Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 72

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 65 ← Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73

File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg

Tagged for {{Non-free reduce}}. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2016 (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.

Isn't this file awfully big for it to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b and be considered non-free? Maybe it should be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}? Also, I'm not sure if attribution to the artist(s) who drew the map needs to be given in the image's caption, does it? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably should be reduced or a section of the vector file used instead to showcase the color-codings (which are a thing of note per the article). The work will be non-free (the person that vectored from the photo is not the original creator, this should be made clearer). And no, we don't require credit in the caption, though in this case, an explanation that the viewer is looking at a modern remake of the map would be good. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (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:Made in chelsea logo.png

Resolved a long time ago. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2016 (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 is being used in 12 articles but only has a non-free use rationale for Made in Chelsea. Is this logo is considered simple enough to be {{PD-USonly}}? If it is, then WP:NFCC#10c and No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI are no longer an issue for the other articles. If it is non-free, then it needs to be decided if a valid nfur can be written for the other articles. If the consensus is that it can, then I am happy to go and do that. I am just not sure which is why I am asking for clarification. Finally, image is also tagged as a "screenshot", but that doesn't seem to be the case so I am just wondering why. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The crown image is creative enough so that this must be treated as NFC. It is a title card for a show, so being a screenshot is legit. With TV shows, the usage that we generally allow is the main series (which should only use the most recent title card unless other title cards have clear NFCC#8 contextual significant), and the first season that uses that new titlecard. Here, because it appears all seasons use the same logo, none of the season articles should have this titlecard. For the two special series (the LA and NYC ones) as the NYC did not appear to adapt a special titlecard for that, and likely the LA one will not, it is also inappropriate on those two (they aren't a different show for all purposes). So the only valid use is on the main show page. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to remove the crown image and just use the text? I am not saying that would be acceptable in terms of content since the crown may be essential to the image, but I've seen copyrighted items removed from images before on Commons to allow the image itself to be kept on Commons (c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg) so I am wondering if something similar is allowed in a case like this. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, yes, at least for the other seasons where I outlined non-free would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. How would one do that? Download the image, crop out crown, and then upload it as {{PD-textlogo}} to Commons or as {{PD-USonly}} to Wikipedia?
Just for the sake of discussion, suppose it is argued that the "crown" element is essential to the logo and removing it is something that should not be done especially since the logo being used in the main article would still have the crown. Is there some sort of valid nfur rationale which could possibly be written for current version for use in the infoboxes of the individual season articles, etc.? Is there no wiggle room? I've been down this road before only to have those wanting to keep the image say No. 17 of NFC#UUI and NFCC#8 are not applicable or are already satisfied. I am thinking about adding a post to each article's talk page suggesting the crown element be removed and want to base this suggestion on accepted policy as much as possible, so any suggestions that anyone has on how to best do this would be most appreciated. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure the crown is not just a derivative work of a freely licenced crown or is the UK threshold of originality too high for this logo? It looks rather close to being a Prince of Wales crown with simple stars replacing several elements. ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, that I'm not sure. Clearly the title card is based on File:Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg which itself is marked PD everywhere, and if the crown is essentially the same, I would find it hard to claim that this titlecard it a novel copyright atop that , even in the UK. We may want to check at commons where there's people better versed in how this would apply. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look at it Ww2censor and Masem. I don't know anything about the show, but the logo did seem familiar to me. I've seen the "Keep Calm" imagery used on all kinds of different things so maybe as you say the "crown" is protected by copyright as well. I ask at the Commons VP if the logo is a candidate for a move to Commons. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I presume you mean like one of these c:Category:Keep calm and carry on. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
For reference, I asked about this at c:COM:VPCOPY#en:File:Made in chelsea logo.png. I may have phrased my question badly, so please feel free to correct me as needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer given there is correct: it is not the same crown shape as "Keep Calm", and should be considered novel, which means that for us, we'll treat the whole title card as non-free. But as noted above, just the text along would not be so that could be used on all season pages. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not notice the differences between the two crowns, but can understand the reasoning given in Commons. I'm not sure, however, whether the "crown" used in the titlecard is taken from a different free image. As stated above, the safe bet seems to be to remove it from the logo, and use the crown-less version for all articles besides "Made in Chelsea". Technically that is probably fairly easy to do, but I'm not sure if contextually it's the right thing to do. Is this the type of thing that should be discussed on each respective article's talk page? Perhaps something like "The non-free logo for the series cannot be used here per WP:NFC, so it should removed. A non-free logo specific to this particular season (if one can be found) or a freely licensed 'crown-less' version of the main logo may be used instead. Is there a preference?" - Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed the logo from every article without an an nfur. I also did some googling and found that at least some and possibly all of the individual seasons have been released on DVD. Would it be possible to use the cover for an individual season's DVD (like this one for Season 3) in the infobox of its Wikipedia article? A non-free rationale could be added and the image tagged with {{Non-free video cover}}. Could an Amazon page be used as the |source= if these images are OK as non-free? - Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (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:Let's Face the Music.jpg

Everything is okay here, no need to fix anything. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2016 (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'm not sure if this image is being used properly as fair use (at least per the presented rationale), given that the subject of this image only gets a passing mention in the article, and really adds more confusion that assistance to the reader due to lack of the article having an explanation of the subject of the photo. Steel1943 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It's OK. The same album was released with different titles. This image is the album cover for the album (subject of the article) when it was released in the US. You mention that it only receives a passing mention, but it's actually the cover for the article subject. I don't think there's any need to repeatedly mention that the album had a different name/cover when released in the US, since it's just a start class article. AHeneen (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2015 (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:StagecoachLogo.svg

