Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review/Archive 1

Feb discussion

Sounds good. I think we need to rethink our tagging again a bit. The boiler plate tags are being mistake for a 'type of content' identifyer rather than a copyright tag... Logo is probably the worst, but they all have problems. We also need to step up education. It would be useful to make people attach a justification for *every* article an image is used it (boiler plate or not), this would make it easier to automagically detect questionable use and better focus our efforts. Most importantly we need to be careful to avoid creating too difficult a process... there are a couple thousand fair use tagged images uploaded a month, and a heavy weight debate prone review system would be completely ineffective. --Gmaxwell 03:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a good first step would be to put a lot more emphasis on point #1 of our fair use criterea. If it is possible to create a free licensed image of something then no fair use image should be allowed on the subject. Otherwise people will tend to be lazy and just find a image of the subject on the net rather than go out with a camera, or take the time to re-draw a map or plot a graph or whatever themselves, or just plain ask the copyright holder if they would be willing to release a picture under a free (or at least semi free) license.

I agree that education is the key tough. Our rules should be fine as is, problem is to make people aware that they exist, and then to follow them. My impression from working a bit with images here is that a lot of people don't have the faintest idea about copyright issues, and many who do don't bother taking the hassle of writing verbose image pages because "nobody else does". As long as people interpret licenses like "you may download these images for you personal non-commercial use" to mean "anyone can use this for anyting", or believe that "stuff found on more than one webpage is public domain" and whatever, trying to enforce the "finer points" of our fair use policy is going to be an uphill battle indeed, there are just too few people who are willing to spend time enforcing these things compared to the number of people who upload poorly or mistaged images, not to mention "unfair" fair use. Currently we are months behind dealing with even the most blatant problem of images that have no copyright tags. Seems to me that unless we can somehow raise awarenes about these things whatever review processes we set up will be hoplessly backloged. --Sherool (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So what do people think about beginning a massive campaign to apply {{Fairusenoalternative}} and {{Fairusereplace}} in mass to all standing works? I could create a webpage on toolserver which would enable highly effective colaboration for this task (quickly displaying a dozen images at a time and providing 'yes/no/don't know' checkboxes etc).... I've thought about doing it in the past (after all, I created the templates), but it seems like such a waste of time when there are so many images which .. well.. should just simply be deleted. That concern is what caused me to begin my orphan fair use tagging adventures (over 20,000 tagged and deleted now)... I think that with the right tools setup we could probably tag all 130,000 images with around 151 man hours of labor. If people think this would be useful, and think that we can actually get the work done, I'll go ahead and build the tool. --Gmaxwell 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. Far too often I see images which are blatantly not fair use (just look at the featured picture on Portal:India) and can't think of what to do with them. See also my comments on WT:RFAr; not enough people understand how fair use works. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

On Magazine covers

I have produced a list of articles which don't appear to be about a magazine yet are only illustrated with magazine cover tagged images. Might be useful for finding some offenders. --Gmaxwell 06:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll deal with them soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk is cheap

So here are the new actions I'm going to take in the near term to improve the state of 'fair use' images on Wikipedia:

1. I will alter all of the currently active 'boilerplate' fair use justification templates to include a field for what article the justification applies for. I will make the change in such a way that the notices still look fine for media which uses the template without the new field. I may adjust the language of the template so that multiple instances of the same template on a media page to not look disturbing.

   This change is important because justification must be *per use*. Although in many cases the same justification applies, there are many other cases where it does not. More importantly, when someone links an additional article to a fair use image there is currently no record created that allows us to know if they even considered the copyright implications. Also, when an image has been orphaned due to vandalism or an editwar, such tagging can help us avoid incorrectly deleting an image as an orphan.

2. I will rename some of the more generically titled fair use boilerplate templates. For whatever templates I rename I will announce my intentions in advance and have my robot fixup all current uses to the new name.

   Right now many are misused by people who believe they are identifying the type of the content rather than it's fair use justification. For example {{icon}}. As a result some of these templates can't even tell us if the content is fair use vs free content, and we can forget about these templates telling us if the use has been carefully considered.

3. I will adjust our fair use guidelines and instruction pages to reflect the above changes, and require that every use of a fair use image have a justification template, or the use of a generic 'fairuseinbecause' template.
4. I will adjust our fair use guidelines and instruction pages to require the use of the {{fairusenoalternative}} and {{fairusereplace}} additive templates.

   This is important for two reasons: The first is that it segments works into a group which is very likely to have a strong fair use justification and a group which is less likely, the second is that the use of fairuse images where free alternatives are possible is strongly at odds with our goal to create a 'Free encyclopedia.

5. I will setup an automated tool on toolserver which will facilitate the auditing of fair use media and it's tagging without an excess of duplicated effort.
6. I will produce a live report of fairuse images which are in pages without a matching justification template.

If anyone has any comment on these items, please let it be known now. :) --Gmaxwell 18:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I'll support you on these excellent action points. One thing I'd like to see is an extension that makes people prove the 4 criteria for fair use that is documented in the U.S. Code (see fair use). How easy do you reckon that would be? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well an interesting discussion can be had on this. What do you think about the boilerplate justification templates? I think they are clearly benificial in cases where we have a fair use claim becuase they ensure that our use has a well thoughout and consistent justification attached. In cases where we don't have a claim they can be benificial because they should state requirement which are easy to see as untrue. However, they can cause harm as well, because they attach a good looking justification in cases where no one has actually given the matter in any though. I think we need to determine the future of these templates before we talk about making sure the requirements are documented. Do we remove them? Do we keep them? Do we amend them?

I think we should keep them, with improvements to their language, but be anal about ensuring that they are actually used correctly. I'm not overly attached to this plan, so if someome thought we really should replace them with something you subst then fill out, I wouldn't cry. --Gmaxwell 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I had no idea those templates existed. I've added them to almost all the fair use images I've uploaded; fortunately, I only had to tag one with {{fairusereplace}}. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong claims of fair use will never get a replace... that's a lot ofthe point of fair use. I introduced them after a conversation with Jimbo on the subject [1]. Originally I intended to replace the generic fair use template with this and this, but Wikiproject fair use was really spinning up at the time and they over-ruled me. I fought it enough to keep them as additive templates but Jimbo began another worldwind tour of the world, so I couldn't lean on him for support, and I realized that it was a waste of my time to battle with the Wikilaywers. Instead I divorced myself from them and began taging thousands of images for deletion. I've had a lot of success wit that, but now that process is going smoothly it's time to take my work to the next level. The tags have gone almost entirely unused, and it's time for that to change. Thanks for tagging your images. --Gmaxwell 16:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Factionalism

