Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 26

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

File:Women's World Chess Champion Anna Ushenina 2013.jpeg

Deleted as F7. --Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2013 (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.

Person in photo is alive and therefore replaceable  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

tagged as CSD F7. Werieth (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:AAFMAA 2013 Logo.jpg

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a text logo below TOO - according to Commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 27 July 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.

Allentown, Pennsylvania

removed two out of three planned building illustrations; removed painting of rail bridge in all articles except that on its painter; removed photograph of makeshift railway station from two articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I cant see the justification for the 5 non-free files that are being used on this article. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be some wiggle room, but I do agree least 3, 4 of them need to go.
These three images illustrate the redevelopment of the Center City Business District, a major $500 million dollar project that is currently underway. They give the reader of the article illustrations of the goals of the project, and they are an important illustrative part of that section. The images are fully justified in their use with Fair-Use rationales, and until the time when the project is complete, and free photos can be taken of the completed buildings, they simply can not be replaced.
Their removal would significantly degrade the value of that section. Also, one has to ask what will be the benefit to the reader of the article by their summary removal? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
While the text explains the significance of the $500M renovation project, there's nothing to describe the importance of the new building renderings, and ergo there is no contextual significance for these images (failing NFCC#8). There would need to be sources discussion to explain some of the background of the buildings' designs or the like to consider their inclusion. Yes, once the buildings are complete a free image can be used with no question but with non-free we have to be more discriminatory. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • File:AllentownJuly281979.jpg seems completely inappropriate, particularly given that the text says "While Allentown currently has no passenger rail service (the last public rail service, which was part of the Bethlehem-Philadelphia service provided by Conrail under contract with SEPTA, ceased operating in 1979), several of the Allentown-area stations once used for passenger service have been preserved through their current commercial use.", meaning that we can get a free image of one of these still-existing stations to illustrate that point over the non-free image. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Cigarettemachine-joecamel.jpg

Wrong forum. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (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.

withdrawn Photo of a vending machine, taken in the United States circa 1990s. Derivative work: large advertisement near center of image. —rybec 05:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum, you want WP:PUF Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:24, 3 August 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.

Use of non-free Bible translations

old RfC Werieth (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif

Deleted per FFD. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (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.