Non-admin close: the result was to remove from all articles. --– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:48, 7 February 2016 (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 appear on 39 pages but only has FURs for 28, unless I'm miscounting. Seems to violate WP:NFCC#10c on about 11 pages[which?] and seems to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9 on some pages. Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The logo edges on being PD-USonly but I would get a second opinion on that. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The text is obviously copyright free, but not sure if the circle fits in with these. It's also worth noting that the "Omega Globe Design" is given as an example of something above the TOO. Maybe the thing to do is specifically ask about this at c:COM:VPC. If they say it's OK for Commons, then it can be tagged as {{PD-logo}}. If, however, it's not and {{PD-USonly}} is also out of the question, then it should be removed from everything except Stagecoach Group per Stefan2 in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO above the TOO. I think this one is an edge case where we'd need a court ruling for a definitive statement. The structure of the circle seems complex enough to have some creativity.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no chance that this is fine for Commons as the logo is more complex than File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which was found to be too complex for this logo's source country. With respect to the United States, there are some logos like this which have been found to be too complex, and the thing to the left of the text seems to be at the same level of complexity. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Understand about Commons Stefan2 and see your point about complexity Jo-Jo Eumerus, but the logo was changed to "PD-ineligible-USonly" was added to the file by George Ho, so not sure if further discussion should continue here or at WP:PUF. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC); [Post edited by MarchJuly to correct wording -- 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)]
I didn't change; I just added it. George Ho (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Stand corrected George and sorry about that. Any suggestions on how to best proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
This page is only for files marked as unfree while PUF only is for files marked as unfree, so it seems that both this page and PUF have become the wrong venue. Maybe best to relist the file at FFD since FFD should be able to handle the file no matter how it is tagged. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The image should be removed from all the subsidiary articles per WP:NFC#UUI #17. See the bus company subsidiary that oversees all of these at https://www.stagecoachbus.com/. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:NFC#UUI#17 it should be removed from all other articles except Stagecoach Group (where it isn't currently used). Its current use is excessive (WP:NFCC#3) and does not meet contextual significance for any other article (WP:NFCC#8). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (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.

Ultimate Play the Game

Knight lore 3 removed from two articles, Nightshade ad removed from one article. Sabre wulf was deleted some time ago. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2016 (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.

Multiple, contested non-free content issues.

  1. File:Knight lore 3.gif (used in another article) The game may have been important and its isometric style may have been copied, but the useful image would be how other games have copied it, not that it uses an isometric view. (NFCC#8) And is there really no free-use replacement for isometric projection in all of those piles of open source games?
  2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: The text says they used full page ads that did not describe the product. The image does not add any additional significance to that understanding (NFCC#8)
  3. File:Sabre wulf box.jpg is decorative, does not illustrate anything that can't be adequately explained through text
  4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif I'm less concerned about this one because the image's significance is discussed in the article, but I don't think the blurry shot adds anything over what the text adequately explains on its own. – czar 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The two images that you removed and I didn't revert (Image:Jetpac.gif and Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg) are the only ones that can be said to be used for decorative purposes; and I have doubts abour the Sabre wulf box, since the high-end "luxury" packaging is discussed as part of the company's strategy to deter copyright infringement.

As for the images currently in the article, they are textbook applications of WP:NFCI acceptable use:

