults.png and replacing the top screenshot. TLSuda (talk) 16:11, 8 July 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 issues with NFCC#1,3,8 & 10 Werieth (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please be more specific? Your claim is rather broad. Which criteria apply to which images? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I should say we can:
- replace File:Windows XP SP3.png with the existing File:Windows XP Luna.png; the former is too large and is a tainted representation of Windows as it has Windows Media Player 11 and Internet Explorer 8 installed on it.
- remove File:Windows XP Classic.png, as there is no contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8).
- remove File:Windows XP Royale.png as words alone are enough to explain it and one example is enough.
- That said, I must chastise our dear Werieth for removing so-called NFCC violators at the cost of disrupting article's natural layout and flow. (That I did not discover this act long after when I send him a "thanks" on notification channel irritates me even more.) It didn't take much of his time if he modified the table containing the images.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- That leaves just the start menu and taskbar and doesn't entirely solve "the problem". The table in the article is titled "User interface elements" and is supposed to demonstrate the elements. A default XP Home or Professional installation uses Luna, while a default Media Center installation uses Royale. Arguably, File:Windows XP Royale.png should be included in Windows XP Media Center Edition, as the visual style is the most obvious difference between Windows XP Media Center Edition and a default XP installation, but the file's use in Windows XP serves a greater encyclopaedic function by allowing the reader to immediately see the differences between the installations. It's the ability to compare in this manner that allowed you to see that File:Windows XP SP3.png includes WMP11 and IE8. If you were to describe that image the difference would not be realised at all. I disagree that Windows XP SP3.png is a "tainted representation of Windows". That's a specious argument as anything beyond an original XP installation can be regarded as tainted because every XP installation is different. Windows XP SP3.png is entirely representative of a "standard" XP installation. Removing Windows XP Royale.png from Windows XP would just open up the inclusion of it in another article, so it would still be used twice, but not as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't plan on disagreeing or agreeing with the majority of your argument, except the one on Windows XP screenshot. Experience tells me that when someone looks at a screenshot whose caption reads "Screenshot of Windows XP" expects to get everything seen in the screenshot by getting Windows XP alone. It reminds me of a lot of tech support calls of confused users, and my own childhood when I saw Excel in a Windows 3.1 book and dug up my whole computer to find that cool-looking thing. (Naturally, I didn't find it.) Images must not mislead. If they do, while their fair-use rationale reads "to help the reader visually identify the subject of the article", they are failing WP:NFCC#10 too.
- That leaves just the start menu and taskbar and doesn't entirely solve "the problem". The table in the article is titled "User interface elements" and is supposed to demonstrate the elements. A default XP Home or Professional installation uses Luna, while a default Media Center installation uses Royale. Arguably, File:Windows XP Royale.png should be included in Windows XP Media Center Edition, as the visual style is the most obvious difference between Windows XP Media Center Edition and a default XP installation, but the file's use in Windows XP serves a greater encyclopaedic function by allowing the reader to immediately see the differences between the installations. It's the ability to compare in this manner that allowed you to see that File:Windows XP SP3.png includes WMP11 and IE8. If you were to describe that image the difference would not be realised at all. I disagree that Windows XP SP3.png is a "tainted representation of Windows". That's a specious argument as anything beyond an original XP installation can be regarded as tainted because every XP installation is different. Windows XP SP3.png is entirely representative of a "standard" XP installation. Removing Windows XP Royale.png from Windows XP would just open up the inclusion of it in another article, so it would still be used twice, but not as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I could take a replacement screenshot of Windows XP faster than writing this reply. But why? We already have one: File:Windows XP Luna.png.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that we don't need two screenshots. I just don't believe that Windows XP SP3.png is a "tainted representation". I'm happy with using either screenshot. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Windows_XP_-_Program_Access_and_Defaults.png, as a mostly textual UI window (and where you can't hardly read the label at "full size" as stored on WP), is unnecessary; the ability to set default programs is easily described by text. On the other hand, the SP2 Security Center screen is fine as it highlights that feature and how the elements were presented to "newbies" with clear warning flags of problems, which I recall reading about at the time was a praise for the SP2 pack. Do remember that we aren't writing an article like this for a Windows users - we are writing it for a general reader that may have never used Windows, so things like not including the Royale theme and claiming that omitting it is disingenuous is not an issue we on WP have to worry about, as our average "target" reader is likely never going to use Windows (much less XP) to require knowledge of that theme compared to other details. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We don't target just the "average" reader. If we did we'd probably stick to single syllable words and have a lot more pretty pictures. Estimates of Windows XP's current market share range anywhere from 11-30% and that's a pretty big number. In this day and age, how many people fall into the category of a "general reader that may have never used Windows"? There are probably some undiscovered tribes in the jungles of Borneo or somewhere like that who have never seen a computer but even Apple use Windows PCs. If we were to use your reasoning, we could delete thousands of articles that just don't apply any more. An encyclopaedia doesn't stick to just the basic facts and including the Royale theme is appropriate encyclopaedic content. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We are not a technical manual, we aim for a general broad understanding of a topic and not a detailed one, so yes, discussion of the different themes that XP might have exceeds that level of detail. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't said we are a manual. Identifying the default appearance of a Windows XP variant is very basic information. It's really only one step above "Windows XP is a kompooter pwogwam". --AussieLegend (✉) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is very little need to visually describe a variant via non-free if that's only sourced to primary materials. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The image is non-free because it is a primary source, so what you're arguing is "There is very little need to visually describe a variant via non-free" and that is simply not true. Sometimes the only choice we have is non-free, which is why we have WP:NFCC. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is very little need to visually describe a variant via non-free if that's only sourced to primary materials. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't said we are a manual. Identifying the default appearance of a Windows XP variant is very basic information. It's really only one step above "Windows XP is a kompooter pwogwam". --AussieLegend (✉) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We are not a technical manual, we aim for a general broad understanding of a topic and not a detailed one, so yes, discussion of the different themes that XP might have exceeds that level of detail. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We don't target just the "average" reader. If we did we'd probably stick to single syllable words and have a lot more pretty pictures. Estimates of Windows XP's current market share range anywhere from 11-30% and that's a pretty big number. In this day and age, how many people fall into the category of a "general reader that may have never used Windows"? There are probably some undiscovered tribes in the jungles of Borneo or somewhere like that who have never seen a computer but even Apple use Windows PCs. If we were to use your reasoning, we could delete thousands of articles that just don't apply any more. An encyclopaedia doesn't stick to just the basic facts and including the Royale theme is appropriate encyclopaedic content. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:43, 17 June 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 discussion is a case where there is not enough clarification in our guidelines/policies to handle this situation. As it currently stands WP:NFC#UUI#17 does not adequately cover this specific situation. That point covers child entities. An entity is a separate organization which may be owned by another, for example Sprite is one entity but Coca-Cola is the parent organization. In this case, the multiple articles are divisions that are slightly retooled of the same organization. To continue the metaphor Coca-Cola Brasil is a division of Coca-Cola and specifically uses the same logo. That being said, this closure should not be an interpretation of what the consensus is for what the policy/guideline should be. Rather, I would suggest that interested parties start a discussion, probably at WT:NFC, to determine how we handle this situation so the appropriate guidelines can be updated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:23, 8 July 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 attempted to do a WP:NFC#UUI#17 removal but was reverted even though this is a textbook example. Werieth (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please cite the example of the article(s) where you removed it. (This ?)
- "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable."
