Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 22

Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brought here due to WP:HD. I guess that these banknotes are copyrighted and this states reproduction in any form is an offense under Section 58 of the Monetary Law Act. Thus I think images of the banknotes could be used only under a fair use claim and need to satisfy the non-free content criteria. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the terms cited there refer to the physical reproduction of the banknote. The images I have uploaded were images already on the internet and is used only to illustrate the article. They are images of the banknotes themselves and not a reproduction of it. I was just wondering if I have tagged them correctly?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is kind of unclear what reproduction in any form means, but I interpret it as also covering reproduction by means of photography and digitalization. The terms don't say explicitly (or even implicitly) that it is meant to apply only to physical reproduction. The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee seems excessive to me and probably in violation of NFCC#3a. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the full document of the Monetary Law Act and the title adjacent to Section 58 on pg 26 and in the contents says it is an offence in the Mutilation and defacement of currency notes, but this is neither. Taking an unaltered photograph of the banknote is not defacement. (In my opinion) The use of images in Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee shows the progression of the banknote over time and there exists only one copy of each note, (not supposed to be of excessive use). Also I am planning to create an article on each of the different denominations, therefore each image will be restricted to two articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Section 58 (d) explicitly says that reproduction in any form of any currency note is an offence. Aside from the section of the Monetary Law Act we have the issue with copyright. The banknote design is likely subject to copyright, regardless of the applicability of the Monetary Law Act. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  16:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of issues...
 * 1) Some of these images are hosted on Commons. The images thus hosted need to be handled there. Of note; Commons:Commons:Currency does not contain a specific exemption for Sri Lanka. Given that it does not, Commons does not have a stance indicating such images are free license or public domain. As such, they should be deleted from Commons.
 * 2) The issue of the Sri Lankan government's stance on reproduction is immaterial. They can not prevent the use of images of their currency under terms of Fair Use in the U.S. Similarly, the FBI attempted to stop Wikipedia from using its logo because such use violated their usage restrictions. They were soundly rejected by Wikipedia counsel and the logo remains in use.
 * 3) The important question at hand is whether the images are free license or not. We can't presume simply because they are on the Internet somewhere that they are public domain. We must have proof they are free license or public domain. We do not have such proof. As such, all images much be used under terms of WP:NFCC on Wikipedia.
 * 4) If we upload images for every box where an image should be, this article would be hosting in excess of 100 non-free images. This would make it the highest article user of non-free content on the project by more than double the current highest user. Currency articles and their use of non-free images have been debated a number of times. It is a divisive issue, with no agreement.
 * 5) However, an article hosting such an extreme use of non-free images needs extreme justification. Simply showing the progression of designs is not enough. If there are no secondary sources supporting the notability of design changes and thus supporting the prose of the article, there is no reason to have a particular set of images to depict the change. Mere existence of the change is not enough for inclusion. It must be sourced. As the article stands there are exactly three references which would notionally "support" more than 100 non-free images? No, this is an utter failure. Baring the introduction of a huge number of secondary sources, these images must go.

--Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree on the key point, irregardless of the Sri Lankan law, it cannot affect US fair use allowance, as long as the use falls within normal fair use guidelines. Further agree that if the plan is to have individual articles for each denomination of currency, this overall page may not use images of every bill; I can reasonably access one representative front/back from each series to demonstrate what the series looks like, but not of every denomination. Non-free use in this article needs to be cut back. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that limiting the number of non-free currency images is an extremist, unsupported position. Banknotes of the Australian dollar, Coins_of_Madagascar, Singapore dollar, Nicaraguan córdoba, Argentine_peso, Croatian kuna and Malaya and British Borneo dollar are all in the top 25 heaviest article users of non-free content on the project. 4 of them have been tagged for over a year as having excessive non-free content use. In fact, 1/3rd of our top 25 article users of non-free content are currency articles. Nobody cares. Any attempts to reduce the non-free content usage on such articles is met with ferocious resistance. Regardless of what the decision is here, Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee will still host a large number of non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have nominated all of the Commons-hosted images for deletion on Commons at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee. Regardless of whether or not they are appropriate for fair use here, they are clearly not public domain.  So if anyone is interested in keeping them as fair use, you may want to move them here.  Also, commons:User talk:Chamath237 is filled with deletion notices for other Sri Lankan banknotes that were deleted in 2011, so some of the missing ones may be able to filled in from those if you want to ask the help of a Commons admin to have them moved here.  I don't necessarily endorse this (I don't have a strong opinion either way - I have a strong distaste for fair use overuse, but we're talking about banknotes, not galleries of photos) but I wanted to give fair warning to any interested parties. --B (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Hockenheimring 1970-1981.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagged as non-free and violating NFCC#10c in German motorcycle Grand Prix. Seems to be below the threshold of originality for copyright protection. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way this is clearly a replaceable non-free image, so if someone (I can't draw it) can make a new one this can be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This could maybe go either way in a court. Since it is so easily replaceable, wouldn't it be safer to simply tag it as replaceable and get it deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete ready made replacement with File:Circuit Hockenheimring-1970.svg at commons.--KTo288 (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BonScottLastPerformance1980.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet another non-free image uploaded to Bon Scott by User:Pollack man34, claiming no free media exists, when there is already one in the article, failing WP:NFCC. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This can go directly to FFD, as the assessment of a free equivalent (nearly identical in posture and position) is available. --M ASEM (t) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to do that, and this guy has re-added the photo to Bon Scott twice after it was removed, and also added it to AC/DC. He has no idea about image policy and doesn't talk. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BonChildACDC.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet another non-free image uploaded to Bon Scott by User:Pollack man34. I don't know the exact policy on "images of the subject as a child", but what does it add? If the image is free, great, but it's not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've nominated both for deletion and will be warning the user. --M ASEM (t) 19:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Tom Simpson.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need this file reviewed as I'm taking the article which it is used in to GA status. BaldBoris 20:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with how its used or its rationale. The photo of a long-dead notable person is appropriate to use on their articles. --M ASEM (t) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone please mark it as reviewed then. Is there not a simpler way for getting your files checked? BaldBoris 15:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did it for you as I don't see this as being controversial. --evrik (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Black July