  1. File:Knight lore 3.gif. WP:NFCI#6, screenshots from software products for critical commentary. It's used to illustrate the Filmation engine technique as used by Ultimate. A free image would not illustrate its usage by that company on that very game, which is the one that influenced all the others. A free replacement should be included at the Isometric projection article, but it's important to show what the players who bought the game got from the company as state-of-the-art graphics at the time - (which is important for the topic; as this is the article of Ultimate Play the Game, not of isometric projection in general, the image should illustrate how they did it).
  2. File:Nightshade ad.jpg: WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. The text says they used full page ads without screenshots of the game, explaining how this fueled speculation by the specialized gaming press; and the image shows how those full page ads looked like. Without the image you would not have an idea of what the press saw and how it prompted them to pump anticipation up. To what degree this improves understanding of the topic is a matter of personal taste to be agreed upon here, but the contextual significance is there.
  3. Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg (currently not in the article): Again WP:NFCI#4, promotional material for critical commentary. As said above, the image illustrates the following passage. "This coincided with the introduction of the distinctive Ultimate "big box" packaging [...], which the company felt might also help justify the price increase and encourage gamers to buy the game rather than copy it. The strategy paid off as Sabre Wulf went on to sell over 350,000 copies on the Spectrum alone." Text alone can't display the quality of the box and printed art for the readers to judge it by themselves.
  4. File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif: Both WP:NFCI#6 and WP:NFCI#4, screenshot and promotional material with critical commentary ("CRASH magazine published a reader's photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer.The possible existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen) had been speculated on since the game's release). The blurriness of the image was there in the original, this is exactly what readers got and prompted them to enquire about its genuineness. Diego (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The Knight Lore image is unnecessary on the page about the developer, as we have a separate page for the game itself, where it is appropriate. There is no need for showing an image of an ad that does not use screenshots - this is readily explained by text. The box packaging - of just the cover alone - does not help to aid in explaining the "big box" aspect - here, instead, we should be using a picture of one of their "Big box"es next to a typical boxed release at the time as to demonstrate the physical difference that the cover alone cannot (this also possibly can be done with simple 3D boxes of the right size without art, or by a photo taken at such an angle to make the cover art unusable and meeting de minimus use). There's no need to show a screenshot of a unreleased game to demonstrate that a magazine provide such an images, or the impact of the blurriness factor. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion about the images. However, third party reliable sources have considered relevant to comment upon such images, and our policy on non-free content is that such usage is allowed when there is critical commentary provided by reliable sources, not merely when editors think it's a good idea to include them (or not).
Oh, and the File:Lunar jetman trailer.gif is also an instance of WP:NFCI#9 acceptable use, "Images that are themselves subject of commentary". (The Stampers shrugged off questions about whether this screen shot was genuine, but stopped short of actually denying it. There have even been suggestions that Ultimate themselves may have created the screen shot to generate more interest in the game.) Diego (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"NFCI" is not some kind of kind of panacea—it explicitly says that the image needs to meet all of the non-free content criteria. NFCI are just suggestions. It's still an issue of NFCC#8: it's nice to have images but the screenshot isn't necessary for understanding the article. There is nothing about the image that makes the prose more understandable. – czar 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that the level of understanding that readers get from a description of the image without the image itself, will be the same as the description plus the image accompanying it? The editors of the reliable sources that included the image in their articles begged to disagree.
Now that we are at it, what is the criteria that you use, to consider some prose more understandable with an accompanying image than without it? Is there a situation where you don't think that a prose description of an image is enough to understand the image? Because if the criteria stated in policy to establish NFCC#8 (critical commentary in RSs) is not enough for you to consider it significant, there must be some other alternative, objective criteria that we could agree upon and doesn't reduce to "I think it's needed" or "I don't think it's needed"; so what is it? Diego (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Two keys are NFCC#1 - the free replacement (which can include no image but text) and NFCC#8. Of the three last cases:
  • The ad image is presently being used to say that unlike other print ads at the time, this company opted to forgo screenshots. This can be described in text and does not need an image to show this (per NFCC#1); if anything, one would have to show a competiting ad to demonstrate the lack of screenshots, making that 2 non-free images would be even more problematic. And it is readily described by text, making the contextual significance weak.
  • The box image to say the box was bigger than others as to convince people to buy it can be replaced with a free photograph of that box next to a regular retain box to make that a much stronger point.
  • That they released a blurry photo of a game they were developing can be stated in text - there's no specific discussion of the features of the blurry photo to require it and failing NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The ad image also serves to identify the visual style of that company's advertising -i.e. the topic of the section where the ad is placed, which is the other recognized valid purpose at WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion, and is something you can't do without having seen at least one ad from the company. Why would you need a competing image from other companies? Other ads are not mentioned in the text for critical analysis, but this series of ads is. And why do you need an image with screenshots to show that this one does not have screnshots?
  • Fine, we can replace the current photo of the box with the one you suggest when someone provides it (but how do you achieve a free photograph of the copyrighted cover art, without at the same time making it impossible to assess the quality of such art?).
  • There is specific discussion of the features of the photo, I've provided it above. It discusses specific parts of the image ("photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer"), a comparison of that feature with the same feature in other images from the company ("existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen)")-which prompts readers to compare the similarity of this image with those others-, and the possibility that the image itself may have been manipulated ("questions about whether this screen shot was genuine","It has since been proven that Lunar Jetman's 48K of code does not contain graphics for a trailer.")-which requires the image for readers to assess by themselves whether it might be a fake. (BTW, the image being blurry may be one contributing factor for why people gave it credibility as it makes it harder to spot any possible tampering, but there I'm just speculating - that's not part of my argument). Diego (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2015 (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:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 9#File:6th Carabiniers badge.jpg

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 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:University of London.svg

Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 9#File:University of London.svg

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 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.

ELO 2

Looks like the 30-year one was removed. Problem seems resolved. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2016 (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.

Four album covers are used. Which ones shall be retained? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arguable the original cover and the first of the 30 year anniversary one would be best suited. The original alt cover has nothing, and if you use the first 30yr one, the second one of those is nearly duplicative. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't remove the US alt cover, Masem. This is an album, not a single. --George Ho (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There's a "Extra album cover" template for the album infobox that just has to be removed to get rid of the image. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant that I can't consciously. First CD reissue still used the same image; other reissues have used the standard international one. --George Ho (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the US vinyl image was also used for the 1990 reissue. I was thinking about removing the 30th anniversary image instead of the US vinyl/CD one. That 30yr one would not be that significant as it was one of reissues. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2015 (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.

WSVN

I'm keeping WSVN HD, the image of the news studio, which was innovative in its day and is the subject of commentary in the article. The remainder have been removed. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free images File:WSVNlogo.jpg, File:Wcktlogo.png, File:7 HD Open.jpg and File:WSVN HD.JPG all have a non-free rationales for the article, but usage in each case seems purely decorative and not needed per Wp:NFCC#8 - Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2015 (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:7 Med Bn Gp Flash plus Logo.jpg

Benefit of the doubt, as Masem says. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2016 (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.

No source is provided for the image. Is the information given in |Description= sufficient to satisfy Wp:NFCC#10a? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no real reason to doubt that it came from the group mentioned and would be overly nit-picky to delete it for lack of a valid previously published source. It would be highly recommended if this could be found, however even if it is a print work (as it might be). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 August 2015 (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:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png

Image does not meet fair use criteria. Non-admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (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.

