Open main menu
WikiProject Fair use    (Inactive)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

contradiction?Edit

Am I misunderstanding what's written here?

With regard to WP:NFCC#1, WP:FREER says "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all? If the answer […] is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." So, if everything written about the subject can be understood with the provided prose, then no NFC is needed, right? However, with regard to WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#CS says the criterion is met if only by "including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." So, if the reader could not identify the subject on the street by virtue of the prose's description alone, then NFC is allowed, right?

For what it's worth, I'm inquiring because I don't understand the objections raised at this ongoing discussion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, its just a nuance of how NFC works. Generally, when we have an article about a specific named item (people, animal, building, whatever) we want an image to show what that item looked like, regardless of that could be described in text. We could not use that image of George the dog on an article about Jack Russell terrier because of NFCC#1 - we can easily get free images of any Jack Russell to use there. But in the article about George, there is no apparent equivalent in images (died a decade ago, so chance of free images low), and there's no other way to illustrate what George looked like (you can't use any Jack Russell to put there). Now arguably does one need to see what George looks like, and that answer could be answered "no", but that's the nuance that generally we want at least some illustration of unique named items even if these are not visually unique. --Masem (t) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
the nuance [is] that generally we want at least some illustration of unique named items even if these are not visually unique. If this is the case, that we always want articles about unique things to have illustration (NFC, if necessary), is that something we could codify in the NFCC? Because as it sits now, the article George (dog) doesn't need NFC to understand it, and so File:George dog.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That's basically what WP:NFCI #1 and #8 get to. A notable topic means there's critical commentary about the topic (for NFCC#8 to be met), and an illustration nearly always helps even if that is non-free. So unless - in this case with the George photo - you can fully prove the image is a press photo , failing NFCC#2, I don't really see an issue with its use. It is fair enough though to pursue the line of questioning if it is a press photo or not, that is a absolute concern. --Masem (t) 17:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A notable topic means there's critical commentary about the topic (for NFCC#8 to be met) But #8 doesn't mention "critical commentary" at all; its threshold is "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the article topic". In this instance (as an example) then, how does the NFC significantly assist in understanding what's written at George (dog)? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Basically, its just that there is long-standing allowince for a non-replacable non-free image of a unique notable subject. There are people involved with NFC that are not thrilled with that, but the consensus is generally in favor. It is argued that most people have both visual and verbal learning modes so within the question of NFCC#8, providing the image of the subject that is being discussed at length (eg in a notable article with critical commentary), that the image's presence is helping with the mix of visual and verbal learning, and not having it there (the second part of #8) would harm that. I know one can argue to a fault that NFCC#8 is unmet - it's just a black and white Jack Terrier with no particularly unique identifying marks - but long-standing consensus would allow for it. That's why I point to the WP:NFCI's #1 and #8 of cases where we generally find this allowed. (You still have to show that no free image could replace it, and that it is not a press image either). --Masem (t) 18:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If the consensus is in favor of allow[ing] for a non-replacable non-free image of a unique notable subject, then can it be explicitly enumerated at WP:NFCC?

8. 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. Illustrative NFC for unique notable subjects meets this criterion iff all other NFCC are met.