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has unreasonably many non-free files, considering WP:NFCC. Also, I suspect that many of them fail WP:NFCC and/or other criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The non-free images in the gallery are all unacceptable per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 and should be removed. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion-requests may have be bogus/erroneous as the protection seems to be only for 25 years, contrary to our own PD-Sri Lanka-template, see my new thread. I think I will revert the processing on Commons for now, until the copyright-duration is clear. --Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After a hint on Commons-VP, I found that I had been misled by the outdated copy of the copyright law of Sri Lanka hosted on Commons. The current law gives full 70 years pma protection for photographic works, as opposed to the earlier 25 years after production. That means, all these historical images of Black July have to be deleted from Commons. As they had been used almost exclusively on :en, I assume that people here should sort out which one(s) they can retain under the local fair-use doctrine. --Túrelio (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find that this File:Black July - from Commons.jpg is one of the most fitting shots about this event. --Túrelio (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well regardless, we don't need a whole gallery of images in the article &mdash; especially not if they're copyrighted. Kurtis (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Justine Jones

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article about a fictional character with two images of the character in the infobox. This is superfluous: one of the images should go away per WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

- Both images are needed as they depict two different portrayals of the subject matter; something which is a key and pivotal point of the article itself. As such, both images represent different significant information related to the articles subject matter and just one would not be able to convey the equivalent information. TunaStreet (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no critical discussion about the differences in visual appearance. Thus, the differences in visual appearance fail WP:NFCC, and the use of multiple images fails WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And since we're talking about a live action show that doesn't involve extensive makeup, the images of the character would not be expected to fall too far from their actresses that play her. One image is justified, but the second can be replaced by a free image of the second actress without loss of educational value. --M ASEM  (t) 14:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Lucy Wigmore Sydney 2011.jpg image off actress, if this helps.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will remove the image of the lesser known portrayal of the articles subject and retain Wigmore's image. TunaStreet (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sam Malone and Diane Chambers

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I haven't tagged these articles for using non-free images yet. Do presences of individual images increase the quality of the article and viewers' understandings of characters? --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think in those articles only one non-free image in the infobox showing the appearance of the character in the show is acceptable. All other non-free images of the characters should be removed per WP:NFCC#3a and 8. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How would omitting images of their appearances on Frasier and Cheers series finale not affect them? Surely, their presences could be understood by text and images, but would text be enough? --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To let you know, I removed other non-lede photos. So I'm now torn between Sam Malone in the pilot and Sam Malone in the finale. Which one shall I keep? --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't seen this show, so I don't know which of the appearances is more representative of the character. File:Sam Malone bartender.jpg looks a bit cleaner to me, so that would be my choice. File:Sam Malone Cheers finale.jpg looks kind of blurry. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:The Legend of the Condor Heroes (1983 TV series)-soundtrack.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image illustrates two different singers and is different from the infobox picture. Because the main topic is the television show, does omitting the presence of the album cover affect The Legend of the Condor Heroes (1983 TV series)? --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The cover art seems to violate MOS:FILM. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with Stefan2. Even without that guideline I'd still say the fair use of this image was unjustified in that article, but the guideline codifies it nicely. If the soundtrack justified its own article, then the image could be used there, but as it is, I don't see the justification (or need). Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rebecca Howe infobox images

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right now there are two images of this character. Should I keep one or both? If one, then shall I keep the image of her weeping in her waitressing outfit or the other of... the character in mere cold, uninspiring expression in a red blouse? --George Ho (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to reduce it to one, but you're free to grab a new screenshot from the show that combined the aspect, showing the character perhaps in her bar outfit and with a pleased/happy expression but without looking giddy like the second. But two images are too much. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * She didn't wear a bar outfit as always. ...Well, she was a lousy manager. But I'm not a fan of mere happy/sad faces. And your suggestion wouldn't help, anyways, as you haven't watched it ever or for a long time. I like the second image better because it represents her character fall, but the first one represents how she was introduced. Any other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying you don't have to pick only those two. If you know there's a scene that better represents the character's general appearance or balances somewhere between these two extremes, then you can use that and get rid of the other two. You just don't need two images, particularly one that attempts to show part of her larger plot. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the mere red blouse image in favor of the waitressing outfit one. However, without Amazon or Netflix or DVDs, how can I find a better suitable image? This character is not easy to understand, as she devolves into a mess in later years. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Search around the web? As at the TV project? It's not like the show isn't available somewhere, just not presently to yourself. And unless her appearance as her personality degrades in the latter part of the show is part of the critical commentary about the character, a separate image showing that isn't necessary. --M ASEM (t) 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frasier Crane infobox images