Image has a non-free use rationale and is being used in New York Cosmos (1970-85)#Colors and crest. Image is briefly discussed in the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged.", but the statement is unsourced. Moreover, File:New York Cosmos 77.png is provides essentially the same information (minus the "New York"), so I'm not sure per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 if we really need to see the older logo to understand that "New York" was dropped. In my opinion, this is more than adequately being explained using text alone. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a significant enough change (the removal of text) to require the image to be seen, particularly that it's not sourced. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 13 August 2015 (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.

@Oknazevad:In my view, this image is not usable for New York Cosmos (1970–85) under our current fair use police. This had a bit of discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 72#File:New York Cosmos originalcrest.png, but admittedly not much discussion. A historical image might be appropriate if the image has any historical significance, but this logo is almost identical to the current logo. The sole difference, the inclusion of the words New York, can easily be explained in the text without showing an image. This logo is in no way necessary for the article, and that's why it should be removed. If the old logo was significantly different, I'd be okay with it staying, but it's not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no current logo, as it is an article on a historical team. More importantly, though, the discussion in the article explicitly covers the placement and and font choices for the words on the logo, the original logo. So the original logo needs to be illustrated for the passage to make sense. Also, the change in logo does illustrate the (temporary) change in name, which is discussed in the full team history above. But in general, for a section dedicated to discussing the design of the team's two logos through its history to not include both logos seems like a silly claim. oknazevad (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Icpsymbol.PNG

This whole discussion centered on whether there is a free alternative, and Commons has decided that the alternative is not free. Since there is no free alternative, the image meets the criteria. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free image is being used in Iraqi Communist Party. A similar free version (File:Icpsymbol.svg) is being used in the infobox of Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) to identify the same organization. The images appear to be the same, except the free version has the additional text on the flag. Is this additional text important enough to satisfy WP:NFCC#1 or should the non-free image be replaced by it's free counterpart? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I must ask, is that SVG really free? It's marked as "own work", which would only work if the uploader was the artist that made the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically, within the US, there is no recognized copyright for works from Iraq entities (among about 10 other non-recipical countries) - eg it would be copyright by Iraq's laws, but US does not recognize that. That said, Jimmy Wales has asked that despite these types of non-recognizition that we still respect country copyrights. So the SVG image as a derivative work of the ICP would not be considered free despite the user creating it themselves, and should be deleted, with the existing PNG acceptable to use. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could the Commons image be used as a replacement for the non-free one per NFCC#1 if (a big "if" perhaps) its licensing is acceptable?
Regarding the Commons image, there are plenty of similar flag/logo images being used in articles about conflicts/organizations in the Middle East, etc. like List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War and 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive. Most of these are .svg files uploaded to Commons as "own work". I've found some which have been nominated for deletion such as c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syrian Resistance Flag.svg and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Syria Armed Forces Emblem.svg for the reasons Jo-Jo gives above, but they have been kept. I once asked about a different .svg flag at the Village Pump, and the answer I got wasn't very clear. "Delete" or "keep" seems to depend upon whether the uploader drew the .svg image themselves or simply uploaded a copy. Honestly, it's all a bit confusing to me since many of the images I've seen used on Wikipedia (for example, File:Flag of the National Defense Force.svg and File:Kata'ib Hezbollah logo.svg) licensed as "own work" are fairly detailed and professional looking so they do not look as if they were redrawn. I also asked about the PD-USonly use for Iraqi images at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/July#Use of PD-USonly for images created by Iraqi citizens, but even after reading through that RfC I am still not sure what the final consensus was. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I've asked about validity of the licensing of the Commons version at c:COM:VPC#File:Icpsymbol.svg just to see what they say. If Commons feels the licensing is OK, then I think we can safely replace the non-free version with it. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to wonder if Commons keeping such files has something to do with SVG files not being derivative works of the files they are made to resemble - that appears to be the thrust of the keep arguments in these deletion requests. I find it odd but it might be true. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Many of the flags, logos, etc. I've seen on Commons which look non-free to me do seem to be .svg files and I have really no idea as to why that makes a difference. How can something like File:Asaib-ahl-alhaq logo.jpg be non-free, but File:Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq flag.svg be non-free? To me it's exactly the same image only in .svg format with a white background added. Moreover, if the .svg version is OK as "free", then I'm not really sure how the non-free version still satisfies WP:NFCC#1 because both provide essentially the same information. There are many other examples of the type of thing thing. Infoboxes in articles about wars/battles happening in the Middle East, etc. are filled with them. Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Bumping to note that the Commons image was deleted per the discussion here but the "derivative or no" question is nebulous.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 8 October 2015 (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:STWhomGods Destroy.jpg

The result was remove from Steve Ihnat. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free screenshot currently being used in Whom Gods Destroy (Star Trek) and Steve Ihnat. A non-free use rationale is provided each article, but use in the actor's article does not seem warranted. Ihnat seems to have appeared in many well-known series so singling out an appearance in a Star Trek episode seems like close to WP:UNDUE. Also, there is no sourced discussion of the appearance in the article (His connection to Star Trek is only mentioned twice and one of them is the screenshot's caption) so the "contextual significance" required by WP:NFCC#8 is non-existent. The same screenshot can be seen in the episode's article, so it's use in actor's article is not needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If I expand the article and explain the picture, would that help? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The answer to your question Kiraroshi1976 is pretty much the same as the one I gave above for the screeshot used in Yvonne Craig. I think the screeshot is probably OK for the Star Trek episode because it is being used as the primary means of identification of two of the main guest characters in the episode, Garth and Marta. Using the screenshot in "Steve Inhat" is much harder to justify per NFCC#8. "Garth" was only one role that Inhat played througout his career, so if the purpose is to simply show how Inhet looked, then any screenshot/photo could do the same. It would be better to try and find an image (photo) of Inhat as "Steve Inhat" and use that instead at the top of the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2015 (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:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg

Image removed from user page long age. Also removed from Dwarf planet and List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2016 (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 used in unreasonably many articles. It also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be removed at least from that user sandbox. Not so sure on the others; I'd imagine that images of such planetary subjects tend to be in short supply. Incidentally, it looks like this image is being propagated through a template or somesuch.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
For example, non-free files should not be used in list articles, but this seems to be used in multiple list articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, got it. On Dwarf planet the image is used in the infobox along with the images of other large dwarf planets. I do think it does have contextual significance there if we stick to having the mini-gallery of 5 earliest recognized dwarf planets. Haumea and Moons of Haumea are OK; subject of the articles and in the latter article it does rather nicely show the moons. Hiʻiaka (moon) and Namaka (moon) do we need the whole image? The moons are only a segment of the full image, but I think the non-free usage there to illustrate the article subjects is OK. List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System has the image as part of a table with other free images; I am generally inclined to opine that in such situations images should be used in an "all or nothing" fashion, i.e either omit images wholesale or include the lone non-free image if we don't end up with a mostly or excessively non-free gallery. User:Rfassbind/sandbox/Leadimage compilations violates NFCC#9. Each article needs its own use rationale but I don't think we need the same rationale twice for the same article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In Dwarf planet, it is only necessary to present pictures of dwarf planets, but it is irrelevant which planets we show in the infobox. There is therefore no need for non-free files there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2015 (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:Pluto discovery plates.png

There is agreement that this image is acceptable on the two articles where it is currently used. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2016 (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 as the fair use rationale doesn't specify a single unique article. Also seems to be used on too many pages. Also fails WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

When there's no template, I could reasonably expect the approach used here to identify the targets, but in this case, the use on all but Pluto seem inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Masem's assessment. Removed from all article except Pluto per Stefan2. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Image re-added to Planets beyond Neptune by ‎Serendipodous, however, non-free use rationale appears probably needs to be perhaps a little more specific per WP:NFCC#8 and not just copy-and-paste tweaking of the nfur for Pluto. However, if the consensus is it's OK, then fine with me. One other thing, however, is that if "Planets beyond Neptune" is the main article concerning the discovery of Pluto as the PBN nfur claims, then maybe it is actually the usage in Pluto which is not needed, especially since there is a {{further}} directing the reader to PBN. Just a thought. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO this image can be kept on both articles. The image is significant in the context of the discovery of Pluto and that topic is handled in both articles. Checking over WP:NFCC#3 I don't think it restricts the number of articles it can be used in.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:10, 26 October 2015 (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:Rajkumar in Sri Krishnadevaraya (1970).JPG

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 11#File:Rajkumar in Sri Krishnadevaraya (1970).JPG. Non admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2016 (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 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:Elizabeth Broun.jpg

Moved to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 11#File:Elizabeth Broun.jpg. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2016 (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 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.

Alternatives for File:Football Federation Australia logo.svg

Image is no longer used in the offending articles. Non admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2016 (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.

Federation logo is being used in the articles for individual teams. Just wondering if the following would be acceptable non-free alternatives for use in Australia national soccer team and Australia women's national soccer team respectively:

Are each of the above logos distinct enough from the federation's logo to satisfy No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI? The only real differences I can see are in the text, and the coloring inside the globe. I think the text for the women's logo is enough to distinguish it from the federation's logo, but I'm not entirely sure about the men's logo. If these are acceptable replacements, then they can be uploaded using {{non-free use rationale logo}} and {{non-free logo}} and used in the individual team articles, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2015 (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:Oworlds5105.jpg

This image exist at Wikimedia Commons as File:Other worlds science stories 195105.jpg where they have concluded it is public domain. Links updated. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2016 (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 was uploaded as a nonfree image eight years ago, and the uploader is long gone, so I can't expect an answer from them.

Nice as this image is, every article that it's used in (Other Worlds (magazine) and Hannes Bok) now also includes free images serving the same purpose, so it looks like this nonfree image should be removed and deleted. However, I can't find any evidence that the (magazine) copyright was ever renewed, so this image may well be free.

The "First copyright renewals for periodicals" page [1] reports that copyrights for Other Worlds were renewed beginning with the March 1950 issue. However, the Catalog of Copyright Entries shows renewal only for that issue (not even, as one would expect, the remaining issues from 1950). The LOC database, covering later years, shows renewals of individual stories by their authors. This isn't unusual for genre fiction magazines that stopped publishing in the 1950s; the publishers are defunct, their assets, if any, are not being actively managed, and whatever rights they held in the magazine contents aren't plausibly monetizable. The authors, in contrast, typically retained book rights, and could monetize them via short story collections, anthology sales, and, occasionally, expansion to novel-length. (Other Worlds is a bit more tangled-up than the standard case, but that only casts doubt on whether the renewal of the March 1950 issue was valid.)

Anyway. This isn't the cover to the March 1950 issue, and I don't see any evidence of copyright renewal, either for the issue as a whole or for the cover discretely. If it weren't for this having been identified as a nonfree file, I wouldn't have serious doubts. I've got a set of covers for the magazine ready to upload as free images, but if I've missed something about this file, it probably applies to most or all of the others.