Animated non-free GIF appears to violate WP:NFCC #3b. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. For me, it makes the concepts so much clearer than text alone can convey. It is used to demonstrate several features of the game, which cannot be captured in a still image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep This helps to clarify the gameplay text given in the article, such that I can understand how the game works. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:27, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete I can understand that the gameplay mechanics are not as easy to explain with text as it is with graphics. That said, a free equivalent (using simple icons and graphics) can be made to represent the gameplay (see, for example, recreating the Portal (video game) flinging concept with free images. It's NFCC#1 replaceable. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep - the image does not only explains the gameplay, it also shows the production values such as animation and visual style which couldn't be shown in a diagram without recreating the need for fair use. Diego (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Update - the animation could be made a little bit shorter (3-4 seconds) to appease Masem's concerns about the amount of work used, but no shorter; otherwise it would prevent us to show the character's animation, which is important to depict the artistic work of the game makers, as Masem has recognized. Diego (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Update II - Masem's argument is based on his ability to create a diagram with a delicate balance- detailed enough to accurately explain the gameplay as well as the current image, but not detailed enough to become a derivative work (since expressions of videogames gameplay are known to be copyrightable). It's reasonable asking him to show how this could be done, before deleting the image on the ground that it can be done. Diego (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Technically, no I don't. It's possible, period, and thus meets the requirement of NFCC#1 that invalidates the use. But given that the only main gameplay idea on the GIF is the act of pushing enemies against the sides to kill them, this can be done with simple graphics, perhaps just four, to show 1) the state before the one sun tile is flipped, 2) the mid-action as the row/column tiles are subsequently flipped and pushing enemies away 3) the act of an enemy being killed by being through into the wall and 4) the state of the board after the tiles are flipped. Tiles can be simple colored squares, and enemies can be simple graphics pulled from Commons. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • One frame can be used to demonstrate the artistic nature, but we far exceed minimal use and free replacement with a full GIF animation. There's zero discussion about the animation or art style to require a long GIF like this that a freely-recreated GIF and one frame could also demonstrate. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • If we need a frame to keep the same level of understanding about the game, the amount of non-free content used is essentially the same; there's nothing gained with the change. Diego (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Wrong, as I'd estimate there's probably 50-60 frames in that animated gif, so that's equivalent to 50-60 stills. Since 1 non-free and 1 free can replace that for the same encyclopedic purpose, particularly in light of zero critical discussion about the game, the animated non-free gif is inallowable. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • A copyright owner wouldn't care that you copied one or 60 frames, they would sue you the same if it was infringement; the pixels in all frames are essentially the same, with mainly changes in position from one to the next; there are not different scenes portrayed in the gif. And the replacement of the animation with a diagram would make the gameplay more difficult to understand, with nothing to gain for it. The change you propose provides no tangible benefit and makes the article worse for no reason. Diego (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • You're thinking along fair use lines - that is not the argument being presented. We want to minimize non-free use. So one non-free screenshot + one freely generated mockup animation is always less than an animated gif of 50-60 frames. I'm not denying that an animation (or perhaps multiple images) may be appropriate to fully understand the gameplay, but we can always make up a free mockup to show that (again, the example of Portal (video game) is a pair of free images to explain flinging; or for example using a mockup on Quick Time Event or other general video game concept). Only if it is the case where there is critical commentary on the non-free animation itself does it become appropriate to consider using that (for example, over at Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective where there is discussion on the smoothness of the animation). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
              • No, you want to minimize non-free use (which can only be achieved with zero non-free content), the rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia by limiting non-free use and minimizing the amount included at each necessary use. Only in your mind a small animation is more usage than a small gif displaying the same scene, the rest of the world don't feel the need to measure usage of non-free images by frames but by occurrences. The criterion for NFC has always been "contextual relevance", not "critical commentary", and there's agreement above that this animation is needed in this context. Diego (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
                • So you are completing ignoring WP:NFCC#3b. We do consider animations like video and audio and why we seek to minimize the length and inclusion of such samples. There is no way to refute this claim. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not ignoring anything - I already told you I consider this gif as equivalent amount of use as a static one for the intended purpose of explaining the topic; I brought up the copyright holder to show that this is also how it would be seen in the real world, outside of any fine-grained wiki-policing concerns. A low-res animated gif depicting a single scene is *not* a video, neither in technological nor artistic terms. This is not comparable to Portal where the hi-res 3D dynamic environment can be only depicted through a video capture, here you have a static background and a couple sprites moving around the place, animated through a small amount frames.