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hope they do not violate the "non-free content criteria" policy. In fact, simultaneously using one screenshot from Cheers and another from Frasier should not be excessive nor inadequate. Just right! The Cheers Frasier plays chess in the bar. I could have added the Frasier chess image from Frasier, but his occupation depicted in Frasier felt right for now. If approved, then close this. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clearly the same character. Only one non-free image is appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 21:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't using two images make a difference as much as using one!? Is using images from two different shows meaningless, as long as appearance is not well-explained? --George Ho (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the same character (that's why Frasier's a spinoff from Cheers) by the same actor in the exact same role. To a reader, it doesn't matter which show the image of the character is pulled from, one image is sufficient enough to identify the character. --M ASEM (t) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To make usage of two images valid, I must describe physical appearances of Frasier Crane, like his baldness and different hairstyles? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to have sources that describe the appearance as being different between the two series. You can't do it as an editor without creating original research. --M ASEM (t) 22:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Dzhokhar Tsarnayev.jpg

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image is currently being used under fair use, but it is from the FBI. Now I know that FBI photos are not necessarily made by the FBI, which is why I'm asking here: Can PD-FBI apply here? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on where FBI got it from, and the source is bsr. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We should treat it as non-free, but as per our exemptions for living persons known to be on the lam (and that the likely fate of this person will be either capture by the FBI or killed in the manhunt), a chance of getting a free photo is unlikely, so its use is reasonable. That said, I don't think PD-FBI applies since it looks like a college admissions photo or the like. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem's assessment. Much like the Dorner case a couple of months ago, I suspect the next time we're going to see Tsarnaev is when he's captured by law enforcement or killed in the process. Canuck 89 (converse with me) 20:58, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * He's been captured now. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 00:49, April 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article uses non-free images of products and shows non-free logos for the products although the products also have their own articles. This seems to be against WP:NFC §6. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On the logos, the only logo that isn't free is the Xbox One one. Arguably it can be reduced to just a PD-textlogo, so that can be fixed.
 * On the images, this is a "temporary" problem. Neither the PS4 or Xbox One are released units. Everyone is expecting at least the latter to be on display at E3 in a few weeks so a free image should then be possible; we have no idea about the first reveal of the PS4 but that's expected by the end of the year. So these are replacable in time (as well as the images on their individual console pages). It is a problem that can be better addressed when we know free images will be out there, just not now. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the image with a version directly obtained from Microsoft's media kit, and resized it according to the Wikipedia guidelines (it's slightly smaller than the previous version). I am in favor of keeping the image for at least the time being. Also, I believe that Microsoft may allow non-commercial uses of their promo kit items, and also use for educational purposes? -Kai445 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually there a discussion happening right now on commons about the copyright status of the Xbox One logo. The general consensus as of now is that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality to be copyrighted. And if that's the case, then the non-free content problem will resolve itself at either E3 or when the consoles are release. There's really nothing that can be done until then.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-commericial or for-education licenses are not sufficient to qualify for a free image on Wikipedia, so these would still be considered non-free. Not unusable but when free images of the console are available we must replace them. --M ASEM (t) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to replacing it at a later date. -Kai445 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think the logos should be used on the article at all, period, regardless of their copyright status. They're just decorative and add nothing to the table. On the topic of future and present non-free images, the non-free images are not contextually significant for use there, because they are not used to identify the subject of the article (which is not the individual console itself), and because the design of the consoles are not discussed in the table in a manner that would allow it to be used per NFCC 8. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:PortlandPilots.png

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tagged as non-free and violating WP:NFCC#10c in 2012–13 Portland Pilots women's basketball team and Portland Pilots men's soccer. I suspect that this does not meet WP:TOO. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nippon Oil
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The excerpt in the section History according to the information in that section was copied from a press release (seems to be http://www.noe.jx-group.co.jp/english/press/noc/2009/e71_enpr_091225_02.html). Lacks proper attribution to the original source as required by Non-free content criteria and is not indicated as direct quotation. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, since I don't know much about dealing with textual copyright violations, I asked MRG for feedback regarding this matter. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coca-Cola packaging
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section Coca-Cola violates WP:NFLISTS. However, it seems that some of the bottles and cans are PD-ineligible or PD-1923. Some may also be PD-US-1989. Some of them currently make no mention of any free licence from the photographer, but it seems that earlier versions of the file information pages sometimes mention free licences. The images which are unfree can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed that an audit to determine which ones are free, and which ones aren't and to remove this is necessary, as well as proper licensing around. --M ASEM (t) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, on a second look, it seems (based on block logs) that all of the images were uploaded by a sockpuppet of while  was blocked. Maybe the whole set should go away per WP:CSD instead. I'm not sure if the edits by other people are enough to prevent that. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'm quite inclusionist on non-free content but I'm inclined to agree that the packaging in the table serves no encyclopædic value. The original bottle shape is genuinely iconic and it would be a poor article that didn't include a photograph of it. But the value of having the photos of cans and plastic bottles is pretty tenuous, imho. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Eminem - Role Model single CD cover.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tagged that file as violating WP:NFCC#10c while performing my NFCC task. However I strongly suspect this might be below WP:TOO (typefaces and black and white boxes). Checking back here to be on the safe side. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  18:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Straight up text and simple geometry. Fails TOO, uncopyrightable, in the PD. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to tag it as PD. Dumb question: What exactly is the difference between PD-text and PD-textlogo and which of them should I use? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  19:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-textlogo is used for logos whereas PD-text is used for identical images which don't happen to be logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. The fact that PD-textlogo says "This image or logo...." confused me, though... --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  19:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:SonyPlayStation4.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons why this image meets the various free use criteria:


 * 1) There IS no free equivalent that would have the same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public rather than being seen by the lucky few at E3!