Anybody have some helpful insight? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A question to ask is what period of years were you able to search for in the LOC for renewals? If we're certain that the LOC search encompassed the allowed range for this work to be renewed, and there's no evidence for that copyright (assuming you've done the search in good faith) then we should be able to treat these as free images, though I would make sure to expand the file page to explain what methods you've worked to assure this. (eg the description above). But at least last time I used the LOC copyright search, there are periods it did not coverage (the records only in print form or per request) so that's what I want to make sure we're not missing that. --18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
I turned up authors' contribution renewals for every year Other Worlds was published, except the last (when it published very little by pro writers). The magazine's first publisher shows up as renewing copyrights for every (monthly) issue of another of its magazines, Fate, for the years when it published Other Worlds. There are also a batch of issues at the Internet Archive (which is hardky perfect about checking copyrights, of course). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Then it is probably reasonably fair to consider these images in the PD due to expired copyright, but as noted, just list out what you did to confirm the lack of renewal. You've done the right homework to show that you haven't missing any obvious copyright-loophole cracks these might have fallen through, so it is completely fair to presume the expired copyright works for this case. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (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:Liv Tyler as Arwen.jpg

Removed from article. Will replace with an excellent drawing from Commons. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Non-free image used in Arwen. Image has a non-free use rationale for article, but usage appears to be purely decorative. Not sure how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8 since Tyler is only mentioned in the image's caption and two other times in the article. A non-free image is not needed to help the reader understand a statement such as "In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Arwen is played by Liv Tyler." Is there some kind of allowance made for non free images used to identify fictional characters? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was the only identifying image of the character available then yes it would be okay, but as a secondary one and where there is no discussion of the appearance or the like it does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Masem. Not sure of the meaning of "secondary one" since there is only one image being used in the article. Are you by chance referring to any of these free images found on Commons? While Tyler's portrayal of the character may be the most recent and well-known, I believe something such as File:Arwen Undómiel.jpg should be OK as a replacement, right? -Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2015 (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:Canepal.jpg

Image is only used in one article, and that is the one the this logo represents. All is ok. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2016 (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:NFC#UUI §17, this should only be used in Cricket Association of Nepal, but the FUR is for one of the other articles in which it is used. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also fails NFCC#9 in a userbox. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Commented out the image from User:D subash/stores/tamplates/User Nepali Cricket Fan which has taken care of the NFCC#9 concerns and left a link to this discussion in the edit sum. The No. 17 still need to be taken care of however. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2015 (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:Baruj Benacerraf.jpg and File:Kuznets portrait.jpg

Images removed from articles that shouldn't have them. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2016 (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 question around the use of these files in Columbia University School of General Studies has resulted in back and forth reverting. I oppose the use of these files in this article because there is no contextual significance (WP:NFCCP#8). The article section is a list of alumni and nothing warrants displaying the pictures of these two specifically; there are plenty of free images of other alumni who are listed. Even if these two Nobelists are the most important among the alumni, as Veritaslux1776 (talk · contribs) notes on my talk page, I don't see how the "omission [of the images] would be detrimental to [the] understanding" (WP:NFCCP#8) of what this section, let alone the whole article, is about. The images themselves aren't the object of critical commentary either, so the use fails both aspects (identification and object of commentary) of contextual signification.(WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion)

I also oppose the use of File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg on that article because it's not specific to this institution but rather a representation of the university as a whole. As such, it isn't necessary for identification here, unlike the seal. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I've removed the two images. They clearly fail NFCC8, and also NFCC3a because they're already used in their own articles. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I get an opinion on File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg, Black Kite? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It only has a non-free use rationale for Columbia University, so its use in Columbia University School of General Studies does not comply with WP:NFCC#10c. It is possible that this is too simple for copyright protection and its licensing may be changed to {{PD-logo}} which would make compliance with WP:NFCC a moot point. The only problem is the "crown". This is similar to the discussion in WP:NFCR#File:Made in chelsea logo.png. From that discussion, it seems that if the crown is removed or it is a derivative of a freely-licensed "crown", then the logo might be OK as "PD-logo"? Perhaps Masem or ww2censor can offer more insight here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The crown is definitely pushing it over the threshold of originality. Removing it would make it PDtextlogo. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. While NFCC#2b calls for a portion to be used when it carries the same educational value as the whole work, for logos this is somewhat different. Template:Non-free use rationale logo says: "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image." This makes me think that a cropped logo is not a a free equivalent because it misrepresents the logo. In sum: there is no free equivalent of the logo, but File:ColumbiaU Wordmarklogo.svg can not be used in Columbia University School of General Studies because it fails NFCC#8 (contextual significance) which prevents the problem with NFCC#10c (rationale on image description page) from being addressed. Is there dissent about my interpretation of NFCC#8, which I think is the real issue here? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In addition to problems with NFCC#8 and NFCC#10c, there is also No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. Basically, it is generally considered OK to use the logo of an organization in the "parent" article, but not in any of "child" articles of said organization.
This logo from the school's official Twitter account seems specific enough so that it could be used in the article with out any NFCC problems. I think the Twitter logo is better suited than the crest currently being used (not sure how that serves as the primary means of identification) and incorporates both the crown and "Columbia", so it makes the second logo unnecessary. In addition, this from the school's official Facebook page might also be possible. It could be tricky if it's a photo because even if you add a nfur for the logo/crest, you might still need OTRS permission from the photographer/copyright holder of the photo. Anyway, these are just a couple of suggestions. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2015 (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.