    Your proposal is equivalent to replacing any copyrighted painting with a diagram of its composition, on the basis that we can understand its content with that. Or saying that we should remove all copyrighted images of dead people, because a painter could create an artistic drawing of the person and release it as free content. Well we *could* potentially do that, but we don't - because the result wouldn't be equally educational, and because it goes beyond what can be considered an equivalent "available replacement of acceptable quality". There's a point at which eliminating non-free content because we can conceive of a possible free way to explain it simply doesn't cut it anymore, and that's true in special for articles where the topic itself is a copyrighted work - any replacement is either not detailed enough to explain the content, or detailed enough to become a derivative and thus not count as a free work. Diego (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You are outright mistaken. It is the fact that an animated GIF, like a video, is equal to N still frames. The question becomes, does the topic need N non-free frames to explain what is going on? And the answer from NFCC's POV is a clear no. For one, there's zero discussion about the game outside the gameplay and story. Technically, the article fails our notability guidelines, but ignoring that, there's zero discussion about the importance of the game short of being a noted designer's first title. This further argues that while the gameplay mechanics may be complex, no one has discussed that at all, so that's a personal judgement. In that sense, there's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all, though as convention with the VG project, one non-free single screen shot is generally considered defacto appropriate to show the combination of art and gameplay facets. But you have nowhere near enough discussion to support a non-free animated GIF to support this. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out a free animated GIF mock-up of the gameplay to support this, as no one would challenge that at all. Are we saying that any non-free image can be replaced with free? Absolutely not, but the only justification this GIF presently has is to support the complex gameplay, and that can be described via a free image without question. Animation? There's zero discussion to suggest this is an important facet, and outright fails NFCC#8 on that grounds. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "There's no argument that we would need any non-free image showing the gameplay at all"... except for the rough WP:CONSENSUS reached above saying that there is. Diego (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is agreement an animated gif helps better than the text. That can be done with a free user-made mockup image and avoid the non-free completely without impacting the text. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Should we delete all non-free photos of dead people? Your argument apply in exactly the same way to those, too. Diego (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's absolutely not what I'm saying. There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person (assuming that no free images exist). Here, we have the ability to create a free image of the gameplay mechanics to explain that complexity without resorting to non-free. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • But in creating this image, how much are we going to copy? It'll be considered a derivative work before it can hope to have any meaningful purpose. After all, the point of the non-free GIF is to show the movement of the graphics in a way that text cannot explain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "There is no free equivalent of an image of a dead person". Are you deliberately ignoring what I say when it doesn't fit your argument? Two paragraphs above I've told you how you can create a high quality free replacement for any non-free photo of a person; it's the same way you recommend to remove this gif. By your extreme reasoning, this means we should get rid of all those photos ASAP, without any further consideration of the encyclopedic value they provide. Diego (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, on the artistic side, I have said one non-free single frame screenshot is still a reasonable thing to include, and that's not refuting your dead person argument - that a non-free photo is more reasonable to include than a free painting (we don't even allow free paintings to be used for living persons where getting a free photo is difficult). There is an artistic element that cannot be replicated in such cases, and I've said that one still image of a game is sufficient to show this. I'm talking about something that is well established that can be replaced by free content, and that's discussing gameplay mechanics, which have no artistic merit, and thus can be replaced with simple icongraphs and other easily-made, freely available imagery. This only leaves the question about the original animation but as there is zero discussion at all about that factor, there's no justification to show this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • So you accept that NFCC#1 -deleting an image when a free replacement is conceivable- is not a zero-tolerance rule but it depends on what uses editors find reasonable? You just disagree with the rest of us in that this use is reasonable. Diego (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The key phrase in NFCC#1 is "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". A freely made painting of a dead person to try to replace a non-free is generally not going to serve the same encyclopedic purpose since capturing what the photo does in terms of appearances and the like, given the reasonable skills of an average contributor. On the other hand, I can certainly create an animated image that is encyclopedicly equivalent to a non-free image to demonstrate how gameplay works. I can't replicate art, so I'd still need one still to show that, but I don't need to show copyrighted sprites jumping around when the same can be done with freely available icons and simple graphics. It is a zero tolerance rule on the understanding of what "the same encyclopedic purpose" is. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "I can certainly create an animated image ... to demonstrate how gameplay works". I won't believe it until I see it. Create that image, and then we can discuss whether it provides an equivalent explanation power; the image shouldn't be deleted otherwise. Without evaluating that potential replacement, there's clear agreement above that the current image is needed for that purpose. Diego (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