 * 2) If anything having this image on the article will be BETTER for everyone as it provides a much better representation of the console than any free media for it currently out there.
 * 3a) The image is only being used in the infobox
 * 3b) The image is only being used on Playstation 4.
 * 4) This image was published here.
 * 5) This image EASILY meets the content standards and is very much encyclopedic!
 * 6) The image meets Image use policy.
 * 7) The image will be used on Playstation 4 once this whole kerfuffle is over and Masem stops reverting the addition of it.
 * 8) The presence of the image DOES significantly increase the readers understanding of the product by providing a clear and UNOBSTRUCTED visual reference.
 * 9) The image will only be used in the article namespace.
 * 10a) The source is readily identified.
 * 10b) The provision for fair use is listed in the description.
 * 10c) The fair use rationale is unique, simple and easy to understand.

I should have taken it here in the first place... Hindsight is always 20/20! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * NFCC#1 is not met. The free image shows the unit in a manner that works for how much the unit'a appearance is discussed in the article (read: there is no sourced discussion about it). Just because there's an edge of a glass case in the way is not of interest to where free content is available. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we need duplicate discussions on this image? --B (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meet NFCC. Free image available. Better ones will be available soon. And, no - we don't need multiple discussions, this should be closed. Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This violates WP:NFCC in the article Henk Kuijpers. It also violates WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the justification is pretty clear--to illustrate his style in his most famous work. It also has a very low resolution.  I'm not seeing how 8 and 3b aren't met.  Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, unless the work itself in connection to the artist is of critical discussion (eg using sound clips to describe a musical group's style, using representative paintings that are highlighted as exemplars of an artist's work), we don't reuse art from an article about the work on the article about the creator. The article is referenced, but not that specific line that discusses the style, so it is hard to verify if this is considered a critical comment on his style (which would help satisfy #8) or just an WPian's appraisal which would fail #8. (The 3b aspect is easy, as the image is too large per normal resolution guidance). --M ASEM  (t) 17:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to me to show a representative of an artist's work, so the reader can see and judge for themselves his/her style. It adds to reader understanding about the artist in the most direct and obvious way. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no sourced discussion of the artist's style (which I'm not saying doesn't exist for Kuijpers, but its presently not shown here), we have no reason to show an image to show what that looks like to the reader, particularly when they are one link away from seeing it on a different article. --M ASEM (t) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's not true. In my view, gaining an impression of the artist's work is something that absolutely fundamentally adds to reader understanding of the artist, regardless of whether there is textual discussion.  And I don't find the "one click away" argument convincing either -- if something is worth including in the article, then it's worth including in the article - full stop.  We should aim for our articles to be self-standing and self-sufficient as far as possible, because we have no idea how they may be reused (eg saved to disk, or printed out, automatically extracted, or otherwise selected, with no guarantee the other article will also be available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)
 * But our non-free content mission is against that, and that's policy. Again, find/affirm sources that describe his art style in context as a BLP, and the image (outside of its size) is probably fine. The artist is searchable but I'm not having luck on page translations to determine if this is the case, and its possible the sources exist already to show this.  But in the general case, if an artist or other creative person/group are notable for an article but lack any sourced discussion about the style of their creative output, there's no benefit to the reader to show that, otherwise its assuming OR that the reader needs to see the art to see/hear that. --M ASEM  (t) 18:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what policy says, in black and white, is that the image should add to reader understanding about the subject of the article. This image manifestly does just that.  And making that assessment ultimately doesn't rest on me finding sources: it is a judgement the policy commands me and the community to make, as editors.  WP:OR applies to theses and propositions advanced by the article.  It does not apply to talk pages, or editorial judgements, or community consensuses.  Contextual significance is a matter for community assessment, which is not something to which the WP:OR policy applies.  I put it again: that to me it seems blindingly obvious that showing an artist's style adds something absolutely fundamental to the reader understanding of the subject, when the subject is an artist.  And I imagine most of the community would find it similarly blindingly obvious, too. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Going on that logic alone, I can justify the inclusion of any non-free image because I talk about it (without sources) in the article and say the reader needs to see it to understand it. It has long been policy and practice that sourced discussion of images are required in such cases like this as to meet NFCC#8, as to say that "If our reliable sources think it is necessary to highlight this factor of this creative person's work, then we can justify using non-free to show accompany that." If no sources discuss the creative person's style, then we have very little leg to stand on to justify its inclusion - there are exceptions, but not always. This is necessary to reduce non-free use otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 20:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. A blanket statement of the kind you propose has occasionally been suggested at WT:NFC, and always been rejected.  There are some particular specific categories -- for example high-value agency photographs -- where we require commentary on the image itself, and for that commentary to be properly sourced; but the requirement is not a general part of NFCC #8.  (As witnessed, for example, by our preparedness to include album covers, company logos, etc without comment, because of their manifest revelance).  IIRC in the very early days of the NFCC, there might have been a requirement for direct commentary on the image added for a few weeks, but it was removed again after consideration of Graham vs Dorling Kindersley.  But the basic position has always been that NFCC #8 requires a judgement on whether the image adds to reader understanding of the topic of the article, and that that is a judgement for the community to make based on whatever common sense and context and background it wishes to bear -- there is no requirement, not stated in the NFC nor out of it, for a "smoking gun" source to be found saying "this image is significant".
