 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Redundant larger version deleted by Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). TLSuda (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we need to different version of this logo? File:PTV Awards logo.jpg appears to be oversized and should possibly be replaced with File:PTV Awards.jpg in 17th PTV Awards. File:PTV Awards logo.jpg also violates WP:NFCC#10c in 17th PTV Awards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and deleted the overly large "logo.jpg" image and replaced that with the smaller version and added a rationale for that. That said, I do agree that the use of this logo (for the specific ceremony) is not appropriate for the main PTV Award page. Normally we use an image of the award (this being what they are holding on the left here [1]) for this space. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
![[1]](http://showbizspice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/457615_413878001988380_1544431289_o.jpg){kind=link}
- 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.
_logo.jpg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{PD-logo}}. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, no question. If you can change this, please go ahead and do so. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted as CSD#F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). TLSuda (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Map is replaceable by a Wikipedian-generated map showing the same roads under a free-content license. Imzadi 1979 → 09:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, one might have to build it off an historical map but it can be redone as a free image. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that it appears that it was first published in 1843 wouldnt this fall out of copyright? Werieth (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree - the recreator (this Peter Dean) did not appear to add any new elements, only clean up what was there. There is the possible argument that the reproduction is "sweat of the brow" under UK copyright but it would by a slavish reproduction in the US and considered okay. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be a photograph of a textbook or educational poster; it's a table of Kannada characters. As Kannada has about 40 million native speakers, is an official language in India, and is widely researched, I doubt it's impossible to find or make a free alternative to this table; so I feel it fails NFCC criterion 1. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. The use in 18XX games violates WP:NFCC#10c. The uses in both 18XX and 18XX games might violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to say that instead of a non-free image on 18xx, the gameplay concepts can be replicated with a free mock-up image on 18XX, requiring no image on the list of games page and avoiding the need for this. At minimum, the use on 18XX seems fair if the free mock-up is not considered a proper replacement, but the use on 18XX games is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is consensus that the comics are not necessary to the understanding and therefore fails WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free images are only allowed if "No free equivalent exists, or could be created." A free equivalent could be created For the purpose of explaining how the Heartbleed bug works in laymen's terms. In fact, File:Heartbleed bug explained.svg exists. See also: Talk:Heartbleed#xkcd explains Heartbleed. As much as I would like to keep this image in the Heartbleed article, policy says it can't stay. Of course, the best resolution would be for the artist to re-license this with a Commons-compatible license. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have to agree, the SVG captures the idea just as well. No need for the Xkcd (as non-free). --MASEM (t) 18:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- (e/c, @Masem:) I would like to withdraw this request on the grounds that the text in the article that specifically relates to this particular XKCD comic is enhanced by the presence of the image and there is no free equivalent. If Masem and any other editor who supports deletion concurs, please mark this as "speedy close - withdrawn by unanimous consent" and copy this discussion to File talk:Xkcd.com-1354-how-the-heartbleed-bug-works.png. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hrrrm. I would say that it just passes NFCC#8 by that, but editors should be aware that could be challenged in the future (eg GA/FA/FFD). The statements by SciAm and Engadget aren't so much about Heartbleed but about how XKCD helps to simplify the concept, and thus part of the strips reception, but that's more my opinion. But it also serves to simplify the explanation of the bug. As such, it could be kept for the time being, I just don't know if it is needed in the long run. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I tend to be a NFCC dove, but I don't see a justification here. I like the XKCD strips and wish we could use them in many articles, but there is no need to use it in this article. Also this image was made at reduced resolution, presumably to make it more acceptable, but as is it is illegible and therefore pretty much useless.--agr (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Probably replaceable image - one small piece of a lectern does not make it that unique. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly does not pass NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 - I've tagged for deletion as replaceable - Peripitus (Talk) 00:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Needs some serous TLC. NFUR exists but not sure what page its for and needs some work. also used on multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- The rationale page needs cleaning up for sure, and we need separate rationales for both uses. That said, there is a reason to use the stamp given but I'm not seeing any sources (on the file page or in either article) that back the OR claim being made. That needs to be shown or added, otherwise, this fails both OR and NFCC#8. If a source can be found, I think that the use on the Indo-Pakistan war page (it was issued specific for that event per the claim), but not on the generalized Prisoner of War page. