Talk:FTSE 100 Index/Archives/2013

Image dispute
This is unbelievably tiresome, but, WP policy is that if a copyrighted image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" then it can be used. The company logos significantly add to people's understanding because they can quickly identify FTSE 100 companies with these familiar images. All agreed?  Wik idea  15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once more, another relevant policy NFLISTS says the following:


 * "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic.""

This is "judiciously" using the images. There is no violation of copyright in general, and no violation of the Wikipedia policy in particular.  Wik idea  15:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * However they fail the second part,  omission would be detrimental to that understanding It also fails WP:NFCC and 3 Werieth (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The understanding of readers of this page would suffer a significant detriment if the logos were not available. For instance, if I look down the list I can more quickly identify the companies, than if I only see the names.  Wik idea  16:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, glad I've got you engaging after all that wasted trouble. In the future maybe you should do this with other people from the start?  Wik idea  16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However the subject of the article is the index, not the individual companies that make it up. Yes the logos make it easier to identify a company but they are not required, and can easily be replaced with a wiki-link to the article on the company, (failing NFCC#1). it also fails #3 since the logos are on the articles about the company. Werieth (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially when similar lists are being added to multiple pages. Werieth (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly congratulations to Wikidea on introducing a really innovative and helpful table. Secondly I have read WP:NFCC and in my view the requirements for including the non-free images have been met (I believe they do significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you justify 77 non-free files as minimal usage? Werieth (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS every one of the 77 files fail WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC does apply. Even if people somehow come to the conclusion that the usage can meet WP:NFCC (which they most certainly do not), someone needs to add license tags to each image before adding them back. "Before" is a key word here.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of the images seem to be below the threshold of originality and are thus in the public domain in the United States. For example, File:SABMiller.svg should definitely be retagged with PD-ineligible-USonly. The British threshold of originality is very low, so it is possibly protected by copyright in the United Kingdom, but Wikipedia only cares about the copyright status in the United States. It should be possible to readd all logos which are below the threshold of originality even if they currently are claimed to be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true: if one can demonstrate that a particular image is free in the US, then the rules about non-free content are inapplicable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww, if you're interested in helping, then perhaps you could help by entering the page names under the no 10 policy guideline you cite. If that's the only objection, then surely it can be easily overcome? I'd appreciate your assistance on this. I think we've established, btw, that there is no copyright violation. Cheers,  Wik idea  23:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood me. Most of these images are subject to copyright. I don't think you stand a chance of meeting WP:NFCC: there's nothing about each individual logo that helps to understand the FTSE 100. The reader can understand the FTSE 100 just as well with or without the logos, and you are attempting to use copyrighted logos as a navigational aid. The WP:NFCC issue is mechanical: for each image, you need to either get consensus that it falls below the threshold of originality (and thus isn't subject to WP:NFCC) or write a fair use description that meets each and every point of the NFCC. Or you can just accept that this kind of image use isn't permitted and move on to more productive tasks.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't you think it's inconsistent that some logos are allowed and others are not? Surely there is a solution so that they can be put up. If that requires copying and pasting a fair use description on each page, it doesn't sound too hard. (But if you aren't willing to help, then I encourage you also to divert your attention to more productive tasks.) If you are willing to help, I'd appreciate it.  Wik idea  07:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot write a valid rationale for this usage, Do I need to take this to WP:NFCR, and have it pointed out again that this violates policy. WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC, & WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is possible to write a legitimate fair-use description for these images in this context.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your main problem is not WP:NFCC (although that is failed) but WP:NFCC - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". Since the text indicates what the company perfectly adequately, it is a replacement for the image. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored some of the images because I think that those images are below the threshold of originality. Before changing the licence for any of them, is there any logo among those which you think isn't below the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ITV one is a bit iffy. Having said that, do you not think, since we can't use all the images, that it would actually look better without that column?   Not only does it look messy but it's an invitation for people to come and put the images back. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For editorial reasons, I think that it looks weird to have some logos but not all of them. Since we can't use all logos, I believe that it would be better to remove all of them instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On top of that, you didn't change the licenses. The files claim to be subject to copyright, but you are using them as if they are not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I wrote: I was asking here if anyone was opposing PD-ineligible-USonly for any of them before modifying the licences. If there are no complaints, I'm planning to change the licences in a few hours. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I thought that the ITV logo was similar to the CCC logo at Commons:COM:TOO. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just an ordering problem: the licensing changes should be made and agreed upon before putting the images in the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it seems that WP:NFCC only applies to images which are unfree, as opposed to images which are listed as unfree, except for deletion per WP:CSD. Anyway, more importantly than quarrelling about a minor detail, are there any objections against changing the unfree licence to PD-ineligible-USonly for the current images, except possibly for the ITV logo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xstrat and Imperial Tobacco seem to be pushing the limits.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And G4S and possibly Imperial Tobacco Really ought to read the post I'm replying to .  I'd still remove the column, though.  Looks amateur and a lot of the images are so small they're unreadable anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This page still has a significant number of files tagged as non-free. Werieth (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how someone can claim that those images (icons, really) enhance the understanding of this article. I do see how the companies listed here will be very happy to have such advocates who think that we should do our advertising with colorful illustrations and even websites (what on earth are those websites doing here?). NFC questinos aside, it's poor editing. For an encyclopedia, of course--not for elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we simply remove all images from the table, whether free or not. It looks messy to have logos for some companies but not for other companies. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that means a whole bunch in favor of removal: Stefan2, Kww (if I read his comments correctly), Black Kite (an enormously experienced editor and admin), Werieth, and myself. Go ahead. And I believe those websites need to go as well. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why March 2013 as well as 'current'
I don't understand the structure of the article, which seems illogical. There is a detailed table for March 2013 (section 2), then a simple list for 'Current', stated to be 23 Sept 2013. Is this because no-one has got around to a proper update? If so, I'm happy to do it. If there's something else going on, please explain. Additionally, the process of adjusting the membership is poorly explained, with no reference to get more detail. Heenan73 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added to the overview to clarify the process of updating the constituents, plus a couple of refs from the LSE site Heenan73  (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue review
Given the ongoing failure in agreement about copyright issues, over this page version, I have opened (as I hope is correct) a formal review. Here is the link I posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#FTSE_100_Index

The argument is (1) there is no copyright issue under fair use law (we know because logos are used all the time), and (2) the Wikipedia policies are quite comfortable with use of logos. More broadly, I hope that the page can simply look better if it is allowed. The recent edits show how narrowing down can deteriorate the quality of the information (no pics, and apparently no website links) available to readers. This just seems to be entirely the opposite mentality to what we want from an open, informative encyclopedia.  Wik idea  16:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also created a dispute resolution page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_FTSE_100_Index  Wik idea  16:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)