 * If we have an article on an artist, for the reader to properly understand the nature of the artist and their work, it seems absolutely plain to me that it is manifestly relevant to show some example of what that artist's output looked like -- quite apart from whether or not the artist's style has attracted any particular comments. Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the readers wants to understand the artists work, the reader can click on the wikilink to the works article and view the image in that article. Also, I don't see how it adds to the readers understanding of the work if there is no (preferrably sourced) commentary about what aspect of the artists style the image depicts. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because readers have eyes. You don't have to drag them by the nose and say "you can see this" and "you can see that" and "you can see the other". Jheald (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Silly me, I thought readers have feet. :) --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with images illustrating an artist's style in an article about the artist's style, but this article only mentions his art style briefly (saying that he uses the clear line style). Also, I'm not sure if a cover illustration is a good idea for illustrating an artist's drawing style, unless you are specifically discussing cover illustrations. On a cover illustration, a lot of the page is typically covered by logos and text, so it is harder to see the actual art in the thumbnail in the article. Single panels from a story serve this purpose better. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's long been guidance at WP:COMICS, where the image policy in fact goes back substantially before WP:NFC, to prefer exterior matter over interior panels unless illustrating points specific to those panels, on the basis that you have had to pay to see interior matter, but the exterior matter is what you could see on the news-stand, and what tends to be circulated in promotional material, and so may be less economically significant a copyright taking. Jheald (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, if we are going to demonstrate someone's already-notable art on their bio page, reusing an image, while not completely avoiding NFC issues, would be better than uploading a new image of just one part of their art.  But if there's sourced justification to use a more detailed closeup of the art, that's reasonable. That's simply not the case here (yet). --M ASEM  (t) 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if an image of the style is to be used there, there should be a specific reference in the article to that image highlighting how that image demonstrates the specific style. Otherwise, I don't see how the image is helpful for a readers understanding of the article, if the reader doesn't already know what that style is. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have maybe edited half a dozen articles on illustrators at one time or another. In each case, I think the article probably had an image of the illustrator's style. Toshio says that an article needs to say how an image demonstrates the specific style, if a reader is going to get any understanding out of it. But that's simply not true. Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them. For example, suppose you have an illustrator -- are the works they are celebrated for loose watercolours, hard-edged realism, Quentin Blake-style cartoons, ligne claire, 80's-style airbrush, Tenniel-style Victoriana, or something else again entirely...? Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin, perhaps the most famous example of ligne claire, and see for yourself that, no, it is not quite the same. Seeing the image therefore, even without commentary, gives you a much better idea of what the artist actually did -- which has to be something absolutely fundamental in an article on an artist. One can see immediately, for example, that what Henk Kuijpers did was rather different to say Action Comics 1. It's not a question of sourced commentary, it's a question of giving the reader a better understanding of the topic of the article (NFCC #8) -- exactly as showing a characteristic work on an artist's page does. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Even without commentary, just by seeing the image, you get a fix on what the artist was doing, which adds something hugely important to what you qualitatively understand about them." .... "Showing a representative example immediately communicates that, it shows an image of the artist's work that you can immediately associate them -- an image which goes beyond that one-phrase genre description, because suppose the style is ligne claire as here, seeing the image you can mentally compare it to say Hergé's Tintin."
 * Anybody seeing the image might interpret the artists supposed intention behind the image differently. What we as Wikipedia editors think the artist was doing is irrelevant, we'd need reliable sources to support such claims. Also I am not aware that there is a consensus that such a use of a non-free image is acceptable (I don't see it at WP:NFCI). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  11:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive the figure of speech. I wasn't talking about the artist's intention, I was talking about physically what sort of work they produce. And that is exactly what seeing the image shows you.  Jheald (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that if the image is to show the characteristics of the style of Kuijpers works there needs to be more discussion of this style in the article and a reference to this specific image explaining how that image is representative of that style. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  12:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Without jumping in the middle, I just want to say that "manifest relevance" is a darn fine bit of reasoning here, just as it is with album covers (more so actually IMO). You can't understand what an artist _does_ without seeing the art.  Period.  It clearly meets NFCC#8 by definition.  And nothing other than a sample of their art (or more than one in some cases where they have a wildly varying style) can accomplish that same thing. Hobit (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If there was a larger, sourced discussion about his art style, certainly NFCC#8 is met. But we can't justify that based on a single, unsourced line, which could just be an OR statement by a WPian to try to justify their use. It simply doesn't qualify for the more rigorous nature we expect from NFCC#8 (in particular the second half about omission making the article difficult to understand - the importance of the artist is understood without the image, as there's no significant discussion about the art style).