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not enough evidence on date of publication to determine public domain status. WP:NFCC#10c violations fixed. TLSuda (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possibly in the public domain if this was published around 1920, depending on whether it was published before or after 1920 (if published before 1919, then it is PD). If this hasn't been published, then it is still copyrighted until 2040 and as NFC violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1920 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and Chuck Carney. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- If published before 1923, it is PD. If it hasn't been published (wildly unlikely) then it is copyrighted until 70 years from the death of the photographer, or 120 years from creation if it's a work for hire. If it was published in 1923-2002, we'd have to know the year to know how long it would be copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no evidence of the original publication history to see if image copyright has been renewed. TLSuda (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Has the copyright for this image been renewed? If not, then this seems to be PD. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Impossible to prove unless you know the original publication history. Odds are good it's not listed separately from some newspaper or book, and if you don't know which one, you can't look up the renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed WP:NFCC#10c (and WP:NFCC#8) violations. No further known information about image. Unknown original source, may fail WP:NFCC#2. Discussion should be taken to WP:FFD if necessary. TLSuda (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this still copyrighted in the United States? If yes, violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1945 and Ashkenazi Jews. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- This image is at Gettys [2] with the caption: "Caption:May 1942: EXCLUSIVE A portrait of Anne Frank (1929 - 1945) from her own photo album. (Photo by Anne Frank Fonds - Basel via Getty Images)" I would believe this image is non-free, or at least fails NFCC#2 (since publication would be when the photo was first put to the public, not stored in the photo album), and as such fails the uses indicated. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the image violates WP:NFCC#8 in Federal Express (passenger train), PRR 4876 and PRR GG1. TLSuda (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#8 in 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck, Federal Express (passenger train), PRR 4876 and PRR GG1. I can list it at FFD if that is considered more appropriate, but I am not sure my assessment won't be challenged in this case. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It meets WP:NFCC#8 for 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck, although I would agree that it's much weaker in the other cases. Strangely 1953 Pennsylvania Railroad train wreck is the sole article that Werieth removed this image from. It would meet #8 for PRR 4876 because if this individual locomotive meets WP:N, that's presumably for its involvement in the accident (and thus NFCC#8 can be met). If 4876 is only notable for being the preserved example of this class, then I agree that's a weaker case – but still possible. For the two "class" articles, we would have to show that this accident is important to the overall history of each, and that this article both covers that accident, and makes justifiable use of this image to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The accident article is fine, that's a historical picture of the incident, so yea, no question there. I do beg the question of use at the PRR 4876, in part that how that article constructed is poorly done - the bulk of that content should be at the train wreck article - the PRR article should only have about a paragraph to explain that this is why this engine is notable, but the details of the wreck are fully described elsewhere. The wreck is important to mention on the Federal Express route page, but I don't see the need for the picture when the details of the wreck are linked to, and there was no apparent "impact" on the route (it continued to run until 1971). Similarly on the GG1 page - the wreck didn't impact the use of that class, so there's no need for that image there as long as the wreck page is used. So to be clear: the use of the wreck page is fine, I am not sure on the actual engine page, but it definitely fails NFCC#8 on the route and class pages. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image fails WP:NFCC#10 and is no longer used in any article so should therefore be deleted. TLSuda (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tagged as NFC and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 1949 and List of Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom to the Council of Europe. Looks like being below TOO in the United States. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll tell Ssolbergj on his talk page to add a fair use rationale for both of those articles. Frenzie23 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ssolbergj hasn't taken any further action. Frenzie23 (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
We might as well delete it, since it's the old logo (a while ago, I uploaded the new one). Both articles should have the new logo.Frenzie23 (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no evidence that the image falls below the threshold of originality at this time, specifically due to the wave pattern on the stars and stripes portion. TLSuda (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that File:Hillary.png falls well below the threshold of originality, as it is merely an exceedingly common arrangement of public domain elements. Really, any campaign poster assembling the well-worn motif of a flag-banner and a candidates name and some contact info should be considered PD, but this is a pretty stark example of such a display. bd2412 T 17:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The flag shapes are not "simply geometric shapes" and thus would meet TOO. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- With a little bit of searching, you could undoubtedly find a virtually indistinguishable flag shape in campaign posters for Ulysses Grant, Chester A. Arthur, or Grover Cleveland. The shape may be more complicated than simple geometry, but it is a very, very old design. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please provide examples? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll hunt some down tonight. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have not yet had the time to do a thorough search, since it turns out that there are literally tens of thousands of campaign signs employing some variation of a red, white, and blue stars and stripes banner. I almost immediately found this Romney banner with a very similar motif, and will continue hunting down older examples. bd2412 T 13:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anything published pre-1923 with the exact same shape would be ideal. Anything published pre-mid-1970s (1976?) with the exact same shape and no (c) would probably work. You might also have luck if you can find a "flag-waving" graphic that, when cropped, would be the exact same shape as the "3 stars and 3 bars" showing on this image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just the shape (otherwise, all of Monderian's works would be PD), it's the artist nature of the use of that shape. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is an edge case, I will admit. If the "3 stars and 3 bars" itself is proven to be in the public domain due to age, it's a fairly easy to stretch to say the entire sign is. Why? Because if the campaign sign had a plain rectangle instead of the "stars and bars" art, the whole sign would easily be recognized as PD-simple. If the "stars and bars" is PD due to age, then I can't see how the campaign sign as a whole could receive a new copyright. As for Monderian's works, there were many, many rectangles in his works. If Monderian did a work that consisted of nothing but one rectangle overlaying another of the same color (and with the overlayed area being the background color) I would argue that the resulting work would be "pd-simple." Once you start adding more rectangles, it's harder and harder to claim "pd-simple" and easier and easier to claim an enforceable copyright. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not the fundamental "stars and stripes", it is how it is "waving" that is a unique shape. If it was a straight-up rectangle with the starts and stripes, it would be PD. If it was a simple bend, like an arc, same thing. But the waving effect is just questionable enough we can't dump it off as PD readily. I do agree this is an edge case, I'm probably taking a cautious edge to this, but that's how we should take these edge cases. --MASEM (t) 02:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is an edge case, I will admit. If the "3 stars and 3 bars" itself is proven to be in the public domain due to age, it's a fairly easy to stretch to say the entire sign is. Why? Because if the campaign sign had a plain rectangle instead of the "stars and bars" art, the whole sign would easily be recognized as PD-simple. If the "stars and bars" is PD due to age, then I can't see how the campaign sign as a whole could receive a new copyright. As for Monderian's works, there were many, many rectangles in his works. If Monderian did a work that consisted of nothing but one rectangle overlaying another of the same color (and with the overlayed area being the background color) I would argue that the resulting work would be "pd-simple." Once you start adding more rectangles, it's harder and harder to claim "pd-simple" and easier and easier to claim an enforceable copyright. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just the shape (otherwise, all of Monderian's works would be PD), it's the artist nature of the use of that shape. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Anything published pre-1923 with the exact same shape would be ideal. Anything published pre-mid-1970s (1976?) with the exact same shape and no (c) would probably work. You might also have luck if you can find a "flag-waving" graphic that, when cropped, would be the exact same shape as the "3 stars and 3 bars" showing on this image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please provide examples? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- With a little bit of searching, you could undoubtedly find a virtually indistinguishable flag shape in campaign posters for Ulysses Grant, Chester A. Arthur, or Grover Cleveland. The shape may be more complicated than simple geometry, but it is a very, very old design. bd2412 T 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is consensus that the image should not be included in both the main and specific topic articles, and since the information is most specific to History of The Simpsons and The Simpsons shorts. TLSuda (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Im not really seeing why this should be included in 7 different articles. Werieth (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate, particularly with what articles it should not be in? For what my two cents are worth, I think the file is appropriately used in almost every case. It's a historically significant picture in the context of the Simpsons, and is relevant in all the articles it's used in. I could see an argument against its use in the Matt Groening. However, I still think it's appropriately used as a very significant work from Groening's history, especially when the drawing was created by him. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Its redundant in The Simpsons, Simpson family, and History of The Simpsons. In The Simpsons shorts and Good Night (The Simpsons short) is a similar redundancy, it should either be included in the parent or child article and not both. Given that it has its own stand alone article including it in The Tracey Ullman Show is hard to justify. Werieth (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- History of The Simpsons is really the only fair use here, given the fact this article's content would have been otherwise been in The Simpsons. And as this is not a screenshot per say, this would be better at The Simpsons shorts to identify those instead of at Good Night. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Its redundant in The Simpsons, Simpson family, and History of The Simpsons. In The Simpsons shorts and Good Night (The Simpsons short) is a similar redundancy, it should either be included in the parent or child article and not both. Given that it has its own stand alone article including it in The Tracey Ullman Show is hard to justify. Werieth (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical sourced commentary within the article. TLSuda (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This painting is not referenced in the article (Jim Dine) at all and there is no critical commentary.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did a quick check of sources, and while there's no obvious ones I suspect this can be used an a sourced example of the artist's work, but those sources have to be found and included. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uncontested