- WP:NFC#UUI#17 doesn't state (yet again!) what you seem to be claiming that it states. Assuming here (as you haven't told us the situation) that the context is Disney Junior (not Disney, not a specific Disney Junior show), then this is the logo (per §17) of the child entity, being used in the context of that specific child entity. That's the situation in which §17 permits its use. It would, in contrast, prohibit the use of a more general Disney logo. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Usage is acceptable in Disney Junior which is the primary entity, while the children (aka Disney Junior (Latin America) and others) do not have their own branding, and thus shouldnt include the parental logo. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting UUI#17, which is aimed at stopping use of the logo for a parent entity appearing in a child entity's article when the child lacks its own branding. In this case, the child entities all use the same branding as the parent so, instead of uploading 7 identical logos (one for each entity), the same image is being used for all 7, which is straight compliance with WP:NFCC#3a. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, No I'm not. The there is one legitimate usage (aka Disney Junior) and the sub-entities use the parent branding. In this case no logo is an acceptable result. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are. The child entities are using the same branding as the parent to brand themselves. UUI#17 is aimed at cases where the child has no branding at all, and the parent's branding doesn't directly apply. That's not the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. It was set up to handle child entities that lacked a unique logo from its parent, which these all qualify for. If they lacked a logo, then there's no reason to include the logo in the first place. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't mention "unique". It simply says "when the child entity lacks their own branding". The child still has its own branding even if uses branding passed on from the parent. As an example look at the human equivalent: John and Judy Smith have a child that they call Jack. Jack is still branded as a "Smith" even though that "Smith" is passed on from the parent. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're arguing the wording, not the intent. This type of situation where the same logo is used on multiple child entity pages was exactly what #17 was aimed to eliminate. We work on the assumption that there is one entity that a logo represents (since we're using that logo for identification and branding, and thus meant to tie the logo to that single entity) so when a logo is used multiple times, that breaks the default allowance for a logo. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have to go by the wording. We can't go by what people "think". If the intent doesn't match the wording then that needs to be fixed. Until it is, the wording is authoritative. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Absolution wrong. WP policies are not meant as "law" or prescriptive but descriptive. That means it is all about understanding the intent and not reading to the letter of what is written. In addition, you're taking the language out of context, when it is emphasized that the UUI cases are examples of how NFCC is to be handled, not explicitly the only cases, and it is fairly obvious this situation still applies. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not wrong at all. Something that is written down as a guideline has more authority than something that is locked away in some editor's head. The wording is in front of the reader, the intent is not. WP:NFC isn't even a policy, it's just a content guideline, so the intent is even less important. On the other hand, WP:NFCC is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" so we have to follow it more strictly than other policies and certainly more than undocumented intent. A properly written policy or guideline should reflect the intent. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Absolution wrong. WP policies are not meant as "law" or prescriptive but descriptive. That means it is all about understanding the intent and not reading to the letter of what is written. In addition, you're taking the language out of context, when it is emphasized that the UUI cases are examples of how NFCC is to be handled, not explicitly the only cases, and it is fairly obvious this situation still applies. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- We have to go by the wording. We can't go by what people "think". If the intent doesn't match the wording then that needs to be fixed. Until it is, the wording is authoritative. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're arguing the wording, not the intent. This type of situation where the same logo is used on multiple child entity pages was exactly what #17 was aimed to eliminate. We work on the assumption that there is one entity that a logo represents (since we're using that logo for identification and branding, and thus meant to tie the logo to that single entity) so when a logo is used multiple times, that breaks the default allowance for a logo. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't mention "unique". It simply says "when the child entity lacks their own branding". The child still has its own branding even if uses branding passed on from the parent. As an example look at the human equivalent: John and Judy Smith have a child that they call Jack. Jack is still branded as a "Smith" even though that "Smith" is passed on from the parent. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No it wasn't. It was set up to handle child entities that lacked a unique logo from its parent, which these all qualify for. If they lacked a logo, then there's no reason to include the logo in the first place. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are. The child entities are using the same branding as the parent to brand themselves. UUI#17 is aimed at cases where the child has no branding at all, and the parent's branding doesn't directly apply. That's not the case here. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I fail to see why we have Disney Junior (international) as a separate article and would support merging this lightweight list-like index to Disney Junior. However that's a gratuitous WP split and nothing to do with Disney. It's certainly not a "child entity" in the sense that §17 warns. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- How do you define a child entity? In this case the various language/region specific variants would normally be classified as child/offshoots of the primary entity. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- A child entity is a distinct entity, that is distinct of itself. The supposed "split" here is merely something applied externally by WP.
- Additionally, the §17 case exists to avoid the (admittedly common) case where a sub-component of Disney has its own logo, but as we don't have a copy of it to hand and so have defaulted to a more general Disney logo. That is not what has happened here.