WPTK

Since the station used The Buzz as its name for a long time, I moved the image to the proper section and will keep it. The other two logos were for short-lived formats and have been removed. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2016 (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:850 buzz logo.jpg and File:WKIX850.png are former logos licensed as non-free for use in WPTK. Neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article itself, so usage appears to be purely decorative and does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. I am, however, wondering if these can be re-licensed as {{PD-USonly}}. The "Buzz" logo seems be just a combination of text which is too simple for copyright protection, but I am not sure about the record image used in the "All Time Favorites" logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either qualify. The first one has additional glossy text that gives it a general 3d appearance that is above and beyond standard filters, so there's some creativity in that. The second has more hand-drawn elements so it is beyond just simple geometries. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Masem. OK, they should stay non-free, but then I'm not sure if they satisfy NFCC#8. Do you think they should stay or go? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Old logos that aren't the subject of discussion should go. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Would File:WPTK850.png, another former logo, being used in the same article be considered too simple for copyright protection? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2015 (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.

Liberal Party of Canada leadership elections

Will remove move from all but the articles bearing their names. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (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 non-free images fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume they are one of the portraits in the tables, which yes, that's a NFC violation. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, two of the portraits are non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the table's incompletely pictured, anyway, thus reducing the Principle of least astonishment violation from removal.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the non-free File:Joe Greene 1968.jpg (also btw being used in a similar manner in Minister of Agriculture (Canada)) and File:Paulmartinsr.jpg should be removed from the aritcle. Only the The nfurs provided for them for the articles for each individual are valid per the reasoning given by Stefan2 above. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (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:TTUHSC.png

Will remove from branch campus article. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Appears to violate WP:NFC#UUI §17 and WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree and feel it only should be used in Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. I removed it from the draft per NFCC#9, but it's still being used in Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Amarillo Campus. I think it's important to note that Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso uses File:TTHSC ELPASO SEAL.png, so there's no reason the Amarillo Campus cannot use it's own logo if one exists or use the one being used on it's official Facebook page. File:Texas Tech University academic signature.png could be used to create a version of the Facebook logo per WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2015 (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 micronations

None of these images are present in the listed article anymore, and current use for all is appropriate. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2016 (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 nine non-free files violate WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Stefan and commented out all nine. The files are as follows:

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This one is an edge case. What is the standard for a table which is either incomplete or contains non-free images? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't include them, particularly given the table has empty rows already for other places. Non-free are not to be used in tables with limited exception, as generally the table (like this one) has zero discussion about the image, failing to meet NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if some of these fall below the TOO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (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:WLFV-FM 2009.PNG

A non-free image used as a gallery clearly does not meet fair use policy, and the fact that it is not the current logo makes it even more the case. I've removed the image and will tag for deletion. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2016 (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.