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I attempted to remove the gallery of excessive files at Nazi_propaganda#Textbooks but was reverted. This article currently has 8 non-free images, and a gallery of 4 5 similar images Werieth (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- One image from that gallery seems reasonable (since the text goes into discussions of what Nazi textbooks were formatted to), but not all 5. The rationale for reversing the removal, that they were unchallenged since 2007, is bogus per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Correct, but I didnt feel like arguing the issue in the article. Werieth (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've self reverted here. The original uploader has too many issues to be worth defending. Apologies all round. You can speedily close this. When I'm a bit less drunk as one is rather wont at this hour I shall consider the text in that section carefully and edit for POV. I'm really sorry about this. I had no idea. I thought it quite the opposite. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the text there now. It's unexceptionable and good faith I think, but there is plainly an issue with the good faith of the uploader of the images and for me that's an imperative. I think there is a case for an image illustrating the kind of images in
school textbooks{see remark below} of the time, but I'm not prepared to assume good faith in this uploader's case. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the text there now. It's unexceptionable and good faith I think, but there is plainly an issue with the good faith of the uploader of the images and for me that's an imperative. I think there is a case for an image illustrating the kind of images in
- I've self reverted here. The original uploader has too many issues to be worth defending. Apologies all round. You can speedily close this. When I'm a bit less drunk as one is rather wont at this hour I shall consider the text in that section carefully and edit for POV. I'm really sorry about this. I had no idea. I thought it quite the opposite. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Correct, but I didnt feel like arguing the issue in the article. Werieth (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Independent of the editorial decision to use the images, has anyone definitively determined the copyright status of these two books? One is from 1938, the other from 1936. Did either of them lose their copyrights due to WWII? Did either of them lose their copyrights due to expiration? One author died in the 1960s, the other in the 1970s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, good point.I was going to query as well. I do think it's worth recording that these kinds of images were published in
textbooks{see remark below} of the time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)- There was a recent case here that I'd have to look for but I did learn that much of what was published by the Nazi party is now under copyright by an Austrian firm/agency, IIRC. I can't find it easily. This doesn't omit possible pd-old aspects. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, at File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg raised by yours truly. It eventually became a discussion about the file File:Völkischer Beobachter front page Jan. 31 1933.jpg and I researched the copyright issue thus
- ... This article refers. It appears that the copyright of Völkischer Beobachter is held by the Bavarian Finance Ministry, who own the copyright on works by its publisher Eher-Verlag, and who do defend their copyright vigorously: "The ministry owns the copyright to publications by the Nazi publishing house Eher-Verlag, which include National Socialist newspapers such as the Völkischer Beobachter and Der Angriff as well as "Mein Kampf," and has refused to allow reproduction of the titles. It justifies its decision by arguing that straightforward reprints without critical remarks could be used by neo-Nazis for propaganda purposes. Germany's influential Central Council of Jews has also condemned the republication of the Nazi papers by Zeitungszeugen." ...
- and cheerily invited one of the regular editors here to get the image removed from Commons on the strength of it, who did just that. I think the issue was that while the publication itself was in the public domain by now, photographers might still have rights in the images published. I had said that if the image was removed from Commons I would upload Fair Use rationales for them in the two places where the image was used, because I think it's useful to have visual identification of this newspaper. However these gallery images of
school textbooks{see remark below} that Werieth has removed is another issue, and whereas normally I would be interested in defending them in this case the good faith of the uploader is a wholly overriding concern. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)- To clarify on that, the uploader [[User:Fourdee]] was banned by Jimbo Wales and on the relevant list this ANI is linked. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, at File:Degenerate-Hitler-Ziegler.jpg raised by yours truly. It eventually became a discussion about the file File:Völkischer Beobachter front page Jan. 31 1933.jpg and I researched the copyright issue thus
- There was a recent case here that I'd have to look for but I did learn that much of what was published by the Nazi party is now under copyright by an Austrian firm/agency, IIRC. I can't find it easily. This doesn't omit possible pd-old aspects. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, good point.I was going to query as well. I do think it's worth recording that these kinds of images were published in
- Support Werieth. Deleting these files is currently best practice at NFCR (no lists policy). While I would normally seek to challenge this, in this case it's not reasonable to assume the good faith of the uploader and he's not going to get it on my account. These files can be reproduced from archive.org