            • That's not a requirement. It is possible it can be done, period, and the image fails several NFCC points at this time. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Of course it's not a requirement. But since I don't believe it can be done in a proper way (you admitted that gameplay mechanics is not an easy thing to explain, so why would we accept your words that you can do it graphically without showing it?) - there's no evidence that your nonexistent purported replacement would make the complex gameplay understandable, it's also not a good reason to delete the image, period; and you're the only one who thinks this fails the NFCC. Diego (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • It is an outright failure. There's no middle ground here. Just because a free image doesn't exist doesn't mean we keep the non-free - for example, several people have tried to push for the use of non-free on Kim Jong-un because of the difficulties - but not impossibility - of getting a free image; we don't let them use that. I described the gameplay mechanics as difficult to describe by text alone, but that doesn't mean that a graphical version will also be hard to understand - it is a case that a visual aid is important, but we can make a free visual aid and not use a non-free. There is no reason this image can be kept under any policy, irregardless of the "apparent" consensus here or what could be argued IAR. A freer version is possible, thus by the Foundation's mandate we must use that. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • You cannot have it both ways. Either the possibility of a free replacement means all non-free images must be deleted including photos of dead people (which not even you believe should happen), or the adequacy of each image for its purpose is decided by people participating in the discussion - in which case this image has been found adequate for its purpose by all editors except you and it's not replaceable, no matter your strong personal opinion on the contrary. Making an article worse because any editor single-handedly believes she could potentially fix it in some far future if only she cared to try (but won't), is not following the rules. (Wikilinks provided in case anybody cares which policy should we be following here in addition to NFCC, which is fine as it is). Diego (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • You are completely twisting the picture. There are elements that are copyrightable, and that we cannot replace with a free equivalent (primarily the art style and screen layout), and then are elements that are not copyrightable and that we can replace with free content, specifically gameplay mechanics. If this article only had a single static screenshot to show the spirit artwork alongside the text about gameplay, no one would have a problem; that's typical for vg articles, and we'd go on our merry way. But we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images , N being the number of frames. This begs question if all those frames are needed by NFCC#3a. Clearly at least one frame is needed to show the copyrightable and unable-to-be-replaced-by-free-media art style, no question. But each frame effectively shows this too, so we have duplicity around. Then we turn to the reason it's animated, to show gameplay. Since you can't copyright gameplay elements, we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner without infringing on any copyright or creating derivate works; this image can be animated if so desired, but importantly would be free content and no question to include. So since we do want to capture the art style, we can use one non-free image to do so, in addition to this free animation to demonstrate the gameplay. We haven't attempted to replace the non-free graphics with free ones (eg your dead person image argument), but have stripped away excess non-free that is being used to demonstrate something that can be made free. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
we have an animated gif, which for purposes of NFC has to be considered as N separate images No, it hasn't.
we can recreate the gameplay in a non-artistic but similar manner Prove it. That's not a trivial thing to do. Diego (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The "N animated frames = N separate imges" is a fact established well before this point, not a point that can be under consideration (again, I point to our audio and video guidelines that direct ppl to make samples as short as necessary). That doesn't immediately invalidate the work, but it begs if we can do the same value in less than N frames.
And I don't have to prove anything. Common sense - knowing that video game clones can happen all the time - tells me that it is possible for an editor to make an animated GIF from completely free elements to show what the gameplay is like. It's possible, it just hasn't happened yet. Under NFC, we remove NFC that has free replacements. One non-free to showcase the art is fine, but other than that, the rest is a free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Come on, you've just made that up - there's nothing in the video nor NFC guidelines about one animated image being interpreted frame by frame as separate works. The animation could be made shorter, but if you just replaced it by a still frame then you'd be missing the characters' animation (duh), which as you recognized are important to show the artistic nature of the game. At least 3-4 seconds are needed to properly show that animation, that can't be replaced by a diagram. As for game clones - they get sued all the time, too; if you copy a videogame's gameplay to the point that it equates the one from the original game (which would be needed to explain the original game, the "expression of the idea", otherwise you'd get just a generic explanation that could apply to any game in the genre), that is illegal, and people have been fined for doing it. Diego (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No I'm not; it's not written in policy but it has been the subject of discussion and common sense considering what our NFC goal is (to minimize non-free use). I also never said that the animation needed to be shown. Art assets - the sprites and backgrounds - are appropriate as these are common across all VG articles, but animation, particularly sprite animation, is not and needs critical commentary to be an asset to be considered. As for the cloning aspect, we're not cloning the full game, simply making representative screens to demonstrate gameplay. VG articles mock up gameplay concepts all the time, so there's zero expectation that this is a copyright problem; further, the US Copyright Office does side on that gameplay concepts cannot be copyrighted, so that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Goodluckcharlie1.jpeg