 * I will stress one thing: despite the language barrier on searches, I do suspect there is additional sources to be used for this artist, and from those a few more words can be added about his art style as to secure the appropriateness of the image in this article. That it, I would urge those trying to keep it to find these sources (the name generates enough hits) and justify the art style appropriately, instead of fighting against standard expectations for such images. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're re-writing NFCC #8 in your head again. It doesn't say that "omission would make the article difficult to understand".  It says that the additional understanding of the topic, which the reader would have with the image, would be lost without it.
 * For an example see, eg Quentin Blake, and then look at a Google image search . I submit that you gain more real understanding about Quentin Blake and why he is celebrated by seeing any single one of these images than you do from the entirety of our shockingly image-less article. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#8 says (quoting from the policy page) "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * The image simply sits in the article without being discussed. Thus I do not see how the presence of the image in the article significantly increases a readers understanding of the topic, nor how its omission would be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. The claim that the reader gains significantly from the images presence on that page is unfounded and the article is still understandable, if the image were removed. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As Toshio points out, no, that is actually what NFCC#8 says - it is a two prong test. It is nearly always easy to prove the first part that the picture helps, but the second part regarding omission is where, if there's no detailed discussion of the need for the image - nearly always required sourced discussion to avoid OR - then NFCC#8 fails.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that NFCC #8 doesn't actually say what Toshio claims it does. What it actually says is  "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * (emphasis added).
 * So it's not a question of whether the article is still "understandable" without the image. The question is whether not having the image is detrimental to the understanding the reader would have gained had the image been there.
 * And no, you don't always need to have detailed discussion of an image for that image to add something significant to reader understanding of the topic. As for example here.  Knowing the sort of work an artist does adds something absolutely fundamental to what you understand about the artist.  Jheald (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that your claim contains a flaw, since it actually says:
 * "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Thus if there hadn't been a significant increase of a readers undertanding in the first place, the second part of the statement is moot. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes... And the point that has been consistently been put is that to know what kind of work it was that the artist made is perhaps the most significant increase in understanding that it's possible to imagine about the artist. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that NFCC8 isn't a bright line. I'd say it is _well_ over the line here and I'm somewhat surprised others disagree.  But matters of opinion are sometimes that way.  What seems black-and-white to one person isn't to another.  I don't think arguing back-and-forth is going to solve that.  If you don't believe having the art of an artist visible adds significantly to the understanding of that artist (and not having it therefore detracts) you're just not in a place that I can vaguely understand. And apparently you can't understand me.  So we're stuck and more words aren't going to change that. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To step back, a key facet of US Fair Use law in determining if a use of the work includes the idea of a transformative nature; the phrase "criticism and commentary" that we banter around comes pretty much directly from why fair use is allowed. . As we are purposely stricter than Fair Use law, this concept is still embedded within NFC policy, even if not fully listed out - this is why, for example, we highlight the need for "critical commentary" within NFCI - which I know is not exactly the same as the fair use phrase, but its origins are there.
 * To this point, this is why NFCC#8 - which is pretty much our guide to assure the transformative nature is met - nearly always (with very limited exception) - requires sourced discussion of the article in question. WPians cannot provide criticism and commentary without violating OR so ergo it has to come from reliable sources. This is the metric used in practice (effectively, WP:FAC being the ultimate point of review without consideration to delete) and has been the way for years.  I don't question that a reader can be helped by seeing the artist's work to understand the artist's style, but without sourced discussion, the omission isn't hurting the article, particularly if the reader is one click away from the work in question. --M ASEM  (t) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley. Commentary on the image is not a pre-requisite for U.S. Fair Use.
 * In any case, the context of being used in as part of an education article, for an educational purpose, is transformative -- it's a very different context from that for which the image was originally created.
 * NFCC #8 is quite carefully drafted, both in what it requires and what it does not. "Significantly aiding reader understanding" is a good and appropriate test -- good for WP, and good in the context of one of our articles for U.S. law.  This image is passing that test.
 * Such images, as you confirm, plainly help our readers -- so omitting them plainly harms what the article might be. In the specific language of NFCC #8, its omission is detrimental to the understanding that it would give readers if it was there.