and after the files are deleted I will make a WP:BOLD edit at Nazi Propaganda uploading an image from the source. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally I can't find a source for its use as a textbook in schools. I doubt it was, though it was a popular book I gather. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The work in question (Hans F. K. Günther's Short Ethnology of the German People) was not strictly speaking a work of Nazi propaganda and shouldn't be illustrated in the article. [[User:Fourdee]] misrepresented it as a school textbook so that he could present images from it that furthered his own white supremacist agenda. I think this discussion can be safely closed and the images deleted. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally I can't find a source for its use as a textbook in schools. I doubt it was, though it was a popular book I gather. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This album cover by D.P.M.O. (French group) would be PD-text in the US, but what about France? TLSuda (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Common's TOO page suggest this could be (they're possibility even harsher than UK for when originality is met). --MASEM (t) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg; File:Autriservice.gif; File:ASeaCadetsFlag.png; File:Boxingkangaroo.svg
Non-free flag files fail both WP:NFLISTS (guideline) and WP:NFCC#8 (policy) and should not be used in the List of Australian flags article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These flag images have been blanked from List of Australian flags. As discussed at Talk:List of Australian flags#Omitted flags, I believe they meet the criteria at WP:NFCCP and should be included to illustrate the flags being listed in the article, rather than rely on descriptions of the flags and links to other articles which depict the flags; my reasons are set out in detail there. Another editor, Werieth, disagrees, although the reasons given do not seem to match up with the policy criteria. I would like to get some clarity on this. —sroc 💬 00:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually they do, see WP:NFCC#1,3,8. Usage of non-free files in lists has for a long time been unacceptable. Werieth (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have already given my reasons why the images do meet all criteria at WP:NFCCP and responded to your specific comments at the article's talk page. —sroc 💬 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The argument of NFCC#8 fails here because there is no specific discussion of the flags in the context of the article that requires the reader to see the article to understand the topic (the general problem with images in tables and lists per NFLISTS), and the link to the specific flag page (where the image is appropriate) is an acceptable NFCC#1 replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have already given my reasons why the images do meet all criteria at WP:NFCCP and responded to your specific comments at the article's talk page. —sroc 💬 12:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you're saying there—I think you are opposed to the flag images being included? NFCC#8 says:
- Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
- My view is that the images significantly increase readers' understanding of the article (i.e., a list of flags) and their omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The images aid the reader to recognise the flags being discussed. Relying on the descriptions is a poor substitute: "A five-pointed star and traditional headdress in white, on a blue, green and black background" does not adequately explain the arrangement of the elements, the fact that the background colours appear as stripes, the direction/size/order of the stripes, or the design of the stylised headdress, and thus is inadequate in representing the flag accurately; a more detailed description would be more cumbersome and lose the succinctness the current description affords. Likewise, the link to another article which shows the image is a poor substitute for the image itself in an article whose specific purpose is to list flags: the inclusion of the image aids the comparison of flags in the list and allows the reader to quickly scroll through the list to find an image they may have in their mind that they are looking for; without the image, the reader must navigate between multiple articles to make comparisons and must stop to read the descriptions for the hidden flags to see if they might resemble the image they have in their mind of a flag they are looking for.
- I'd be surprised if this has not come up in other discussions on lists of flags around the world before (as distinct from the use of flag icons contemplated by MOS:FLAG). —sroc 💬 14:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- You have no discussion in that article (the typical nature of a LIST article - that you're just itemizing a list). The reader is one click away to seeing the flag used in a more appropriate article. This is a tried and true case - why NFLISTS was made - to prevent use of non-free in zero-content, navigational/indexing lists like this. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- If NFLISTS is the issue, then why has NFCC been repeatedly stated as the issue? Note that NFCC is a policy whereas NFLISTS is a guideline, and policies generally take precedence over guidelines. In any case, NFLISTS does not state any definitive prohibitions but rather preferences on how images should be used, and the stated examples referring to television shows, art styles, depictions of aliens, etc., do not correlate well with flag designs. For example:
- If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use.
- Presumably this is now the argument used for the flags not being included in the list. However, the second sentence implies that an image can be used on a list page if there is a justifiable fair use rationale specific for that page. There is such a rationale on the various image pages and the justification is set out in more detail in my reasoning above. I'm not convinced that flags under copyright cannot be included in lists of flags, but if that's the consensus, then I'll let it go. —sroc 💬 15:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- NFLISTS is a guideline that encompasses the concerns of NFCC#1, #3a and #8 together. Note that providing the second non-free rational (it is not "fair use", we are more strict than that) is a minimum requirement but sufficient for the image, but that's a trivial part here. It's still not required to see the flag on this list when the flag has its own article that discusses it in depth. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say
"it is not 'fair use'"
; I was quoting NFLISTS#4 which refers to a "non-free fair use rationale". I'm also unsure what you mean when you say"sufficient for the image, but that's a trivial part here."