OK guys, this business of factions is getting irritating. It does not help us if there is one group taking Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as their policy development locus, and a different group using Wikipedia:Fair use review, and having editwarring over the two. If you look at some of the discussion on the respective talk pages, there is quite a lot of similarity, and everybody involved wants to end up in the same place, so let's stop working at cross-purposes. We need both people to develop better templates, and people to take action once developed, and they aren't necessarily going to be the same people. We don't have to panic about fair use images, but at the same time we absolutely must have process that will keep with the influx. Stan 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of JYolkowski blanking the page here I haven't seen anything anyone would call editwarring. I've certainly done nothing that has impeded the folks on WikiProject Fair use in their work, and the only thing I've seen anyone from there do thats impeded anyone else is the attempts to justify our copyright violations in the TIME cover case. It's not a big deal. The world doesn't end when we have more than one team attacking a problem. --Gmaxwell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He added a link to the fair use project, you removed it. I've looked at the whole page history, and and it's really underwhelming. Your phrasing it just now as "attempts to justify our copyright violation" sounds like an assumption of bad faith. More than one team attacking a problem is great; teams attacking each other is not at all helpful. If one team goes to the trouble of defining a template and adding it to images, and another team independently decides it's no good and deletes all the images with that template, then the effort of the first team has been wasted. If your belief is that all fair use images should be deleted no matter what, and you're just interested in tactics towards that goal, then at least be honest and say so; don't pretend to be working with anybody who is trying to develop good fair use rationales. Stan 18:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a funny notion of 'adding a link' [2] [3] . Even when he finally did add a link he managed to change the page to instruct users that this isn't an approiate page to discuss the matter, but his pet project is... That you see no problem with this kills your creditability in my eyes.

As far as "attempts to justify our copyright violation", I do not believe he is acting in bad faith, if I did so I would be requesting he be barred from further action. Rather, I think WikiProject Fair use and most of its participants value increasing the quality of our articles over ensuring that our content is Free. I realize my statement that they are primarily attempting to justify our copyright violations is a serious claim, but I've back it up with, what I believe to be, a solid argument and I've yet to see a serious attempt to refute my claims.

Where has there been an instance of anyone "delete(ing) all the images with (a) template"? Name one.

I never claimed that I believe that all fair use images should be deleted. I believe that fair use images should be preserved where they are important to their articles, and that fair use images which are not fair use, or are just of low value should be removed. This is consistent with our policies and with the goals of the project. --Gmaxwell 23:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from [4], I didn't let him off the hook; effectively erasing a project page by redirecting it is not a friendly act. By "deletes all the images with that template" I meant {{TIME}} specifically; if only 1-2 covers can be a valid fair use no matter what, there's not much point in defining the template and wordsmithing what it says, etc. In any case, I'm glad to hear we agree on the goals for fair use!

However, I don't think phrasing like "attempting to justify our copyright violations" is helpful - a determined skeptic could say that about any fair use rationale, and argue that the most well-written judge-pleasing rationale is just an excuse so elaborate that it's hoodwinking the judiciary. So to some extent I think we're operating in an intrinsically messy zone, and we get into disputes because different people want to draw sharp lines at different places through the zone. To take an example, some of our most highly-credentialed academic editors, who have been involved in professional publishing ventures and presumably have firsthand experience with image copyright issues, also seem the most inclined both to upload and vigorously defend what seems to everybody else like blatant copyvios (an exercise for the reader to supply the user names I'm thinking of :-) ).

Empirically, I think WP works best when we have the sharp lines, because then the one side can be a freefire zone for bold and energetic enforcers, while the other side is safe for random editors. For instance, orphaned images are a good sharp line; either the image is used or it is not, and once the initial whining was over, the rule has become generally accepted and uncontroversial. So as I see it we just need to establish some more lines, and then act on them. Stan 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Should we archive fair use review requests? If so, which ones? Do we archive all, or just the ones where the image(s) were kept? I just removed a deleted image's discussion from the page, but I didn't archive it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no one seems to care much, since no one has answered in over three months! I don't suppose there's really much need to archive. Everything is still in the history. User:Angr 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use criteria consensus discussion started

After quite a few months, I have kicked off Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. It is not a vote, but will give each editor the chance to support or oppose the amendment very clearly. I've got it going for a fortnight as obviously it needs to end some time, and there is a lack of guidance on how to amend policy.

If anyone knows where else I should be notifying that this has started, please let me know! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainspace categorization of this page?

These wikipedia maintenance space articles shouldn't be classed with the mainspace encyclopedic categorization. I created Category:Wikipedia fair use as a better categorization structure, and linked from the mainspace; but I can't figure out where the category is on this page? Embedded in some template? ... also, the fair use media categories (e.g., Category:Fair use media) are confusing. Do they have mainspace encyclopedic significance, or are they only used for wikipedia maintenance? Thoughts? --lquilter 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria explanations

Greetings, all. I created an essay on our non-free content criteria, as a way of explaining to new (or not-so-new) users how our image policies work. It's at User:Quadell/nfcc. If you could read it and comment on its talk page, I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename

Any opposition to renaming this page to Wikipedia:Non-free content review to match the majorty of our pages on non-free content? --Gmaxwell 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd been thinking that for a while. Good idea. Also, Template:Replaceable non-free, Category:Orphaned non-free images, Wikipedia:Non-free content rationale guideline, etc. etc. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll give it a little more time for comments then do it... I took a break before driving the rename process to completion.. it should be done soon. --Gmaxwell 23:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. ElinorD (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They should all match not only for consistency, but also because our non-free content policy is not equivalent to the legal definition of fair use.

Question: Should "fair use rationales" be changed to "non-free use rationales"? What I mean is, is the fundamental nature of such a rationale a declaration that the image complies with the law or our policy? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree to change Gmaxwell's proposal, not sure about Quadell's. --Iamunknown 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "non-free content rationales"? -- But|seriously|folks  02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Aerial photos

Have you ever tagged aerial photo as replaceable, only to be chided that you would need a plane to replace it? Here is an innovative solution. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but using neighboring frames of video is cheating. --Knulclunk 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How can this help to replace aerial photo?SuperElephant 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearing the air on the non-free content guideline

This discussion is brought over from comments I made within the Intelligent design section of the main page.

I think there is a need for clarification on the guideline and the policy on Non-free content. At present, reviews are being distracted by a large volume of debate focussed upon review or proper interpretation of the Non-free content criteria policy, and the associated guideline for that policy Non-free content. This is disruptive for the reviews of other pages, and frustrating for everyone involved, regardless of their perspective.

I have proposed a clarification for addition to the guideline, but that is now being discussed and will not result in any change for the forseeable future. In the meantime, we can at least try and help avoid every review on this page being distracted by asides on the guideline and policy.

I think the following points ought to be pretty obvious; though not everyone agrees. I've taken account of some suggested improvements in the wording, however.

1. The Non-free content criteria policy of the English wikipedia is currently the subject of debate and dispute. Debate on that policy should take place in its discussion page, and not within the review of other articles.
2. Some Wikipedia editors believe there should be no non-free images used in Wikipedia. That is not part of the present policy, and not a basis for this review of non-free use in various individual articles. Current policy does allow for non-free images to be used to enhance the quality of articles, under conditions set out in the policy.
3. Some Wikipedia editors believe that establishing "fair use" under copyright law is an adequate basis for non-free images to be used in the same way as images in the public domain. That is not a part of the present policy, and the use of non-free images does have strong additional requirements set out in the policy, which must be addressed in a fair use review.
4. The current policy does not require that non-free images must be essential, or necessary, for understanding of the topic.
5. The current policy does require that non-free images give a significant contribution to understanding of the topic.
6. Non-free images must give a significant contribution that cannot be obtained by the use of plain text.
7. Non-free images must give a significant contribution that cannot be obtained by using other freely licensed images.

Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am gob-smacked that the factuality of the fourth point has been disputed on the main page. The guideline to the policy provides an illustrative example for legitimate use of a magazine cover, as an exception given within list of "unacceptable" uses. Here is the example from the guideline.

The Demi Moore article shows a famous cover of Vanity Fair, in which Demi Moore is shown in a profile shot from head to thigh, naked, pregnant, shielding her breasts with one arm and cradling her swollen abdomen with the other.

The textual description I have given for that magazine just now is sufficient for basic "understanding", and so the cover image is not "necessary". But the actual image of the cover unquestionably conveys significant real information over and above what can be provided as text. And what the policy actually requires is "significance".

You can easily test the meaning of the policy by applying the words to a free use image. Suppose, for example, that in another context there was a concern for bandwidth, so that images were only added if they provide some significant contribution. This is much different from saying that images should only be added if they are strictly necessary. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply see no other way of interpreting the wording of NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", than to say that the policy does require that non-free images be essential or necessary for understanding the topic. If a non-free image merely gives a significant contribution to understanding of the topic, but without reaching the level of being essential or necessary for understanding the topic, then the omission of the image will not be detrimental to understanding the topic. What NFCC8 says in simpler language is "If the article can be understood without the image, don't use it." —Angr 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposal for a subsection on application of policy. —Angr 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing thread . . . -- But|seriously|folks  06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intent to have a debate on the meaning of the guideline and policy carried on in many separate locations. Primarily, I wanted to let discussion on the main page here return to its proper focus, which is the various articles that contain non-free content, and to review those articles. Not to review or debate guidelines. I sought to help forestall disruptive secondary debate by giving a limited statement of what I naively thought could be a common ground for agreement by all sides. And at first, that seemed to be the effect.

I will not debate the meaning of the policy phrasing here while it is being addressed in a discussion at the guideline page itself, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 56#Proposal for a subsection on application of policy. That discussion arose when, in the first flush of apparent consensus across divided lines here, I proposed a corresponding clarification to be added to the guideline. My proposal was not adopted in the form I presented it, thought I remain hopeful that some kind of clarity will emerge over there. We'll see. My sincere apologies for fracturing this discussion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matching the rationale of review with the rationale of policy

I have made what I naively trust will be a universally acceptable change to the description at the top of the page for the purpose of the non-free content policy. In my view, the previous version only provided half the story, by having no mention of the goal of high-quality, which according to policy is the basis for allowing limited amounts of non-free content. Rather than try to interpret policy, I have simply take a direct copy of the rationale that is given at the top of the non-free content policy, and used that as the description of purpose for these reviews. The review is, after all, guided by policy; and so should have the same rationale.

I have also cleaned up a problem with the archive box, which was rendered badly on my browser. It has been relocated down to be next to the table of contents. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Question on fair use review

I asked this at help desk WP:HELP but seems like no one there knows, so I would like to try my luck here as well:

I have a question on fair use review. Suppose I have doubt whether an image qualifies as fair use or not in an article. There is a tag called {{fairusereview}} so I think one places this tag on the image. When done so, it displays the following:

A user has requested a review of the status of this image under our policy for non-free content. Please do not remove this template until an independent review has taken place.

Now what is this "independent review" mentioned here? Is this an admin looking at the situation and deciding? Or is it a discussion for consensus at WP:FUR much like, say, an WP:AFD discussion? As far as I see, placing this tag does not automatically generate a discussion section at WP:FUR so should the tag placer also make such a section when placing this tag? I ask this because I saw many images with this tag but no corresponding sections at the WP:FUR so was wondering what the official procedure is. Thank you... --Kudret abi^Talk 08:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The review is a discussion here. The user placing the tag should start a new section here. Some of the existing tags could be from images whose discussion here has archived. Someone will need to go through Category:Fair use review requested and remove the template from images that are not actually being discussed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion Results: This Project Must Be Reformed

This project was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2008 and the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review. The result was that this project should not be deleted but needs to be reformed. One suggestion that stood out was for merger with Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images (PUI). Discussion of that proposal should take place at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#Merger proposal. Other suggestions, if any, should be discussed here; however, it seems incumbent on this project to resolve its relationship to PUI, no matter what the outcome of the merger discussion, as the projects appear to largely overlap and PUI appears to be far more active. This is what I saw as the consensus out of MfD and beyond this I take no particular position. Again please keep discussion of the merger proposal at WT:PUI.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The merger was rejected by PUI. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Current list of non-free review requested

This list is very hard to find. I don't see an obvious link between this page, and the Category:Non-free_content_review_requested page. Maybe these should be merged or linked more clearly somehow? For the time being, I'm going to insert a link somewhere in the blue box to make this easier to find. Chaldor (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also numerous images in Category:Fair use review requested as a result of having an old {{Fairusereview}} tag. The tag template is now redirected; so they will switch to Category:Non-free content review requested if they are given so much as a null edit. Most of them appear never to have had a listing on this page. —teb728 t c 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't need a null edit: they should eventually work their way to the top of the workqueue and switch. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One bug and one note

• I added the Template:Non-free review to a page that start with "File:" but the template generates a link with anchor "#Image:" so the link to the content review page doesn't work properly.
• On the review page, the "How to nominate" instruction box was not providing a convenient link with &section=new for creating a new section at the bottom of the page -- I've added one now.

Regards, 62.147.39.185 (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
• User:Moonriddengirl/WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fail

It appears to me that this page has substantially failed. Discussions here don't lead to an enforceable conclusion, and there are other options like {{subst:dfu}} and FFD to address image issues. This is also a low-traffic board, with issues remaining open for substantial periods of time. Is there any reason I shouldn't MFD it? Stifle (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it sometimes happens FFD is inappropriate because one use of non-free material is OK but another is not. This board was meant to address such cases but has failed because of low participation and the lack of formal closures (i.e. like at XfD) means the filibuster trumps policy. CIreland (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I previously nominated this forum for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fair use review, but since then I have come to see some value in it: It is used by inexperienced and technophobic users raise concerns, and if a file should be deleted, an experienced editor FfDs it or tags it for speedy deletion as appropriate.

I certainly agree that there is a problem when someone insists on using an image that cannot be deleted, but that is not particularly a problem with this forum. Rather the problem is that there is no process anywhere on Wikipedia for dealing with this kind of dispute. Perhaps a way to deal with it would be to expand the use of MediaWiki:Bad image list.

Another problem exists where a poster's concern has no obvious answer: With its low traffic this forum doesn't get much discussion. —teb728 t c 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass Closing discussions

Open discussions have today been closed in masse. That kinda defeats the purpose of this page.

In particular, I've been waiting over a month for community input on usage of File:Bokassa.jpg and File:Boganda.jpg in Central African Republic article. Another editor who had never shown any interest in the article unilaterally decided that these images were no longer needed in this article, with no discussion, and when reverted and directed to talk, responded with reverting back and a pile of acronyms (which when examined had not definitive application to the situation).

Essentially the outcome of this is, if you are not willing to engage in an edit war, your opinion loses to someone who's willing to bully you. User_talk:UninvitedCompany's "Closing as no action since the images have already been removed from the subject articles." is simply unacceptable.