 * Finally, I think WP:FAC is a red herring. An article on an artist probably deserves to fail WP:FAC if it doesn't discuss the artist's style.  But we're not talking about whether this article is up for FAC -- we are talking about whether it (and articles like it) ought to have an image to convey an understanding of the artist's work.  The test for that is not that an article has to be FAC standard, it is that the image has to pass NFCC #8 -- which this does. Jheald (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A FAC case in point is the one for Pink Floyd which passed recently (last few months). Prior to FAC the article included pretty much every cover of their albums.  The FAC discussion on images was centered on how this is just not acceptable, and with the end result being the album covers that were considered to have sourcable discussion w.r.t. to the band were left - eg for example Dark Side's iconic prism.  The point here is that FAC understands that sourcing style and the like needs to be present before images about the creative person can be included.  Remember, if no RS talks about the person's style, but otherwise is sufficiently sourced, we as WPians can't fill in that gap, but at FAC this wouldn't be considered an impediment.
 * You can't use the same argument on NFCC#8 to satisfy both parts. I will agree the image can be of help to the reader, but I still understand, with what text is presently there, that the guy is a comic artist, with or without the image, ergo the image is not necessary. Since it is impossible for a WPian to expand any more on the art style without evoking OR, we need sourced discussion to make seeing his style necessary to understand the article. I'm going to keep stressing: this has been a long-time standard for creative professionals, to require sourcing of style or the like to be able to include non-free works representative of them. But I will further stress: I think there are sources out there that would then otherwise make this whole argument moot, I just can't break the language barrier for them. --M ASEM  (t) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You say that "you understand that the guy is a comic artist". But what kind of art did he produce?  There's a clear difference between Henk Kuijpers and Action Comics #1, or Quentin Blake, or even Hergé -- that much better understanding of what kind of art the artist produced is what the image contributes, without any further commentary -- and that is why it passes NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If no RS talked about the quality of the work, just saying he did comic art is sufficient for our readers and the picture is absolutely unnecessary. --M ASEM (t) 21:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not sufficient. If through the art we can give our readers a better understanding about the artist, namely a better idea of what he did, then that's a usage that policy -- NFCC #8 -- says is absolutely justified.  Why sell our readers short, when policy says show them the picture? Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If we didn't have a free content mission with non-free exceptional use, I would totally agree that yes, we'd plop an image of the cover of the comic the guy created on the article about the artist, absent any text discussing the art, and be done. But we have a require to minimize non-free use to exceptional uses. The logic that the image helps the reader to understand the article in the absence of sourced discussion is a slippery slope that would allow for any crafty-enough editor to include any piece of non-free where they want. We have consistently required (with some IAR, but not many) sourced commentary to identify when an exemption can be made, as to avoid this slope. In the current state of this article, this image is not one of those exceptional cases. --M ASEM  (t) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Slippery slope" is the last defence of scare-mongering. NFCC #8 has been what it says from the start, and there has been no slippery slope.  Anyway, the proper place to meet a 'slippery slope' is where images do not add to reader understanding, not to delete images which do add to reader understanding "just in case".  Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Masem, the question at hand is if it meets NFCC#8, not if it meets fair use requirements. If you'd like to debate the fair use issue as a separate notion, I'm fine with that, but let's settle the NFCC stuff first.  Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since NFC is purposely stricter than fair use, we have to meet fair use irregardless. It cannot be treated as a separate notion. --M ASEM (t) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However, as the image is valid fair use, this sideline is somewhat irrelevant. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's quite relevant. NFCC#8 is designed to meet the transformative nature of US fair use law by seeking commentary in the article using the image to justify its inclusion. --M ASEM (t) 07:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But Graham vs Dorling Kindersley establishes that commentary is not a necessary requirement for a use to be transformative. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is becoming tedious. NFCC #8 tells us to ask a direct question, framed with an eye to US fair use law: "Does this image significantly add to reader understanding about the topic of the article?"  You've now agreed that it does.  That should be an end to it.
 * Instead you seem to be claiming that, due to some super-sekrit protocol vouchsafed to the enlightened, the plain meaning of the black-and-white text of NFCC #8 is quite misleading, and that what is required is a quite different test, which NFCC #8 specifically (and intentionally) does not call for.
 * Why you think that should have any credence I'm not quite sure. But let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR decision that you claim has re-written policy in this area (without actually bothering to re-write the policy). Otherwise all of this wordage is no more than an ode to a small lump of green non-policy you found in your armpit one midsummer morning -- and worth as much.  Jheald (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, NFCC#8 asked two distinct questions:
 * "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic,..."
 * "and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * The first question is always the easiest to meet and nearly always yes if the image is relevant to the topic; and it certainly holds in this case. That's rarely the problem.
 * The second is where most people have a hard time justifying. Yes, the metric "would be detrimental to understanding" is a negative, and typically difficult to quantify to proof, but in so many past image reviews (FFD, FAC, etc.) a grey line test applied nearly in every case is if there is discussion of this image in the article in question - if there is this discussion towards the image, lacking the image would harm that discussion to not see it right there, and one could argue NFCC#8 would be met (There's other aspects here from other NFCC points, but that's trivial right now). No, this test is not stated because it doesn't always apply in all cases and may not be the only test, and it is highly subjective, but this example (a picture of the creative output of a creative person in the article about that creative person) is one where this has always been used. Now, that discussion itself is usually easy to provide (as is the case right now with the unsourced statement about the line art style), but that then links to our OR policy; if the text of discussion in question fails OR, then the text itself should be removed, and suddenly you don't have that discussion. Hence why we always come back to "sourced discussion" as the requirement to meet the second half of NFCC#8.