Deleted as F5. --Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2013 (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.

Also nominated are:

Recently uploaded mages used only in the infoboxes of TV season articles that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8. They were removed from the articles for this reason and tagged as orphaned, but the uploader has since restored them. AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete This seems pretty easy. Invalid rationale for the following reasons: Description is not of cover art, or the season but of the characters, no source is given, not actually the cover art but the publicity photos used in the cover art, portion used is incorrect as this is only part what the actual cover art created, while the answer to low resolution is answered as yes, all of the images were increased in size to 300px (although this I went ahead and fixed), purpose of use is incorrect and should be "to identify the subject by season" at the very least. It is possible this image cannot be replaced with a free version but I will take a quick look.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
A check of flickr shows one image of cast members that can be used with a suitable CC 2.0 license and there are other images that could possibly be turned into a similar license by request. I see this done often. So there is no valid reason to depict illustrate the actors with NFC, but a screenshot that is discussed in detail in the article would be fine. If this were actual cover art with the proper titles and an obvious change from season to season with a valid rationale I would support it with a keep !vote, but this is far from what it says it is.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added three more images that I've just become aware of. These suffer from exactly the same problem regarding their use. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Aussie, I hope you don't mind but I dropped those images down to their own section as the original images and those suffer from different issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:WELW logo.png

Now public domain. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2013 (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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:WTAM logo.png

Now copyright-free. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2013 (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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Faller Logo.gif

Deleted as F5. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2013 (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.

Logo may fall below TOO, what standard does DE apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Nancy Mace, 2012 headshot.jpg

Deleted under speedy deletion criterion F7. --Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2013 (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#1. A free equivalent that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose could be created. Gobōnobō + c 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously yes, particularly if she is jumping into the political ring. I note the rationale has notice that Mace gave permission to be used, suggest the uploader go to WP:CONSENT to try to get it a free image here. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ph seal zamboanga del sur.png

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2013 (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.

Despite the wording of the template, Commons considered this to be 'free'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Synclavier II Demo 2.ogg

Deleted as F5. --Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2013 (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 rationale for the use in Additive synthesis#Timeline seems not to comply with WP:NFCC#10c. The rationale doesn't seem to explicitly mention the article where fair use is claimed. The use might also not comply with WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have now edited it so that it mentions the article (Additive synthesis) explicitly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it passes WP:NFCC#8. A sound sample of a synthesizer significantly increases the reader's understanding of the synthesizer. It is the most effective way to transfer information about how a synthesizer sounds, and it will also illustrate what the synthesizer is capable of. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Replaceable by free media - any freely available software and/or composition can be used to demonstrate the effect that was introduced with said synthesizer; it is not required to have the actual demo sound used here. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
In the Additive synthesis article, the sample is used on a row about Synclavier II in a table that is a historical timeline of additive synthesizers and devices implementing additive synthesis. The sample sound demonstrates the particular synthesizer, not a particular effect, so it would be awkward to replace it with a sample generated from scratch. I searched for but didn't find freely available samples of Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are trying to demonstrate the sound of the synthesizer unit itself, then its just a matter of finding one of the claimed 50 Synclavier II units that exist today (per that article) and getting a free sound sample off it, instead of the composed sample. The question then becomes of how accessable those Synclaviers are. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone called for Synclavier II owners at gearslutz.com. There were no replies. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if no one got replies, the question remains: can someone from the public get access to one of these devices with reasonable effort and make a recording, or are they all secreted away in private collections? If it is the former then it is just a matter of waiting for that to happen, and per NFCC#1, we would not allow that non-free sample since a free one is possible. If it is the case that all the existing synthesizers are tied up behind closed doors and would require extraordinary efforts to access, then yes, the non-free may be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"Could be created" in WP:NFCC#1 is certainly open to interpretation as to the minimum probability required, and we can only guess the probability anyhow. From foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy: "An EDP [such as WP:NFCCP] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A freely licensed work is not available. The Synclavier article has existed for about ten years without an audio sample uploaded, if that is any indication as to whether we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file. My estimate is that without an extra push we should have to wait another 10 years. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
"Could be created" here is interpreted to mean that a member of the public can somehow create the image or audio, not whether it has happened or not over a given period of time. So again, the question remains - are these units all behind private doors to be sufficiently considered inexcessible to the public? --MASEM (t) 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. That is not common knowledge. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have inquired for a free audio sample from Synclavier European Services. Waiting for their reply. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFTABLE is a guideline, and about images. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The Finnish Broadcasting Company has some model of Synclavier. Following that lead. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That unit is reported (in a 2007 discussion) to be missing the original computer (although it can be replaced with a Mac) and there seems to be some other problem with it as well. It's probably a newer model too, as apparently its arrival was reported so late, in ([Anonymous] 1991: Synclavier Suomeen. Musiikkiuutiset 2 1991). I've send a message to Pentti Männikkö, who is a sound producer at Yle, asking about it. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have sent the composer Jon Appleton a message asking whether he could release a sample, as there is a video of him playing Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
He gave a positive reply. I'll try to negotiate a Creative Commons release of one of his Synclavier audio tracks or an excerpt. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've also asked Richard Atkinson, who appears to have a working Synclavier II. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#1. Jon Appleton agreed to license one of his Synclavier tracks under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. It has thus been demonstrated that it is possible to create a free alternative to this file. I will proceed to upload it to Commons shortly. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Jon Appleton - Sashasonjon.oga if anyone's interested. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:"Yahoo! Logo, August 9, 2013.jpg".jpg