Further evidence of how broken Wikipedia in general and this place in particular is. T L Miles (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you had been waiting almost 3 months (since 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)). Obviously nobody had any interest in discussing the section. How long did you think we should keep the stale discussion open? Part of the reason why nobody was interested in replying is that your post didn’t ask for an explanation; you just stated your opinion that the image was nice to have in the article. You would have gotten better discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. But now that you have my attention, let me give you the long explanation:

Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. As a result Wikipedia strongly prefers content that is free to be reused by anyone for anything. If an article contains content that is not free to reused by anyone for anything, it hampers the reusability of the article.

As a result Wikipedia severely restricts the use of non-free content as a matter of policy; see the official non-free content policy. In one particular restriction: “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” There is, however, a precedent that a non-free image used in an infobox to identify the subject of the article fulfils this restriction (as long as it fulfils the rest of the policy).

Unfortunately this precedent creates a misunderstanding for some people. It applies only to identification of the subject of the article; it does not apply to identification of people and topics that are mentioned in the article—even to very important people and topics. Used for anything other than identification of the subject of the article, a non-free image is acceptable only if its use is essential to readers’ understanding of the article.

So use of a free image is subject to consensus on the article talk page on whether the image would be nice to have in the article. But use of a non-free image is governed by policy.

I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh good. Now that "I have you attention", you should discuss things on talk pages before taking unilateral action.

A) “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” requires assessment and opinion. It is not policy (although clearly some people would like it to be) that fair use content may never be used. Discussion and consensus must be reached on when an image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" Despite your obvious feeling that your opinion is the only valid one here, the purpose of this page is to gather community opinion, not make pronouncements and end cases without discussion.

B) Mass removal of old discussions never dealt with is a crock. It doesn't solve the problem of the backlog here, it just shunts it down the road. And that's clearly a problem. See the discussion above, re: marking this whole thing as historical. It doesn't make it any more functional for one person to close all the discussions unilaterally. Perhaps you should have floated the plan here first? Regardless, that it takes someone calling you on it for ANYONE to make a statement of how a case relates to your reading of policy is dysfunctional at best. That having to even explain (leaving aside any honest disagreement) so clearly ticks you off is also not a good sign.

T L Miles (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In the first place I am not “ticked off” (and frankly I can’t imagine where you got the notion that I was). My emotional response was: in the first place sympathy that the reason for the removals had not been explained to you, secondly amazement that you would be offended by the closure of a discussion that had died three months ago, and finally more sympathy that nobody was directing you to a forum where you might get a better response.

As for the right forum: It is unfortunate that Howcheng brought the issue to this forum, for low participation makes this a rather dysfunctional forum. Depending on your intention, another forum would be more useful to you: If you wanted to talk about the appropriateness of the image to the article, a good forum would have been Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. If you wanted to ask how to deal with content conflicts, a good forum would have been Wikipedia:Help desk. If you wanted to discuss the process for deciding the use of non-free images, perhaps something at Wikipedia:Village pump would be appropriate.

As for the closure: this forum keeps discussions open far longer than other forums. The Help desk archives discussions after four days. Media copyright questions archives them seven days after the last post. UninvitedCompany's stated reason for closing, “no action since the images have already been removed from the subject articles”, might have been stated better as “no discussion since 29 March 2009”, but he was certainly correct to close it. You say the discussion was never dealt with; but the main open issues in your post were that deletions should be discussed in the talk pages of articles and that “a more politic strategy might be taken in the future”. These are not issues for this forum (even if it had been a more functional forum). Let me ask you again: How long did you think we should keep a stale discussion open? —teb728 t c 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I did review each of the items I closed in detail, and believe that the results of these discussions (no action) were appropriate in each case. Not all listings here have merit, and as with WP:AFD, the clearest cases tend to be dealt with through other means. I had thought closing some discussions that had clearly run their course would be helpful.  ::shrug:: I was going to review and close some more today, but hey, if there are objections, I'll stop. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No consensus on non-free images; defaults to ... ?

Please participate in a discussion about no consensus FfD results for non-free images at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

non-file content

Hello, is there a place to review non-file content? (ie, stuff created in text or markup) ? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, though we have discussed text on this page as well. See the section "Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den". -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of images

User:Aspects and I appear to disagree about how best to proceed when a band logo or album cover image is used in an article and there is not an adequate non-free fair use justification. I don't think he and I will easily reach any sort of agreement with each other, so I'm bringing it here to try to get a broader consensus.

I believe Aspects will agree that his usual procedure in these cases is:

1. Remove the image from the article.
2. Mark the image for deletion as orphaned non-free.
3. Notify the uploader of the orphaned non-free image (without any indication that the image was "orphaned" by Aspects only minutes earlier).

Since this has happened recently to two images I uploaded before we had our current approach to non-free fair use justifications (and our current level of citations), I may be particularly sensitive on this matter, but it seems to me that there can be two equally desirable outcomes, and Aspects' approach is heavily biased toward one of these outcomes. The desirable outcomes are:

1. Get an explicit non-free fair use justification, which also involves either adding relevant, cited commentary about the image to the article or verifying that there already is relevant commentary in the article.
2. Remove the image.

The two recent places this arose for me were images at The Black Angels and The Chesterfield Kings. In both cases, the images (a logo with a picture of Nico and an album cover referencing the Rolling Stones, respectively) constituted acknowledgments of influences (both now restored and duly justified, with citations for the significance).

I heartily endorse discussing whether non-free use of a particular image in a particular article is valid, but I think it makes fruitful discussion much more difficult when you precede the discussion by removing the image from articles, so that it may not even clear to the uploader where it was used.

If a non-free image had become orphaned in the normal course of events—e.g., replaced by a free image—then of course the non-free image should be deleted, but we should not create the illusion that has occurred when it has not. Under Aspects' approach, if the uploader doesn't happen to know where the image had been used, by the time the uploader receives a notice it is very difficult to determine that (unless they happen to work out that Aspects just removed it—a fact not indicated in the notice—and check Aspects' contributions). This severely handicaps anyone who might wish to defend the previous use of the image or add relevant commentary about the image to the article.

Aspects has written (at User talk:Aspects): "It should not be difficult to figure out what article the image was removed from since each image should contain a fair use rationale for the article and if it does not that is the fault of the uploader." (1) That is not the case if the images were uploaded before about 2005 and (2) "fault" should be neither here nor there: we should be looking for the best outcome, not approaching this adversarially.