As they're read now, the "long-standing" consensus and discussions about learning styles and whatnot have to be (presumably) found in this page's archives or editors repeatedly asking anew, and editors will continue to not realize these implied exceptions/allowances. Given your explanation here that such is so, might I be so bold and update the NFCC myself? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that we have WP:NFC as the guideline for helping to put out example cases for WP:NFCC interpretation, and the use of identifying images like this is well-documented there. We have tried to avoid carving out those exemptions. If anything I would add language to FREER to note that for illustration of the topic of the article in an infobox or lede image of a unique "thing" (person, animal, building, etc.) that we generally allow an image to be used even if that thing is easily described in text. -- and I would add that discussion on talk pages should be had if there is debate about this, akin to the "infobox" ones. - that is, we do no require a image to lead off a page. --Masem (t) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Frankly we’re talking about a pretty common dog breed. Leaving aside the fact that it’s not a subject that needs much visual identification, you could easily replace the shot with another terrier and not come out the worse for wear (which you can’t do with people, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically you could, but that would led to the argument of the ilk "Oh, we can replace a non-free image of (person that died in late 20th century) with a person with a free picture of a close impersonator" and that would not fly at all. The only time I've seen this logic used in in the case of transport disasters, where we have one instant of a craft that, due to the accident no longer exists, non-frees of the specific instance before it crashed and plenty of free images of the same make, model, and frequently the livery/branding/etc. We'll use the free ones unless there's something terribly unique about the original craft. But I think I would see a lot of problems if we used that logic for not only people but other individual living organisms. --Masem (t) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I highly doubt people are going to legitimately make that claim. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
the use of identifying images like this is well-documented [at WP:NFC] The problem is that WP:NFC is subordinate to the NFCC, which prompts me to say that the "significantly increas[ing] readers' understanding of the article topic" absolutely must be met before the NFC examples even come into play. Am I making sense? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Since the file in question is currently be discussed at FFD, I think it would be better for any further discussion particularly about it to take place there since that's the place that an administrator attempting to close the discussion is going to look for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I started this discussion here because I worried I was going about my interpretation of the NFCC incorrectly, and if so—as it appears I may be, per Masem (talk · contribs)—should I retract my comments there. Would it be appropriate to leave a note there about my inquiry here? — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if my post seemed confusing or made it seem as if you're posting here was wrong. It's OK to discuss things generally related to the NFCC here; it may be OK even to discuss a particular file here as an representative example of the way part of the NFCC is being interpreted, applied or both as part of a larger discussion. I think, however, it's better to keep any discussion related to whether a non-free file should be deleted or removed at FFD since it's been started and since that's where a consensus on the file's non-free use is going to be established. I don't think you need to retract any comments you've made there, unless you've changed your mind in some way. If that's the case, following WP:REDACT and briefly explaining things will help others understand why you've changed your position. If what was discussed above is partly what led you to change your mind, then I see nothing wrong with adding a link to this discussion as part of your explanation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Clarification of WP:NFC#UUI #17 with regards to football.Edit

‎Hi, I start this RFC a follow up to this discussion, which did not yield a clear consensus. It's an issue of the applicability of WP:NFC#UUI #17 to football teams and clubs. The questions the community have been disputed about for years are actually very simple:

Taking into account WP:NFC#UUI #17,

  1. Are the premier (i.e. those that compete in the premier competitions like the FIFA World Cup and continual cups) national teams (both mem and women's) child entities of the national football associations?
  2. Are the junior national football teams (e.g. U21, U19,...) child entities of the premier national football teams or of the national football associations?
  3. Are women's football clubs child entities of men's football clubs?

The final question that strems from the above three question's answers is:

  • Is it acceptable per the NFC guidelines to add the shirt badges/crests to the articles on either premier national football teams, junior nation football teams and/or women's football clubs?

Please post your responses below.Tvx1 17:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Provided that the logo is the actual, official logo of that organization as well, then I would not see a particular NFCC issue in using the logo in both organizations' articles. That would mean, for example, that the team uses that logo in its branding and the like and is authorized to do so. In that case, it is essentially both organizations' logo, and longstanding practice permits the use of a logo in an article about the organizations that use it. (The same would be true if, for example, we had one article about a parent company and another about a subsidiary, and both use the same logo.) However, if the organization is not authorized to use the logo in its official branding, or does not do so in practice, the logo cannot be used just as an illustration of who the parent organization is. That would fail NFCC #8 as decorative use, and is also misleading to the reader. So, in short: If the logo is the team's official logo, it makes no difference that it's the official logo of the parent or other teams as well, and use should be permitted in that case. That is the only circumstance under which it's justifiable, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would expect to see badges on the senior men's and women's articles for both national teams and clubs. IMO, the only child entities are the reserve and youth teams, which feed the senior sides. Number 57 19:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Non-free content".