Deleted as F8. --Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (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.

(fastrack)- Images is below TOO, and is treated as free by Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely below TOO in the United States, so should be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unsure whether the Commons file is tagged with an appropriate licensing template. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Now Commons}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:55, 18 August 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.

Lots of images of sports uniforms

There is one free image in the history which has sometimes been overwritten by a non-free image, but the uniform contains a complex logo. Can the logo be considered de minimis? Also, in the cases where there is an older revision with a free licence, should we revert to the first revision since that one is more free? Also: Some of the images violate WP:NFCC#8 or other criteria in one or more article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, a logo shown on a uniform on an image specifically designed to show the uniform would not be de minimis and if the logo was non-free, so would the uniform image. (In contrast, if you were taking a generic shot of a sporting event in progress, which might happen to include shots of the logo/uniforms involved but were not the centerpiece of the photo, that would be acceptable as free ). When we have cases of where the known current logo of the team is non-free even if a previous iteration would have been uncopyrightable/free, we generally accept that we use the latest logo to be accurate to the representation of the team, as it is argued the older, free version misrepresents the current status of the team's logo. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:LibertyFlames.png

Resolved Werieth (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2013 (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 violates WP:NFCC#10c in 6 articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems the same logo may be the main logo for several team articles that all use the same logo. This may be a tricky one. It should be first removed from all articles that do not provide a rationale. If proper rationale for the other articles is provided then those should possibly be discussed. Is this the main logo for all of those teams? If so then we may need to discuss that aspect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:7NavahoMH.jpg

Removed per policy Werieth (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2013 (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.


Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and possibly WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:7StruggleMH.jpg

Removed per policy Werieth (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2013 (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.


Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:7BushmanFamilyMH.jpg

Removed per policy Werieth (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (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.


Use in Malvina Hoffman appears to violate WP:NFCC#8. No commentary about this specific sculpture. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:7Bali-cockfightMH.jpg

Removed per policy Werieth (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (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.


Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:7AustralianyouthMH.jpg

Removed per policy Werieth (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (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.


Use in Malvina Hoffman#Selected works seems to violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:17, 7 July 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.

List of Blue Submarine No. 6 characters

Removed per WP:NFLIST Werieth (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2013 (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 following non-free images are being used in this article:

Those uses might be problematic per WP:NFLISTS and possibly violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ap16 rover1.png

With source provided in discussion below, NASA status clear. Licence changed to PD-NASA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

If this is clearly a NASA image, then this is 'free' content? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that NASA took the photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'd appreciate if I you used your common sense. Who else than NASA could possibly take a photo on the moon??? (Petulda) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ap16 rover2.png

With source provided in discussion, NASA status clear. Licence changed to PD-NASA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:06, 23 August 2013 (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.