The upshot: Aspects' approach seems to assume we will usually be better off losing the images than getting the justification. I disagree, and would like to see an approach to this that is not so biased toward one of the two potentially desirable results. - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Image use in infobox

Please see Talk:Eleventh_Doctor#RfC:_Image_use_in_infobox. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Related RFC at article Dalek

Please see Talk:Dalek#RfC:_Free-use_image_for_infobox_picture.3F. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive

If I've done it right, I've set this page for automatic archival by ClueBot III when issues are marked resolved or if they've gone 4320 hours without reply. 4320 hours is a ridiculously long time, since that's 180 days, but I figured we wouldn't want to create a situation where stuff was getting archived without any effort at resolution. If it works, ClueBot will automatically archive material marked done or resolved. I expect this to be uncontroversial, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to revert me. We can work out issues and potential problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You also marked it as a guideline, with two shortcuts given that don't actually point here. Was that intentional? Algebraist 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've pulled the guideline template and the nutshell pending discussion of the issue here. If anything I'd think that this would belong to Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. It doesn't strike me as a guideline though, and I don't see any demonstrated consensus that it is considered to be so here on the talk page.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the guideline notice was completely unintentional. :) (Oops!) I started putting the archive box on Wikipedia:Non-free content before realizing I was in the wrong place. When I copied it over, I copied over the attached content from that page without noticing. When I saw the open nutshell, I didn't realize what I had done, but presumed I had simply broken what was already there (and so corrected). Thanks for cleaning that up. I presume that the archival itself is not problematic? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see something like this resolved to everyone's satisfaction without pages worth of "dramaz" for once! Just coincidentally, it would probably be a good thing to add this page to Category:Wikipedia noticeboards, regardless. I suppose that I'll come back around in a day or two and add it, if nobody objects or does so before I do. You guys may want to think about moving it to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Non-free content review and/or adding {{Noticeboard links}} as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the category, but haven't moved it (obviously :D) or listed it at {{Noticeboard links}}. I'm not entirely sure where it would go. It's not specifically an administrator noticeboard, since it says any editor can close a listing. Content seems generally more text based. Hmm. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we be protective rather than destructive?

Not sure whether here or WT:CSD is the proper place for this, but I'm going to throw this here since the fair use people can probably exert force on the issue. Can we stop issues like what happened in this file's page history? In this case, the file was already tagged as an unfree screenshot, but with no rationale; as soon as someone noticed this, they tagged it with CSD F6 and it was deleted. Now, in cases like this, where there's a specific fair-use tag on the article, it should be obvious that a fair-use rationale can be concocted for the file. Instead of tagging as CSD F6, why not just put the rationale in? It probably takes 30 seconds if you know of a similar file you can borrow the basis of the rationale from. You're already editing the page to tag it, after all.

To preempt any possible comments along the lines of "If It Had A Fair Use Rationale It Wouldn't Be Deleted", may I point out that the file in question was originally uploaded in 2006; I'm pretty sure this predates the rationale stuff. I had no idea this file was lacking the rationale—I'd never looked at the image page, and my only clue that it had been deleted was when somebody commented out the image on the article page. Even if it had not existed before the fair use guidelines, well-meaning newcomers, even if they understand copyright and fair use, probably find the rationale thing completely opaque. By adding the rationales yourself, you might clue such newcomers in.

By contributing to this encyclopedia voluntarily, you're already going the extra half-mile that many of its users do not; why not go the full extra mile and add rationales instead of deleting? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

I have posed a question regarding a large category of fair-use images at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 68#Non-free magazine covers and your input is requested. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussing fair use applicability before uploading an image

Is there a place on WP where one could discuss appropriateness of a possible fair use claim for an image before that image is uploaded? If not, it seems to me that setting up a page for such discussions would be useful. It'd probably prevent a considerable number of images with invalid far use claims from being uploaded to WP in the first place, and will make the subsequent deletion of such files unnecessary. I am asking because I am facing this situation myself. There is a particular image that I might want to use in a specific article, but I am not sure if a fair use claim would be appropriate. After looking through a large number of image-related pages, I could not find one where such questions could be asked and advice received. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia talk:Non-free content would be the place for that. __meco (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Active Project?

Is this project even active? Seems quite dead... is there a better venue for this now? — raekyT 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is not very active but most questions are posted on the mainpage. You can always make copyright inquiries on media copyright questions page. ww2censor (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On-image notification

Would it be a good idea to make use of a template to inform readers of articles where the images being reviewed are placed about the ongoing discussion, a modification of {{Ffdc}} used in FfD processes? __meco (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with WP:CCI

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822

Hi. There's a CCI with which I would really appreciate some assistance from somebody comfortable with the ins-and-outs of NFC image use. I've sorted as many of the images as I felt comfortable doing, but I have never been comfortable with the nuances between when an image of a person is okay and when it's not. The vast majority of non-free images left for review in this are probably fine, although some of them may need better FURs. Any contributor without a history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. Please, anyone who can spare some time, just review the images in the "Additional review needed (NF or Free)" sections (one for each "Media batch" of the alphabet). If you think it's okay, move it into the nearest "Reviewed, believed clear" (with your sig). If you think it needs attention, tag it accordingly and move it into "Tagged for action" with an indication of what it needs. No need to notify the contributor; he has opted to watch the CCI instead of receiving direct notice. Note, too, that a good many of the images listed for "additional review" are asserted to be free, but I have not sorted them because for one reason or another I could not verify that they are. You'd be welcome to help out there, too! Do a little, do a lot. Whatever. Just help. :) Please? :D It'll be good to get this one cleared out and archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Photos of detainees in Guantanamo

There is a photo of Mohamedou Ould Slahi that was originally published in 2008 by Der Spiegel. Link It has subsequently been cropped and published online by other sources. Link Slahi's lawyer has stated that there are no other pictures of Slahi available. See discussion here: Talk:Mohamedou_Ould_Slahi#Fair_Use_Image I'd like to publish the photo on the article under a fair use rationale. Is this possible? How? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Project page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation, or possible test cases concerning WP:NFCC

The following is a duplicate of my recent request on Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Interpretation.2C_or_possible_test_cases_concerning_WP:NFCC

Please decide whether this has to be discussed here or there. [w.] 10:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi.
During last days, I had multiple issues with one single user (I think it is even an admin) on my understanding&usage of 'FairUse' uploads. The opposing person was somewhat harsh, eliminating/trying to eliminate several of my uploads by setting them free for deletion, being orphaned without IMO serious reason.
I, for myself, was convinced in all those cases that no free equivalents to my uploads would exist. Samples:

1. File:Albert Richter (German Track Cyclist, 1912-1940).jpg vs. free File:Albert Richter (1912-1940).png -- IMO, the press photograph of a world champion is not an "equivalent" to the baby-face pic on his gravestone, taken several years earlier.
2. File:Émile Bernard 1888-08 - Breton Women in the Meadow (Le Pardon de Pont-Aven).jpg vs. File:Breton Women.jpg which is van_Gogh's copy, and therefore of high interest for comparison (v.Gogh, Bernard and Gaugin were 'befriended"' to some extent, and exchanged several paintings), but in no case this is an "equivalent" as claimed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A%C3%89mile_Bernard_1888-08_-_Breton_Women_in_the_Meadow_%28Le_Pardon_de_Pont-Aven%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=413450243&oldid=352467437
   -- however, I am not sure about actual "PD" status, not knowing whether the painting had ever been published before 1923 (see Template:PD-US-1923-abroad).
   Similar applies to others of my "Fair use" uploads of this painter's oeuvre, as this artist had used very different styles during his career, and there should be more than half a dozen samples to APPROXIMATELY illustrate this artist's oeuvre (which is all-too much neglected until today). As all of his oeuvre will be PD anyways in 2012, it does not seem worth while to argue very much about thisone.
3. On some screenshots of French musicians from 1960s, I am also uncertain whether user:Seraphimblade does not overdo
   -- but as long as bootleg videos are available by youtoube, there is not much reason to fight for any of those uploads.
   Nevertheless, I do not think that edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A9o_Ferr%C3%A9&diff=prev&oldid=413292769 are useful to enWP-readers/users -- there is, imnsvho, some considerable delay from "1960s", where Ferré was a star "in action", to "1985" (a very old man).
4. Question: How about encyclopedic value?