- If you object so strongly to the use of the Disney Junior logo in Disney Junior (international), and for this reason, then I suggest that you find a copy of Disney Junior International's own more-specific logo (Disney don't seem to have such a thing, they use the same Disney Junior logo used here, then we would be happy to use such a more correct and more specific logo. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I know the meaning behind #17 better than you do, I proposed it. In this case when a sub-entity/branch qualifies for its own article, but does not have its own branding we shouldnt be re-including the branding of the parent because the sub-entity either lacks their own branding or just uses the parent branding. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- At such point as Disney starts to follow WP's lead and subdivides its single child organisation of Disney Junior, then you might have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- If in fact as you claim, they are one entity, then they should have 1 article. Not the 7 that they currently have. Werieth (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then merge them. I haven't considered this in detail, but I can't see good reasons as yet for having so many separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- If in fact as you claim, they are one entity, then they should have 1 article. Not the 7 that they currently have. Werieth (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- At such point as Disney starts to follow WP's lead and subdivides its single child organisation of Disney Junior, then you might have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I know the meaning behind #17 better than you do, I proposed it. In this case when a sub-entity/branch qualifies for its own article, but does not have its own branding we shouldnt be re-including the branding of the parent because the sub-entity either lacks their own branding or just uses the parent branding. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- How do you define a child entity? In this case the various language/region specific variants would normally be classified as child/offshoots of the primary entity. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, No I'm not. The there is one legitimate usage (aka Disney Junior) and the sub-entities use the parent branding. In this case no logo is an acceptable result. Werieth (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
What is being proposed by Weriteth's interpretation of UUI17 with this example and another on Discovery Channel's international articles (which I have not reverted) is technically bonkers; we're supposed to upload many logos with separate FUR's to meet the bare requirements of fair use when one is appropriate? I understand this on past examples like Ion Television and Trinity Broadcasting Network where every affiliate was linked to the main logo, but to do the same with international networks is untenable. And merging the articles based on UUI17 when each has their own programming quirks I'm sorry to say is a sledgehammer solution to the fair use issues with one image. Also Werieth, could you please actually notify involved editors of conversations like this rather than trying to hide them? I have a talk page open to everywhere where I welcome being informed of discussions (I was the reverter of his interpretation on the image). Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I tagged the file, so Im not hiding anything. If all of the articles use the same logo as the parent uploading additional copies has the same problem. However if a particular child has a unique branding it should be used. Werieth (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nate, we're not supposed to upload the logo with many different rationales for each article. Instead, the country articles shouldn't display the main logo at all. UUI#17 is all about minimal use of non-free media. It means that one entity's logo must only be used in the main article on that entity but shall not be repeated over and over again in articles for child entities. If one logo in the main article can convey the message then the articles on related brands that use the same logo mustn't re-use that logo. I'd like to remind you all that Wikipedia's fair use guidelines are even stricter than the run-of-the-mill fair use procedure per US legislation, and our guidelines for non-free content make it clear that minimal use is one of the main requirements. So all those seperate rationales for the country-specific articles are not warranted and the image should be removed from those pages. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Werieth: "its own branding" doesn't mean the branding has to be unique. Child entities can decide to use the same branding as the parent, but it makes it no less unique than if a completely new branding solution had been chosen. Generally, the individual channels are no different to a human family in that, while they may part of one family, they are all individuals. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- @De728631: WP:NFCC#10c says that the image description page must contain "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". "Minimal" use does not mean one use only. WP:NFCC#6 says "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article". NFCC 6 & 10 both support use in more than one article so "many different rationales" is required if an image is required if the image is going to be used in many articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have never known that rule De; as far as I remember as long as the F-UR was proper the image was OK to use in an article, like AussieLegend said. What troubles me though is again, the channels all are unique besides their logo and shared programming, and UUI17 is basically saying that we should give much less priority to non-American networks than the main one. We're already struggling as-is to keep foreign television articles up to date and proper thanks to the 'fantasy TV' vandals, and this policy basically specifies the American channels take all preference to foreign networks just because the image can only be used in that one article. That is what really troubles me, that UUI17 is basically being used here to starve foreign articles of proper context and content. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most of these "stations" which have little history besides "US cable program translated to this language" don't need separate articles in the first place, as the TV Wikiproject here also tends to discourage outlining all foreign broadcasts of programming. And no this rule wasnt put in place to specifically target these types of stations; it is a general caution that when an entity and its child entities are all separately notable, we simply don't repeat the parent entity's logo to the child if the child has opted not to use a new version of the logo, if the logo is non-free. The logo is best suited for discussion on the parent entity article which should have the most details and how we want the logo to be associated with. --MASEM (t) 06:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have never known that rule De; as far as I remember as long as the F-UR was proper the image was OK to use in an article, like AussieLegend said. What troubles me though is again, the channels all are unique besides their logo and shared programming, and UUI17 is basically saying that we should give much less priority to non-American networks than the main one. We're already struggling as-is to keep foreign television articles up to date and proper thanks to the 'fantasy TV' vandals, and this policy basically specifies the American channels take all preference to foreign networks just because the image can only be used in that one article. That is what really troubles me, that UUI17 is basically being used here to starve foreign articles of proper context and content. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- @De "UUI#17 is all about minimal use of non-free media." No it isn't. §17 has already been quoted in its entirety here. It is about not "inheriting" an NFC-valid use of a logo relating to a parent, but rather the need to use the child's own logo. We are meeting this.