NASA image , so incorrectly flagged as Non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The rationale sources it to NASA. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but ipse dixit doesn't seem to be compatible with WP:V. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't follow WP:V for copyright issues. In practice we know that the image is a still from a video clip of the apollo 16 lunar landing. NASA were the only people videoing the landings. If you really want a source it will have come from a lower quality version of this at around the 40 second mark.Geni (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at where that image is used (on the article about examination of the moon photographs), I strongly recommend that it and the two other connected images be replaced with screenshots pulled directly from the apod video Geni links to. For one, that is 100% sourced to NASA and PD-Nasa can be called. Second, it is a better quality than those photos, but still shows the "dust shape" that the article in question is trying to highlight. So we'll assure the freeness of the images and get better ones. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's a better source.--Craigboy (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ap16 rover3.png

With source provided in discussion above, NASA status clear. Licence changed to PD-NASA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:07, 23 August 2013 (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.

NASA image, so this could be 'freely' licensed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How can you tell that it was taken by NASA? It has no source. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Because no one else was taking photos (or in this case video since it is a still from a video clip) on the moon at the time.Geni (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Daxnetworks.jpg

Converted to free licence, no originality under even a strict reading. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:11, 23 August 2013 (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.

Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:OKFlag.jpg

Clearly PD in the US in the US, no comment as to Australia so I've added a no-commons tag. (like File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

This is too simple, PD-shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Bekins Van Lines logo.png

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.

Threshold of originality not met, PD-textlogo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:SPRINTER logo.svg

Put into the public domain by another, a decision I endorse. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:03, 23 August 2013 (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.

Threshold of originality concern, PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an SVG file, so it might be copyrightable as computer software per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. If that is the case, then it is replaceable by a freely licensed SVG file of the same logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The file page seems to indicate it was created by a Wikipedia editor from an EPS image, so the copyright status would be for the design and not the SVG. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Set-game-cards.png

No singe card would attract copyright and the putting together of three has been done by uploader, who has released all rights. Free. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (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 symbols shown are simple geometric shapes. I am not sure these meet the 'originality' threshold. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Arms-cheshunt.jpg

Discussion closed per WP:NAC. Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:11, 23 August 2013 (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 image is replaceable with one derived from the blazon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:AlajosStobl.jpg

Discussion closed per WP:NAC. Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

This is a photo of a statute, the sculptor died in 1926, No information is given on when this specfic image was published though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tagged replaceable. It seems reasonable that the statue was published during his lifetime and presumably without copyright formalities, so it should be safe to assume that the statue is in the public domain. However, the photo of it might be unfree, and is replaceable by a free photo of the same statue. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be easily public domain, not a fair use image..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When and where was the photo of the statue first published? Without any publication data, we will have to assume that the photo is too recent. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg

Discussion closed per WP:NAC. Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:20, 23 August 2013 (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.

It is claimed this is PD-India, but the image currently seems to have 'license soup'... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unfree in USA as it wasn't published before 1941 (source claims that the bridge was constructed in 1941, also watermark says 9-11-41 which looks like a date), so it has to be listed as unfree on Wikipedia. It is free in India if it was published before 1963, but we have no information about the publication history of the photo. Tagged "no fair use rationale". --Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Ipa-map.gif

Discussion closed per WP:NAC. Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:23, 23 August 2013 (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.

Not a logo, Does this qualify under an Australian equivalent to OGL as a govt work? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What does Open Gear Lubricant have to do with it? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously replaceable. Maps almost always are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Zenit sea launch.jpg

Discussion closed per WP:NAC. Image has been deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

This is not a 'unique historic image' as claimed. It could be replaced by a free image. eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • While I agree it isn't particularly historic, I would strongly challenge the assertion that it could be replaced by a free image. Sea Launch conducts rocket launches from a converted oil rig in open water on the equator. The only vessel nearby is a command ship also operated by Sea Launch, and as a result I cannot see how it can be reasonably assumed that a replacement free image could be created. --W. D. Graham 21:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Sea Launch article actually has a free image of such a launch, which obviously defeats this argument. The claimed use on other articles, such as Ukraine, is obviously invalid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Current eCornell Logo.png

Too simple to be eligible for protection (country of origin is the US). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (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 looks too simple to be protected, but not sure. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 21 July 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.