Former logo of radio station being used in WWLB. Image has non-free use for the article, but the image is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the the article and use appears purely decorative (WWLB#Previous logo). I removed the image per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8, but it was re-added so just asking for opinions as to whether this kind of usage is acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Image has a valid FUR, so non-free use is out the window. "Sourced discussion" of an image is the silliest thing I have heard. Please show me an image that has a sourced discussion and I'll show you oceanfront property in Kansas...it doesn't exist. The image has existed just fine, under the current and valid FUR, since it was moved a few months ago. I'm not sure why this has become an issue for this user, as he has commented out other images under NFCC#8 on hundreds other pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sourced discussion (that is, references that talk specifically about the image or concepts it relates) implies NFCC#8, that there is contextual context for the image's use. If there is sourced discussion about an image, that means removing the image will impair the reader's understanding of the article. If there is no sourced discussion, then the image is simply being decorative and its removal will not impact the reader's understanding. Old logos run afoul of this all the time - if the logo changes but there's no explanation given for this change, then for the encyclopedia, it is not necessary to show the old logo, and is standard practice to remove such logos in these cases. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that images used in this way are not allowed for the reasons given by Masem above, and why non-free images are not generally considered accpetable for use in galleries or in a gallery like way per WP:NFG or in lists per WP:NFLISTS. Remove the image and no significant information is lost to the reader, so it seems that the image is purely there for visual reasons. As for an example of a image being discussed within an article itself where said discussion is supported by a reliable source, I think there are some that can be found. It's not a radio station logo, but I think Real Madrid C.F.#Emblem evolution is not too bad of an example. The four images being discussed there are not non-free, so they don't need a non-free use rationale, but even so they are the subject of sourced commentary so it could be argued that removing them would be detrimental to the reader's understanding if they were non-free. File:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png is used in the infobox of Rhondda Cynon Taf, but if it was being used somewhere else (say in a section titled "Coat of Arms"), then discussion about it could be supported by this source. Maybe it's harder to do this for old radio/TV station logos, but I just don't see how a reader needs to see this particular former logo to understand the sentence "WLFV changed their format from country (as 'The Wolf', which moved to sister station WWLB 98.9 FM) to classic country, branded as '93.1 Hank FM'". Would the understanding of that sentence be affected in anyway if there was no former logo used in the article?- Marchjuly (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Have you actually seen a sourced discussion for an image? I haven't either. I believe that rule unnecessarily limits previously used images. There isn't a newspaper article or other source for the change of a radio, TV or other logo. That would just be silly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, actually I have: see Guitar Hero (series) where we include the old logo and the new, because we have two sources that talk about the change in the logo to reflect the series' new direction (the last paragraph under "Sale to Activision and development by Neversoft (2006-2009)"). Another example is several of the logos at PBS logos (please note, this is not a perfect page as the # of non-frees that aren't discussed are still too high); applicable of discussion of logos are those under the "Public Broadcasting Service IDs" describe how they came to using the "human" "P" to be inclusive of such. So logos can be the subject of sourced commentary, so that's a metric we use. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
To add that a google search of "best logo changes" shows many many hits from RSes, so people in marketing are very much aware and track this too. Sourced discussion of logo changes do readily exist, just likely not for every logo on the planet. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, while you can say alot about the Guitar Hero logo, you can only say so much about the change from one logo to another when it comes to radio stations. The logos are different, different branding, used during diffrent times with different formats. I could write something up, but it would be unsourced (it's a radio logo, no one cares about those) and there would be more about the logo than the actual station. Again, unnecessary limits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No they are necessary limits. It's within the mission to minimize non-free and to avoid indiscriminate information. Radio stations go through format and ownership changes all the time, and as you note, the logo often changes without note by anyone else. The fact that this goes unnoticed for the most part tells us that holding onto all of our non-free radio logos is indiscriminate information and because they are non-free we should only keep the one that is current (as for marketing and branding aspects per WP:LOGO) and any that are the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
One additional point to add is that radio station logos can be the subject of discussion, its just that the majority aren't. WMMS, specifically the Buzzard aspect, comes to mind. But's an iconic symbol of the station (and of the city at the time) so it definitely falls within allowable use. Demonstration of iconic nature of a logo would be a point towards keeping it. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-13/KOTK. Six years later and we're still having this debate? I note also that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#Logos disagrees with policy (2nd to last sentence of that section). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. Granted it was six years ago. :) Being a member of WP:WPRS, and knowing more in the six years since, I still disagree with the policy (like the rest of WPRS). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I wasn't trying to "break" the encyclopedia. I was editing in good faith and only removing images whose usage, which I believed (and still believe), did (does) not comply with WP:NFC based upon discussions I've seen and been a part of at NFCR and my reading of the NFC. I wasn't, however, aware of the KOTK case or the WPRS guideline cited above by Hammersoft, though in the latter's case I don't believe a WikiProject's guidelines take precedence over a community-wide policy/guideline like WP:NFC. Since there does seem to be strong disagreement about whether the use of non-free images in this manner is acceptable, I decided to go back a self-revert my edits per WP:STATUSQUO. I believe I got all of the pertinent ones, but a couple may have slipped through the cracks so I'll check again later on. At least in this way, any clean up will be minimized and images will not be incorrectly deleted if it turns out the edits were wrong. On the other hand, if it turns out the images should not be used, then they can always be removed again. Hopefully, this is acceptable to all involved in this discussion and this issue can be resolved in an amicable way. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Let the image people and the policy people rangle with one out. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's we are trying to do here. Aren't we as editors also considered to be "image and policy people"? WP:NFC is community-wide guideline and thus takes precedence over any consensus achieved at the project or article level, doesn't it? I believe all editors are free to participate in discussions such as these and try and make their case either way. Masem makes some good points above regarding using images in such a way which seem consistent with the current NFCCP. Tacking on former logos to the end of articles like this just seems purely decorative: the image is just sitting there and not being discussed. If the former logo is needed because it will significantly increase the reader's understanding in such a way that removing it would hurt that understanding, then the image should be incorporated into the article in such a way that makes this more evident. There is already an image in the infobox representing the station's current branding so another non-free image is not really needed for identification purposes. I think that once we get outside of the infobox more developed and specific commentary is needed to satisfy NFCC#8. Simply writing one or two lines (or adding a caption) describing what the logo represents and why it is contextually significant is likely to be considered to be OR, unless it's supported by a reliable source. WP:LOGO#Copyright concerns says that it's the responsibiltiy (i.e., the burden) of the person wanting to include a non-free logo to prove that its use complies with WP:NFCC. I don't see how this is all that different from an editor adding unsourced statements to an article being asked to WP:PROVEIT. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, there are editors, then there are people who specialize in image rules and creating and revising policy. BIG difference! It's like apples and squids...it's not even close. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume that the editors who specialize in (non-free) image rules and policy are also the ones who have been heavily involved in hammering out the concerned parts of WP:Logo, WP:NFC, WP:NFCC and other relevant community policy/guideline pages over the years. I'm not totally sure, but I think a few of them still readily particpate in the discussions taking place on this page or at WP:MCQ. Wouldn't the respective wording of those policy/guideline pages have been revised accordingly if the majority of those involved in the process felt it was "unnecessary limiting"? These pages do seem to currently say/imply that using a non-free logo/image in such a way (i.e., a purely decorative way) is not acceptable. Is there anything specifically written on any of the community-wide pages which leads you to believe this type of usage is OK? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. FWIW, I am not interested in imposing "my will" upon the community and will happily defer to any consensus it reaches or has reached regarding this. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I for one gave up. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC apply project wide...except where they don't. There are quite a few special, if unwritten, exemptions to the policy. Currency articles and broadcast stations are two such examples. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2015 (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:Fallas Stores Trademark Logo.jpg

Probably original enough to be copyrightable and therefore not free. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2016 (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.

Simply put, is this image eligible to be tagged as a {{PD-logo}} instead of a non-free image? I'm not sure: I only see geometric shapes and text in this logo, but it seems like it may be considered "unique". Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Marginal IMO. Unlike the previous ones, this might not meet TOO per the examples on commons:COM:TOO - it's text and coloured lines and appears to be most similar to File:Best Western logo.svg which I've always considered the "high water mark" for TOO issues. I am not 100% sure however. As an aside, this logo needs a proper source link and a version that is not as badly artifacted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_72&oldid=1077415849"