- It has also been claimed that we are somehow "limited" in how many times we may use particular media, if they are also used on other articles. This is untrue. Our ability to use media is judged per-case, by whether it meets our standards for each case. It's true that it becomes harder to justify meeting NFC outside of a lead article on a topic, but it's still never a simple matter of counting. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we don't have any requirement that an image can only be used once, no one has denied that. But we also do avoid reuse through NFCC#3 and NFCC#1 (a link to an article using the image is a freer use than using the image again). And this is a case that when we are talking about a clear child organization from its parent that has decided to not create a new logo for itself, there's no need to duplicate the parent logo on the child logo, since the parent article is certainly going to be linked in the lead. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. I can remember some recent discussions here where alternative album covers were found unsuitable in the respective articles because they were only slightly different from the cover of the first release. Whith that in mind, I think using one single non-free logo in multiple articles is also contrary to the NFCC and recent community consensus. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- How is "using one single non-free logo in multiple articles" contrary to WP:NFCC? NFCC supports use in multiple articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you have an image that has strong use in one article (in this case the logo of the parent company) , and then use that article in a second (or beyond case) where the use is tedious and/or vague and you're talking about something that will refer to that first article anyway, then a inter-wiki link is a "free replacement" per NFCC#1 than re-including the NFC in the second article. That helps to achieve minimal use of non-free too. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- How is "using one single non-free logo in multiple articles" contrary to WP:NFCC? NFCC supports use in multiple articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. I can remember some recent discussions here where alternative album covers were found unsuitable in the respective articles because they were only slightly different from the cover of the first release. Whith that in mind, I think using one single non-free logo in multiple articles is also contrary to the NFCC and recent community consensus. De728631 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, we don't have any requirement that an image can only be used once, no one has denied that. But we also do avoid reuse through NFCC#3 and NFCC#1 (a link to an article using the image is a freer use than using the image again). And this is a case that when we are talking about a clear child organization from its parent that has decided to not create a new logo for itself, there's no need to duplicate the parent logo on the child logo, since the parent article is certainly going to be linked in the lead. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 18 June 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.
Malcom X
Consensus of the first part of the discussion is the image meets the requirements of WP:NFCC and can be used on Malcolm X. Consensus of the second part hold that the image should only be used on Malcolm X. TLSuda (talk) 17:06, 8 July 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 is an iconic historical photo of Malcolm X already uploaded to wikipedia and used in several articles . I recently added the photo to the Malcolm X article and was reverted by Malik Shabazz who informed me that during the featured article review, it was decided that this photo failed criteria #8 "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."