• In case you comment, please quote single ones of the issues by "@#1", "@#2". "@#3". -- [w.] 10:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the best place to discuss compliance with the NFCC is at WP:NFR, rather than here. thanks Ajbpearce (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A person whom I trust had given me the hint to "go here". I nevertheless have no problem to address the link you propose. However, there finally should be but ONE place where this issue is discussed. I'll do my best. -- [w.] 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

--[w.] 10:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway article - images

In response to an enquiry about the images in the article Stanley Holloway, ww2censor has suggested on the copyright questions page that I raise the question here. There are several images in the Holloway article that I think may need examination, and I'm seeking the views of, or necessary action by, image experts. – Tim riley (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Several non-free images had no non-free use rationale of the article; I removed those. Another had a rationale, but it was invalid because there was no critical commentary; I tagged it for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 11:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's reassuring to have expert input when one is in doubt. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How enforceable are these closures?

I'd like to help out on this page, but currently I'm not seeing any guidelines for closure. Until directed otherwise, I'm going to treat these like and AfD or DRv, and super!vote like usual use my normal discretion. If I'm over-enthusiastic and screw something up, just let me know. Also, I'm releasing my administrative actions into the wild with respect to this page, so open slather to other administrators on restoring anything I delete as a result of closes here. No need to ask me first, just let me know after. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the uploader - should it be required?

I posted my first request for a non-free content review earlier today. While looking for responses, I glanced above, and saw that an image I uploaded is the subject of an intense debate. I was surprised to find out about it that way. I checked the nomination steps, and do not see anything suggesting that the uploader should be notified.

I think this should be added to the steps, ideally with a template designed for the purpose. I can't believe I'm the first editor with this suggestion; is there some reason this isn't part of the process? I searched the archives for the word "notify" and see a few examples where some did notify an uploader, but I don't see any discussion about the merits of doing so as a part of the process.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to have a bot for that purpose. It should be easy enough for a bot to scan the review page for new additions, read the section title of a thread and if it contains something like File:...., determine the original uploader and drop him / her a message. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Any additional opinions on this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the skill set to write a bot, which might be the way to go. Absent someone taking on that task, adding a step to the process asking the nominator to notify should be easy; is there any reason not to do that?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's common courtesy to notify the uploader. However, we have to keep in mind that a lot of fair use images are uploaded by 1 person, and then reduced by someone else or a bot, so the uploader of record might not be the original uploader. --GrapedApe (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The original uploader is normally the one who made the first revision of the file information page, so it is easy to identify the uploader. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And yet I get messages all the time telling me that the files I resized (but wasn't the original uploader for) are up for deletion.... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Actually Manguard reminds me that previous larger sizes of resized non-free images are deleted so the only editor listed on the file page will the resizing editor. The original uploader no longer appears, so a bot cannot notify the original uploader even if they are still active editors. ww2censor (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
        • If you use WP:TW to propose a file for deletion, the notice goes to the one who made the first revision to the textual information on the file information page (see "action=history"). This is usually the initial uploader and not the one who resized the image. You can find all uploaders by looking at Special:Log/upload if you want to notify everyone. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrative backlog?

Why is this page marked as an administrative backlog? Hadn't it previously been marked as a Standard backlog? Why did it change? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Splitting old and new discussions?

This process has gone rapidly popular since... how long? We must split the whole process into dates by month and year. However, how do we reorganize this? --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by splitting? Do you mean splitting it into several separate pages? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This needs some kind of split since the page is too big, or alternatively old discussions could be closed. Remember that there are {{Non-free content review}} templates on every file page. These also need to be updated if the page is split so that the links go to the correct place. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Either that, or add section headings for ease of access. Any other alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think this page should generally only be used for cases regarding NFCC#8. I am currently performing a task to go through all 10c violations as outlined at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task which might also help reduce the number of listed cases on this page. In general, I think cases where the issue is a missing rationale (which is the subject of the task I am performing) should not be listed here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if the "missing rationale" issue is brought up in this process on files, then it needs improvement, not deletion. --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Scouting Articles

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.

---

State articles

• Scouting in California contains a lot of logos. How are these clubs organised? Are they operated by some kind of government (so that they might be covered by {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-CAGov}}) or are they private organisations? Also, how old are the logos? It seems that many of the clubs are very old. If the logos also are old, then some of them might be covered by {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} and/or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Unless it can be shown that the logos are free, it is inappropriate to keep all of them per WP:NFLISTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. Council shoulder patches (CSP) were introduced in 1972, and change frequently, so none will be non-free. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such. The question then is whether this is a list article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a list article, despite the fact that prose and infoboxes are used. Fails NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd like to echo what Gadget850 has already said, "Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America are individually incorporated 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations ... CSPs are equivalent to company logos and are used in infoboxes as such." He also addresses the age issue. So the issue becomes, as has been stated earlier, are these list articles. No, they are not list articles, and it is appropriate for the logos to be used. This is an important issue to resolve a there are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles as Scouting in California, check out {{Scouting in the United States}} and the several hundred of these images, all found here: Category:Boy Scouts of America council logos.

These aren't list articles. I can understand that Werieth cited WP:NFCC#8, but it does not apply. There are a number of BSA list articles, examples are Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America or the list at current councils, or anything found here Category:Scouting-related lists or here Category:List-Class Scouting articles. This is also different from the FTSE 100 Image dispute (which Werieth is also involved with). That page is a list of separate articles.

As I wrote earlier to Werieth, Scouting in California is the result of a compromise in long running debate over the notability of individual council articles. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. In 2006, so many articles kept getting nominated for deletion that the members of Scouting Wikiproject decided to Gabriel Valley Council&oldid=37053167 merge the individual council and camp articles into larger state articles to stop having to fight over hundreds of articles. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept.

This is not a variant of the discography, list of characters debates, where the individual parts are unable to stand as independent articles and where thus merged together. As was recently noted on the DYK page, "... that the majority of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America have gone through thousands of name changes, merges, splits and re-creations since the establishment of the organization in 1910?" Each council is unique to its community or region, and this is reflected in the selection of a CSP. Each of the articles could stand on its own, but that then leads to the struggles in 2006 of having to defend hundreds of articles over notability. Allowing the images to remain in the state articles is a much simpler solution.

The Scouting in California is the largest of the articles. If you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact an doesn't look like a list at all. Some of these pages, like San Gabriel Valley Council have moved back and forth from their own articles to the "Scouting in California" article. Making a policy based on the California articles is not fair. An equitable solution might be to allow the one use of each image, either in a state or local council article.