Category:Doctor Who character images

This section is intended to list the cases from Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_25#Huge category that might be problematic. I will look at the category later and list those that might need discussion. Feel free to list some as well. I think we should list them under a level 4 heading, like ====[[:File:Whatever.jpg]]====. The sections sorting the discussions by type (screenshot, book cover) use level 3 headings. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowing how the DW articles are organized and simply glancing at names, I suspect most are appropriate single character images used in the infobox in articles about that character (barring something like Romana, the Master, and the Doctor). That's not to say they're all clear, just that I suspect they are in reasonable use on notable character articles. --MASEM (t) 05:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Of insufficient value to the reader to justify inclusion; already deleted by another. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (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.

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

delete nothing to do with the story.188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete In a story with many memorable images, this has to be the most mundane screencap. It doesn't add anything to the article. Glimmer721 talk 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Planet of Fire.jpg

Used in Planet of Fire. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

By the look of it it shows the Master having caught the companion. That seems a pivotal bit. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
keep Master is a key villain in this story, plus Peri is a new companion here. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Twin Dilemma.jpg

Used in The Twin Dilemma. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

keep This is a famously controversial moment. If needed, expand article to include more detail. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Delta and the Bannermen.jpg

Not subject of critical commentary; already deleted by another. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (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.

Used in Delta and the Bannermen. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 talk 22:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Paradise Towers.jpg

Not subject of critical commentary; already deleted by another. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2013 (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.

Used in Paradise Towers. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete Nothing to do with story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete Ditto. Glimmer721 talk 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Celestial Toymaker.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#10c in Celestial Toymaker. Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in The Celestial Toymaker, as the article is about one of the serials and not specifically about the character the image depicts. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep shows main villain, who is unique to this story (on TV) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites. That article is about one of the serials and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Does show the main and supporting cast - but A shot of the sensorite face (rather than it's back) would be better [sensorites unique to this story]. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Gunslinger.jpg

Subject is the subject of commentary. Therefore I'm closing this as keep. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:28, 23 August 2013 (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.

Used in A Town Called Mercy. That article is about a specific episode and not about the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If you read the entire article, there is a section about the design of this one-off character which is more than sufficient justification for keeping the image on the episode page. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Eldrad.jpg

Used in The Hand of Fear. That article is about a specific episode and not about the character the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

keep Shows main villain, who is unique to this story. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no discuss about the character's design within the episode article so the image does fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
commment Add it in then. I mean If showing the main villain of a story isn't "useful to the reader", then I'm not sure what is. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Mindwarp.jpg

Used in Mindwarp. Article is about the episode, not the characters the image depicts. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Mysterious Planet.jpg

Used in The Mysterious Planet. Image sits in infobox and is not accompanied by any critical commentary. Violates WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Book and CD covers

File:Doctor Who The Greatest Show in the Galaxy.jpg

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true - the article is about the story, which exists as both a TV show and a book (often the books have significant differences to what was screened on TV). It's the same principle as articles about songs with multiple notable cover versions, where the covers from all the relevant releases are included in a similar fashion. (eg Tainted Love) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, no. Per WP:NFCI#1, images of covers "...from various items..." are are acceptable "...for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." There is no critical commentary about this book in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy#In print. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, unless the novelization is notable for its own article, the cover is not required on the episode article. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Greatest Show in the Galaxy (audio).gif

Used in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy, which is not an article about the album. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who The Sensorites.jpg

Used in The Sensorites, which is not an article about the book. Might therefore violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

File:WNCX logo.png

Already changed by another. Endorse. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:14, 23 August 2013 (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.

Text logo. Levdr1lp / talk 09:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur - already changed by someone else. Resolved. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Sentosa`s logo.PNG

Converted by me to free in the US, no comment as to country of origin. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:21, 23 August 2013 (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.

(fastttrack) - Image does not meet TOO Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Trademark (and other rights) warning would be appropriate though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Christian Bale 2013.jpg

Deleted by another. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (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.

Nymf (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagged as "replaceable". --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 22 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_26&oldid=1147987259"