The photo is discussed in the article, and while it is certainly possible to describe a man looking out a window holding a gun, it is more difficult to describe X's posture, attitude, emotional state etc. . Does that non-describable nature, plus the historical significance/iconic nature of the photo give enough contextual significance to pass NFCC #8? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the FAC review, where the argument is that text describes enough what is happening in the photo. That said, the version that passed did not have this section at all. I would argue that from a NFCC "rule of thumb" that the photo clearly qualifies for inclusion as it was used by both Life and Ebony to represent his plight then (and described), but for us to determine this further whether is qualifies is out of scope for this page; because the article has changed so much since the FAC 5 years ago, I would not consider Malik's response (which, if you note, they took to handling as the nominator then, and so might be mistaken about NFCC now) valid but a fair point to consider in discussing this. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- There was text in the article for the version you linked "On March 20, 1964, Life published a photograph of Malcolm X holding an M1 Carbine and peering out a window. The photo was intended to illustrate his determination to defend himself and his family against the death threats he was receiving.[128]" . I don't understand what you mean that discussing the issue is out of scope for this page - isn't the entire point of this page to decide if NFCC is passed or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- There's two things with the image: Does it meet NFCC, and it is necessary editorially? I believe, ignoring what was said about the Featured Article discussion, that the image does reasonably pass all the bars needed for NFCC, even NFCC#1 because as noted, Life and Ebony have used that photo to emphasis Malcolm X's plight. That's what we decide here. But now the question becomes, editorially, is it needed in the article that is already heavily populated with images. There's no policy here to go on, this is where editors need to discuss the matter; but the matter should be discussed on the basis that NFCC does appear to be met. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Malcolmxm1carbine3gr.gif
Moved up and combined from lower section since both discuss same image. TLSuda (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Im not really seeing justification for usage of this picture on most of the articles its being used on. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can't see any reason for its inclusion on anything apart from Malcolm X. Black
Kitekite (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- It almost is the case that this photo can have its own article given that we have had it used on Life and Ebony, and that it is the inspiration for the covers of two albums. Yeah, it's not going to be a long article, but by doing that, that would be the best place to use the photo. But outside that, I agree the Malcolm X is where it otherwise most appropriate. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would seem that there is only need for a cover image of the product by the original band but not by the other band. See WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Covered version is non-notable on its own, no image is needed for that. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only a cover image of the version by the original singer seems to be needed here. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cover version is non-notable, no need for the single cover image. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:NFCC#9 violation keeps being readded despite a warning on the user's talk page. Stefan2 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the logo is non-free (the green inset of the X has some uniqueness). A version of just the grey circle with the X cut-out would be free and be able to do as good a job as the non-free logo at that size, for purposes of the userbox (and possibly OSX-related navboxes and projects). --MASEM (t) 00:33, 24 June 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.
Alternative covers are not necessary and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 17:29, 8 July 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 doesn't seem to need three cover images. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The third image is definitely unneeded. While we do sometimes allow alternate cover art for songs/albums, this is nearly always based on the distribution in a different, major market (eg the EU cover vs the US cover), so the EP cover is unnecessary too. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 24 June 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.
Article should not contain non-free images per WP:NFCC. All non-free files removed. Free images updated with {{PD-Canada}}. TLSuda (talk) 17:38, 8 July 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 page shouldn't contain any non-free images. See WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not seeing the point of this page, since there's no comparison or contrast of the badges. The badges individually are fine at their individual pages, and I presume there is a separate page that breaks out the various departments of the Canadian government that readers can link through, but no need to have all the non-free on the same page. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. But while we are at it, let's review some of the badges listed there, because they may actually be out of copyright nowadays. Per {{PD-Canada}} works are in the public domain if they were subject to Crown copyright and were first published before 1964. This applies to the badges of the
- De728631 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page contains too many unfree logos. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The only logo that seems unnecessary is the bull + wordmark one. The bull logo should be up in the Infobox, the text-only logo is clearly PD-text. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page should only contain one logo, and that logo should only be used once. Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- 99% sure this has been reviewed before and noted that with discussion of the logo there is some allowance to keep those. The duplication of the current logo is not needed. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this article has popped up here before, in November 2013. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:36, 29 June 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.
Consensus is the image currently fails WP:NFCC#8 in the article, but concludes that with additional sourced commentary in the article about the logo would allow for the image to be used. I am removing the image until such time as the additional sourced content is added. TLSuda (talk) 18:00, 8 July 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 Jerry West. Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree here, as being the source of "the Logo" is a significant aspect of West's biography. Perhaps more critical commentary of West's relation to the use of the logo can be added to support usage, such as the question of residuals. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-free images do not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The lead image is fine to document the event. But the picture of the coach, and the final 100pt shot are unneeded here. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claimed to be unfree, and is used on non-article pages. According to this article, the symbol was "copyrighted in 1997 under the name Love Symbol #2". I can't verify if this symbol was registered under the name "Love Symbol #2", but an ink drawing by this artist titled "Love Symbol : no. 2" was indeed registered for copyright in 1997, see VA0000832222. If it is unfree, then it should be removed from all non-article pages. Stefan2 (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Prince's logo is definitely copyrighted (1997 is after 1983, so all works are immediately copyright-protected under US law). I have removed the logo from the various pages talk/WP-space pages. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 8 July 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.