These images meet the criteria of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. The people involved with the Scouting Wikiproject have gone to great lengths to make sure that all the images use both the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} and the {{Non-free Scout logo}} templates.--evrik ^(talk) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a list article. I'm judging this on the fact that none of the sections show significant signs of individual notability, and thus none of them would ever be their own article. If that was the case, there may be justification to include the logo as part of significant discussion of a notable group. This is absolutely not the case here; it's made to look like individual articles but is effectively a list article since you can't separate them out. Since they're used only as decorations and the images are not the subject of discussion, they fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not a list. It is an article about Scouting in a particular state. I believe that each council is in itself notable, but I was on the losing side of that discussion in 2006. If it makes it easier, I'll break California into 24 different articles. That should make this discussion moot. --evrik ^(talk) 03:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. None of the individual troop divisions appear to have this, and ergo if you try to split them off, they will be deleted or remerged back to here. This gives you no allowance to use their logos on the list article. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources? You're creating an artificial standard. I can guaranty that each of these councils get a lot of press. There are many stub and start articles that exist and are given time to grow and expand. Of course, Scouting in California is not a list, nor is Scouting in Vermont, etc. Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America is a list. There is a clear difference. --evrik ^(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:N. A long standing guideline on inclusion metric. It is not a question that the issue of scouting in the state of California is a problem (the article isn't going to be deleted), but the individual divisions, must less so , and thus you are effectively listing them in this article. They would never stand on their own per notability guidelines. As that is the case, there is zero allowance to use the images without any discussions of the importance of the images from sourced materials, per NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

While you say, "They would never stand on their own ... " you really have nothing to back this up. This is just Wikipedia:Because I say so. Since you mention WP:N, I will add to what I said before. While each of the councils separately may not be prominent, they are in fact notable. Most have decades of existence, and have had years of press. Many of the larger councils have already been broken out. It wouldn't be that difficult to break them all out. Such is the case with Scouting in Washington, D.C..

Wikipedia:NFLISTS is in fact a content guideline, which is why it was posted here. This brings up another point (again). There are more than 50 of these articles. Each state is slightly different. California just happens to be the largest of them. This is a prime example of arguing the exception to prove the rule. Let me recap:

• Not a list as found in Wikipedia:LISTS
• Meets notability

As the California article is not a list, nor is Vermont or any of the other states then there is an allowance to use the images. --evrik ^(talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:N is an objective measure, significant coverage in secondary (non-primary, non-first party sources). The sourcing giving on the CA list page has just enough to establish that scouting in CA is a notable topic, but none of the charters have such sourcing; we would need sources outside of the scout organization and from local press to even begin to consider notability/stand-alone articles for any of the individual charters. Since you can't support individual articles for the charters, you are listing them in one large one, and thus this makes this a list article in terms of what WP:NFLISTS covers and its spirit as well. You simply have no reason why each chapter needs to have its non-free badge illustrated on a page that covers all the charters - they are purely decoration as given. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it would be helpful if we used the same language. They are councils, not chapters. Each council has a logo, and that logo found in the CSP, represents the individual nature of that local group. Thus was addressed by Gadget850 earlier.

Objective standards can be applied subjectively, as in this case. Now, maybe one day I'll have the time to fully expand all the articles to FA status, but that's not today. The charters, well, now you're just creating hurdles. The fact the councils exist is prima facie evidence of the charters.

You keep making up requirements for splitting up the articles. I can, in fact, build suitable articles that establish notability. What I was working on was cleaning up the state articles first. Let's set that aside for a moment.

Yes, a number of articles were consolidated. This does not make it a list. It makes it a large article, not on charters, but on the councils, their camps and their histories. You have never addressed the fact that there are more than 50 articles, you keep focusing on one state. Is Vermont a list article by your standard?

Would you mind showing me the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that would say California is a list? --evrik ^(talk) 03:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To start, the Vermont article is also a list - or at least an embedded list - just as the California one and likely (from spot checking) all 50 states. You are just listing out charters and their factual information but without any other context. This is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form and thus to which NFLISTS applies (whether a full list or embedded list). Again, the images are not providing any context per WP:NFCC#8 and thus are inappropriate. And no, just because something exists (and you can prove that it exists) doesn't make it notable - at least to meet the requirement for having a separate stand-alone article. If this could have been the case, there might be an argument to use the patch/logo within the state articles, but that condition is simply not met. I will note that Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, ergo WP:NFCC#8 is again not met on these other state pages. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You can keep saying things like this, "is not that this is bad information for Wikipedia, just that this is information in a list form," but it doesn't make it true. Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable. As for their existence, the thing speaks for itself, and with that goes notability. Since you keep ignoring WP:Lists, your arguments are really more Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

How on earth is Scouting in Vermont a list? It is a recitation of facts. Yes, it is in need of editing and expansion, but it is not a list. Yes, most of the state articles are in need of work, which is what I was in the process of doing when the California article got tagged. I would like to expand the articles so they get beyond the barebones recitation of dates and other factual information. Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list. You can't use the page that is a list to prove that a dissimilar page is a list. In fact, comparing the two pages shows that Scouting in California is not a list. The arguments of seven years ago have caused these articles to languish as no one wanted to attempt to improve them. There is some irony that as soon as improvements started being made they started attracting attention again. It’s almost as if people prefer bad articles. It’s really tough to focus on improving the articles when so much time is spent discussing that this is a list: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America, but this is not a list: Scouting in California. --evrik ^(talk) 16:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A lot of these councils have more than just factual information. I agree that the topic needs to be upgraded, cleaned and better sourced but it is not a list, it has a lot of context. --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

These articles "list" out each of the state's various scouting charters. It's a list. It may not use bullet points or a table or any similar structure, but it is a list.

Given that you just affirmed that Scouting in Texas works without images, and all of the other state scouting articles have pretty much exactly the same format and type of content (a brief history for the state, then a list of the various charters for both BSoA and GSoA), then you have just proven to us that Scouting in California (or any other state) does not need to use images. Remember the Wikimedia Foundation has required us to minimize the use of non-free work to maintain a free encyclopedia. Frivolous uses of images like this are exactly against that. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I know all about the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). As stated earlier, since the California article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Once again, you're wrong on the facts. There is no "listing" of the state's various scouting charters. There are no organizations called the BSoA and GSoA. The page(s) doesn't use bullet points, or a table or any similar structure, so it's not a list. It is a description of the scouting activities in the state. For comparison, there is a list here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America.

I did not affirm that Scouting in Texas works without images. Please don't play gotcha and twist my words. In fact I said that "Scouting in Texas works just fine without the patches/logos, however, that page is a list." Scouting in Texas needs to be expanded and a great deal of work needs to be done. The other articles do follow a similar format, but that is because of the efforts of the wikiproject to standardize them.

The problem is what you have said is not true. You cannot use the Texas article (a poor article and a list) to say California is a list. While they follow the same format, the California article is greatly expanded. The article is a honest effort to write about a notable subject and is far from frivolous. The fact is, you have chosen to ignore Wikipedia:LISTS and its guidance. Instead you keep reciting the same statements and playing word games, Wikipedia:Because I say so.

Let me repeat something,

Wikipedia:NFLISTS applies to images used in lists, but Wikipedia:LISTS defines what is a list. You failed to answer my question and highlighting the relevant passage in Wikipedia:LISTS that describes how the California article is a list. It can’t be done, and it’s not even an embedded list. This is not information in list form, at least not according to Wikipedia:LISTS which is the controlling document on lists. So, that being the case, citing WP:NFCC#8 is not applicable.