—sroc 💬 16:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Ive fixed the wording, the previous term was fair use rationales, but was moved to the more correct non-free use rationale, as the term fair use was phased out. Creating a rationale template and adding it to the file page is the easy part. Creating a valid reason that holds weight is another. Werieth (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, that language should be removed then, but that's not core to the matter - like the other thing you quote, it's a mechanical part of NFC that needs to be done but not a factor in this discussion on whether the images are appropriate for the list in the first place. (If they were, you'd have to add that rational, as you said you've done). --MASEM (t) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you say
I just realised that the rationale was missing at File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg so I have now included it as follows:
| Article | |
|---|---|
| Purpose of use |
|
| Replaceable? |
Irreplaceable. Any other image would not accurately represent the flag |
Is this rationale sufficient to justify the inclusion of the image? Conversely, what is the rationale behind limiting such use? I could understand limiting the number of articles a particular photograph is used in (since this would be monotonous, other photographs could usually be sourced, and not all uses may be justifiable), but in this case, this use of the flag is pertinent to the article and its omission would be detrimental. —sroc 💬 17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not so much the rationale, it's the fact that this is a list article, and thus there's little context given that requires the reader to see the flags as per NFCC#8. On the separate articles about the flags, then the use is clearly appropriate, but not in navigation lists like this is. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. As I argued above, the images are important to the readers' understanding of the article in identifying the flags and understanding what they look like. Although this list only summarises the purpose of each flag, this is discussion of the flags that benefits from the image being there. Without the flag images, the article might as well be removed and replaced with a category with links to individual articles – but the article is more than merely a list; it is organised and provides descriptions of what each flag is used for, grouped together with similar flags used for related purposes, which provides context.
- For example, take the Torres Strait Islander Flag, which I dare say many Australians have seen but may not necessarily know what it is called or exactly what purpose it serves, especially in parts of the mainland where Torres Strait Islanders are few and far between. Such readers might come to the List of Australian flags article hoping to find it, but they don't see it. If they stop to read the description of each flag and are lucky enough to recognise that the description for this flag ("A five-pointed star and traditional headdress in white, on a blue, green and black background") refers to the image they have in their head, they might click on the link; but they probably won't know just from sight that the dominant stylised image represents a headdress (I didn't, despite having seen the flag many times) and they may not recall from memory which colours were used, so the description alone would not be enough. They would recognise the image in an instant but may be lost without it. —sroc 💬 04:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Purpose of image is, per the non-free use rationale, "[t]o give a visualization as to what the North Tarrant Express will look like" (per WP:NFCC#8. However, there is no clear indication that inclusion of this image improves a reader's understanding of the lane configuration of this roadway in a way that cannot be conveyed via prose. Kinu t/c 21:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - a free alternative could also definitely be made. I'll try to put one together. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I put together these diagrams. Probably should've been in SVG, but that's for another day:
- I can make any changes if need be. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Those probably could be improved on (I like the use of car/truck images to demonstrate the traffic type) but you've demonstrated the point, that NFCC#1 fails here, since a free replacement can be made without question. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not certain if the use of the TEXpress logo in the new image is compliant. --Kinu t/c 19:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image violates WP:NFCC#1 and is not used in any articles so should be deleted. TLSuda (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe this images fails the fair use criteria because the Twitter campaign is not the primary subject of the article and a free image already is used for a similar purpose. (The stated rationale "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" is untrue.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm well aware that twitter's influence on the Bring Back Our Girls campaign, so I think it's fair to use the free image (that shows the hash tag), as well as using hashtag tracking stats (generated in a free graph) to show the effect of Twitter on this. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- And then this just popped up on my Twitter feed. I do not know for sure how the First Lady's photography works under a PD-USGov license, but this screams a possible replacement image if it is the case. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image is tagged as PD-textlogo, but the three-dimensional effect of hte ball thing seems to me to pass the Threshold of Originality. This could be changed to non-free, but I wanted to make sure my thoughts were solid. Thoughts? TLSuda (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it's definitely a non-free image. The ball-thing is not a simple geometric shape - Peripitus (Talk) 06:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Converted to fair use.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 146th Airlift Wing. Appears to violate WP:NFCC#8 in 115th Airlift Squadron and 146th Airlift Wing. Might also violate WP:NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure whether File:FelixManalo.jpg#Summary is considered to be a valid rationale for the use in Felix Manalo. Has no rationales for 1913 and Iglesia ni Cristo, unless the rationale is for both Felix Manalo and Iglesia ni Cristo, in which case it doesn't have a valid rationale for Felix Manalo either per WP:NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The summary claims the design to be in the public domain, but this particular work depicting the flag to be copyrighted. If this is true, then this image violates WP:NFCC#1. Violates WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8 in 1928 International Pageant of Pulchritude. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appears to violate WP:NFCC#10c in 1929 Rose Bowl, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football and Roy Riegels, as File:Roy Riegels.gif#Summary doesn't seem to be a sufficient rationale for any of those articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this image satisfy WP:NFCC#1? Also violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1930 Targa Florio. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. As discussion is about violation on all pages, WP:FFD may be a better route if deletion is proposed. TLSuda (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Violates WP:NFCC#10c in 1943–1944 Italian campaign medal and Croix de guerre des théâtres d'opérations extérieures. Is this still under copyright? (I guess so if this was first published in 1943/44 or later). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been no discussion in 30+ days. No prejudice to opening a new discussion if necessary. TLSuda (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was this still copyrighted in Brazil in 1996, the URAA date for Brazil? Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c in 1950 FIFA World Cup. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is consensus that the over-use of files violates WP:NFCC in the absence of more specific discussion, at this time, there seems to be an rough agreement that at least File:GwenStefaniCool.ogg, File:WindItUp.ogg and File:TheSweetEscape.ogg to be removed from the article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really dont see a need for 6 sound clips, cant this be reduced to 2-3? Werieth (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion the first four clips (File:Stefani-2004-hollaback-girl.ogg, File:GwenStefaniCool.ogg, File:WindItUp.ogg and File:TheSweetEscape.ogg) should all be removed. I don't see specific critical commentary about them and as such they violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, this is a perfect example of a case where tagging the article with {{Non-free review}} would make sense, because the editors watching the article might not necessarily have the sound files watched, but, uh, I am not going to propose it again. Werieth, this comment is not specifically directed at you, I am saying this in general. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Preaching to the choir, Im the person who had the change made in the first place. Werieth (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd argue that them all aprt from "Hollaback Girl" and "What you Waiting For" be removed. These two are her important singles, and the others are window dressing and fail our policies easily. Actually, I've just done it. 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC) This message is from Black Kite (talk · contribs).
- 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.
Two images have been removed per WP:NFCC. The three remaining non-free images are each only used in this article. If deletion is the desired result, I suggest going to WP:FFD. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blatant failure of NFCC, this is covering a generic topic and using a large number of non-free files is not justified, as we can use free examples to illustrate the point. Werieth (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Luke and Laura one seems okay, as the defining example; the rest of NFC uses are gratuitous. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted Werieth on the removals he made. I only used WP:Rollback because I considered some of the removals unconstructive and wanted to alert him to the fact that I reverted him (the initial "undo" option for the edit that I wanted to revert was blocked by intermediate edits); I then provided a WP:Edit summary while removing one of the images that Partyclams (talk · contribs) added; I stated, "The Luke and Laura image passes Wikipedia:NFC#Images, and so does the Bianca and Maggie image, because of historical importance and extensive critical commentary." However, neither of these images are historical; I was more so referring to the couples. After that statement, I removed another image that Partyclams added. Regarding the fair-use images other than the Luke and Laura image, which are three: I think that the Bianca and Maggie, Buffy and Angel, and Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough images pass Wikipedia:NFC#Images because they are used for the "critical commentary and discussion of the work in question" aspect, and the Buffy and Angel/Cloud and Aerith imagery seemingly adhere to the part that states: "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." These couples are significantly discussed in the sections they are in, and the Buffy and Angel/Cloud and Aerith imagery, which concern deaths, significantly impacted viewers. The impact of the Aerith death scene is linked in the Supercouple article; that link is Aerith Gainsborough#Reception. However, the Buffy and Angel/Cloud and Aerith text in the Supercouple article doesn't discuss the impact of either imagery. Either way, I'm not as tied to these images as I was before, and wouldn't mind too much if they were removed. I would be disappointed to see them all removed, but not too upset by the removals. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no information on the threshold of originality for Italy, so the image is PD-ineligible-USonly. TLSuda (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most probably a PD file per, simple text, TOO Tito☸Dutta 05:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- While this is indeed simple text, the drop shadow might push it above TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PD-USGov is only for works that are created by actual employees of the federal government. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:East Side Access.jpg- Review requested because it is claimed in the notes that the project concerned may have been federally funded, which the notes claim makes this a US GOV work. I'm not so sure if that applies to specifically contracted/comisisoned works by others (that merely happen to be funded by the Federal Govt.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not how federal funding works (having been on one side of it). US-PDGov is based on employees of the federal government, and people that are funded by the gov't are usually not made employees for that purposes. So treating this as non-free is correct. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The policy-backed consensus is the use of non-free files for identification in this article do not meet WP:NFCC and should be deleted. TLSuda (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Im not seeing justification for including 10 non-free files in what is basically a list article Werieth (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd have to argue in favor that these are unneeded. We're talking about non-acadmic parts of a university (housing/etc) and while they're well documented, they are also sub-par notable. If it was that these could all have been individual stand-alone articles but the editors chose to cover it as one topic, I could see that, but this doesn't seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- This was debated previously at Talk:Residential_colleges_of_Rice_University#Use_of_non-free_images_on_this_article. More importantly, and what truly matters, is that admins User:Kusma and User:Graeme Bartlett, plus editor User:Armbrust successfully edit warred in June/July of 2011 in favor of their retention. As is the case with so many other pages where there is overuse, if there is a group of users vocal enough to fight against policies and guidelines, the policies and guidelines simply do not apply. That is the case here. This page is exempt from WP:NFCC #3 by fiat. Recommend closure of this review as futile. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The argument that was presented then - that if these were standalone articles they'd each have their own logos so as merged they would appropriately have a logo each - is one that I would have to support on the same principle that we allow logos in general on standalone articles. But that assumes each of the individual colleges given could have a stand-alone article that would otherwise meet all notability and other policies/guidelines, and as I look, no that doesn't seem to be the case in the current iteration of the article. So while that discussion from the past is "right", it doesn't apply to this in the present state. And I will note that just because admins discuss that on talk pages doesn't make it "right"; whomever closes this will be making the "right" decision. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to understand why we should allow non-free logos for articles about single colleges, but not for an article about several colleges. I personally think we should not allow non-free logos at all, but while we do, we should not have arbitrary limits like "at most five non-free logos per article". I also object to the characterisation of that bunch of edits as a "fight against policies and guidelines". —Kusma (t·c) 19:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- We argued that use was within the policy. For logos we have the special case where the copyright holders probably want them to be displayed for this purpose, even if they will not release it on a free license. Ps I have just nominated File:Jones Crest.png for deletion on commons, as it looks identical to the non free logo. I would argue that the article is superior with the logos exhibited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not what the companies what, it is what they actually. If they don't release them for a complete free license, they cannot work with our goal of trying to create a free content work. And the logos are not required to understand the article, so they also fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is provided by the logos / shields having a picture is what it looks like. Its appearance is not easily described in words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- What importance is there for the average reader (one who does not attend Rice University) to seeing the logo of residential colleges? Just because it exists does not mean we need to see the logo/shield. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- What importance is there for the average reader (one who does not care about baseball (imagine a cricket fan)) to seeing the logo of baseball clubs? Just because it exists does not mean we need to see the logo. —Kusma (t·c) 21:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Baseball clubs (as are most notable businesses, universities (like the overall Rice U.), and other entities) that are notable will have stand-alone pages that go into depth about that entity, and thus it is consensus that for such stand-alone articles, the logo is appropriate for demonstrating the branding of these notable entities. (Mind you, I agree with you that we really could do better on logos in this manner, but the community has at least deemed that logos of notable entities are appropriate to use to identify the branding of that entity. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- What importance is there for the average reader (one who does not care about baseball (imagine a cricket fan)) to seeing the logo of baseball clubs? Just because it exists does not mean we need to see the logo. —Kusma (t·c) 21:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- What importance is there for the average reader (one who does not attend Rice University) to seeing the logo of residential colleges? Just because it exists does not mean we need to see the logo/shield. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is provided by the logos / shields having a picture is what it looks like. Its appearance is not easily described in words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is not what the companies what, it is what they actually. If they don't release them for a complete free license, they cannot work with our goal of trying to create a free content work. And the logos are not required to understand the article, so they also fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Image removed from articles that fail WP:NFCC. No further action needed here. TLSuda (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uses in 1952 Formula One season and 1953 Formula One season violate WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, obviously. Removed. Also has no valid source information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is the four additional covers fail WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. TLSuda (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given we have 4 cover versions of this, there is no critical commentary of File:Eternal flame UK.jpg I removed it, but was reverted. Im just not seeing justification for it. Werieth (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't actually see critical commentary about ANY one of the following covers: File:Eternal flame UK.jpg, File:Human Nature - Eternal Flame.jpg, File:Atomic Kitten Eternal Flame Cover.jpg, File:Rollergirl Eternal Flame.jpg. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could this image be considered to be a case of PD-textlogo? -- Elegie (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.