--evrik ^(talk) 05:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Transformers books does really fit any of the descriptions of a list at WP:LISTS either, however it is a list. When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X. Werieth (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. LISTS is actually rather vague as to what defines a list - it doesn't require bullet points or a table, just that you are enumerating on a type of element. And going by your own words, if you think Scouting in Texas is a list, I do not see how it is any different from Scouting in California or other state scouting articles in that nature when you look at the structure. Even if you talk expansion, you are listing out each charter one-by-one - that is a list. It's not necessarily bulleted or formatted in that fashion, but it is an embedded list that qualified under NFLISTS, and thus making the use of images without commentary inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What articles are a list in {{Scouting in the United States}}

List article	Article that needs work	Not a list article
* Scouting in Texas Scouting in Georgia (U.S. state)	* Scouting in Pennsylvania	* Scouting in California Scouting in Vermont

List of Transformers books is a list. It says so in the title. There is also only one image used at the top of the article. When you say, "When a article is a conglomerate of smaller articles it may be considered a list of X." Could you please cite the policy that says so? I couldn't find it on Wikipedia:LISTS. Right now, you are both making it up as you go along. You have your conclusion, and are now adjusting your facts to substantiate that conclusion. Even if that policy exists, that doesn't mean that it is applicable in the case. Scouting in Texas is a list because it does little but state the relevant information. The California article has much more depth. Also, it is not an embedded list. The examples on that are pretty clear.--evrik ^(talk) 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Be aware, LISTS is just a manual of style, and not policy. What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists (which is effectively what you have in these scouting articles) are subject to NFLISTS as well. We've been in this situation with many other list articles, we're not inventing something new here. It's just that you're looking for exactly what never has been spelled out - for lists or for non-free content in lists - explicitly.

But even then you have yet to show how NFCC#8 is met. The images can be omitted and the article is fully understandable. NFCC#8 failed, NFLISTS or not. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am aware that LISTS is a manual of style. It is however, the only Wikipedia document that defines what is a list. You may want to lessen its importance, but that is a fact. Using your logic, NFLISTS is not policy either, but is instead a “content guideline.” I’d like to quote the top of the page on NFLISTS, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” What I am finding in this discussion is a lot of rigid and dogmatic thinking and little common sense.

I am sure that you have been through this with list articles, but Scouting in California is not a list article, nor is it an embedded list. While you keep saying that it is, when you look at LISTS, there are clear examples of what an embedded list is. When you say, "What people consider a list is broad, and doesn't have to be refined to a whole article, embedded lists are subject to NFLISTS as well." Could you please document in policy, manual of style, or content guideline where is actually spelled out? To date you have refused to do that. Otherwise, you're just making it up. The images lend more understanding to the article. In fact, since the article in question is not a list, then NFCC#8 does not apply.

Let’s recap again:

• Not a list as found in Wikipedia:LISTS
• Meets notability
• since the article is not a list it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and the Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)

--evrik ^(talk) 22:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are listing out each charter within the state. It is a embedded list. LISTS does not explicitly outline the only type of lists that may be considered within its bounds, so just because you don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS doesn't mean it's not a list. You are listing out each charter, it’s hard to call that anything but a list.

And you cannot prove that NFCC#8 is met. I understand the article just fine without the patch images, since there's zero discussion of the importance of the images with regards to each charter. So even if you ignore NFLISTS, NFCC#8 still needs to be met. In fact, there is zero exemptions from NFCC - whether a list or non-list article. Every image has to meet all 10 points, and NFCC#8 outright fails for these. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never listed any charters. While you may say I am listing charters, you are not correct. What has been done is describe scouting in the state, highlighting the history and the organizations within the state. While there is a description of each of the councils (what you call a list, or listing) it is not a list. You and Werieth are the only two people so far that have expressed that opinion. Yes, because I don't see something that looks like Scouting in California in LISTS means it's not a list. I have granted that Scouting in Texas is a list, but solely to show the difference between the two articles.

The members of the Scouting Wikiproject have worked hard to make sure that all the images used in scouting related articles meet all ten points of NFCC. I believe that the images significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding, so that would cover NFCC#8.

I suggest this as a compromise: Californa will be considered an article, Texas will be considered a list. Pennsylvania will be given a period of time, say one month, to be expanded otherwise it will be treated like a list and the images removed. --evrik ^(talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not acceptable. Everything in the CA article under the section "Boy Scouting in California today" is an embedded list since you are listing out each charter. PEr NFLISTS you can't use images without significant discussion about the images. It doesn't matter if you can't find anything on LISTS that looks like what you have, as LISTS does not specify "these are the only things on WP we consider as lists".

But ignore the list factor. NFCC#8 is a problem. Because there is zero discussion about those images, their removal does not impact my understanding that there are 24 various charters across the state and they have various camps and the like. NFCC#8 is two parts, while the first part - helping the reader to comprehend the topic - is an easy concept to met, its very difficult to see how the read must see these images to understand the topic. Hence they are simply not appropriate as they fail NFCC. The reason this is connected to NFLISTS is that this is what commonly happens with list-type articles that try to use images in bulk - they are there under a claim to improve understanding but show no claim to being required to understand the topic. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, list article, not list article, shouldn't really matter. The NFLISTS and whatnot just cover some basics, but the spirit of it does seem to more come down to NFCC#8 - what's important is how the images help the article. If they're not really adding anything much to the article itself, 'improving understanding' as the claim apparently goes, then they shouldn't be included, and they don't really seem to do much of that to me, at least in the California one. Were they free images there wouldn't be any reason that I can think of not to include them, especially since they are like logos, but unlike more standard logos these don't appear to be so important to the outwardly presented identities of the listed things themselves. -— Isarra ༆ 18:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• i am traveling and will have limited online access until Tuesday. I, of course, disagrees that the California article is a list or an embedded list. That overly broad standard that you are applying cannot be fairly applied across all of en.wiki. The images do add to each section as they help illustrate the individuality of each council. I don't see any consensus here either. Opinion seems to be split. I am interested in developing some sort of compromise or consensus. I would be willing to add a discussion in each section describing the CSP. This is a standard that could be applied fairly to all the articles. See you Tuesday. --evrik ^(talk)
  • There's no compromise position. The images can be removed and the article remains clear as day. NFCC#8 fails. These are inappropriate images. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I am back from my vacation. There is no consensus on this. The fact is that the article that brought this to this page, the Scouting in California is not a list. If you will not agree to a compromise, then I suggest that we find another way to arbitrate this. I will note that this discussion was cut close very early, and with no consensus. --evrik ^(talk) 04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The question of whether it is a list or not is not the issue. Those images are unallowable as they all fail NFCC#8, since there's no discussion about the images and the article is readable without them. All they are, that you can justify, are pretty pictures, which means they fail as decorative elements. There's no other position we allow here. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I am restoring this again because it was prematurely archived by the bot. The list issue was core to the debate. I think this discussion needs an independent mediator as we have no consensus. --evrik ^(talk) 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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