 * To take it another way, on the second point of NFCC#8, the single unsourced line about his style gives me enough to understand his style for the amount of context the article gives me, that I don't need an image to understand his importance as a comic author. Therefore, with the omission of the image, my understand is not reduced, and therefore NFCC#8 fails. On the other hand, if the style line expanded to include more detail on his style, comparison to others, influences he borrowed from, and so on, I could see that lacking the image would harm my understanding. But to create those statements, we would absolutely need sources as it begs OR; a WPian could not write that without introducing OR. --M ASEM  (t) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going round in circles. We've been through all this already.  NFCC #8 doesn't say "detrimental to the understanding of the discussion", or "detrimental to the understanding of the text".  It could do, but it deliberately doesn't.  What is says is "detrimental to that understanding" -- meaning detrimental to the understanding you would have, if the image was there.
 * Now, the article could present either
 * that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist; or
 * that Henk Kuijpers was a comics artist, and show the reader what his work looked like.
 * Which gives the reader a better understanding of the man and his work? #2. Significantly. And that is the test that NFCC #8 lays down.
 * Again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted, so we can assess the quality of the discussion there. Because the plain reading of NFCC #8 is clear: what matters is what improves reader understanding.  Jheald (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are just flat out wrong; hundreds of FFD and FAC prove that out. The "that understanding" is reference to the topic without the image, not with. With what is given on the page, without the image, I understand everything that is said, and thus no image is necessary, because there is no text given to understand why I need to appreciate his art style. You're trying to change policy to justify something that has long been practice. --M ASEM  (t) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * -- i.e. the understanding of the topic the reader would have with the image
 * There's simply no other way to read that sentence.
 * "its omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic the reader would have without the image" simply doesn't make sense -- because you can't do something detrimental to understanding by taking the image away if it's already not there.
 * The meaning of NFCC #8 is therefore quite clear.
 * So again, if you think the plain reading of NFCC #8 is not policy, then let's see the RFC, debate on a policy page, or contested WP:DR where you think a different policy was adopted. Because WP:NFC is a core policy, and deviating from it should not be undertaken lightly. Jheald (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point. Because there is not verified (sourced) commentary about the artwor, there is zero need to see the artwork to understand the significance of the artwork given that there's no significance to this given in the article. The topic as presented is complete without the image.  You cannot use the argument "an image is worth a thousand words" to justify NFCC#8. I'm in completely agreement that if we were at Wikia or any other site outside the Foundation's Resolution, we would of course use the image because it falls within fair use (assuming our purpose was educational).  But that's not the case here.
 * And now here's the sad part because I said that sourcing would be everything. When I jump to the Franka article, there's a source,, which has this line "Henk Kuijpers is a realistic comic artist who works in a Clear Line style with a great sense of detail, especially in his backgrounds". Now, I can't judge that source as the best reliable source (I would believe it is given its a European antiquities dealer cataloging things like this), but all that we needed as I said was a source that stated that, and now I can fully support the cover image to demonstrate this. That's all that was needed, as I've been saying. I'm sure there's more sources that can be used, but at least now there is relevance to show the reader, while discussing the artist, an example of his art and now I can argue that omission would be harmful. --M ASEM (t) 19:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just this article, it's the articles on endless other artists too -- where by failing to show any idea of the art which makes them notable, we are systematically failing our readers.
 * Plus, in my view, half a line of text is a pretty poor fig-leaf.
 * The fundamental significance of an image like this is not that it relates to half a line of text. It is that it helps you to better understand the topic of the article -- namely the artist, and what they did -- text or no text.  And that is the test that NFCC #8 sets out.
 * NFCC #8 doesn't talk about the topic "as presented" being complete. It asks: does an image add significantly to the reader understanding of the topic?  And, would taking the image away be detrimental to that understanding?
 * The answer is yes, it would be detrimental, because the reader would then have so much poorer an idea of just what it was that the artist produced, and was known for. Jheald (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because that line of logic would allow for any non-free image to be used if it only helped comprehension. Take the Voyager screenshots above. Clearly every image can be claimed to help understand the episode, but very few are actually discussed short of text. But your logic says they should all be used. Nope, not going to happen.  "Critical commentary" has always been a practical but unstated metric of validating NFCC#8, and why it appears in NFCI as when we readily accept uses. It provides a semi-objective starting point for NFCC#8 compliance. The need for critical commentary is also resonated in NFC#UUI of unacceptable uses that we don't just use images because they would be nice illustrations.  This is a metric is used at FFD, it is used at FAC, and there's little room for any practice outside of these approaches.  I'm not reinterpreting anything - this is just the norm for this. --M ASEM  (t) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not arguing for the Voyager images to be kept -- only if they significantly add to reader understanding. That's the test for NFCC #8, to be assessed by the community.
 * There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that an image is not expected to add anything particularly germane or significant, unless it specifically clarifies critical commentary.
 * There are a number of cases, where the community has pre-established guidance that the image generally will add something significant, even if there is no commentary on the image.
 * And there are the remaining cases, where NFCC #8 has been left to speak for itself -- for the community to decide as and when, on the merits of the case, without WP:CREEP, and without making it harder to improve the wiki.
 * There is no "practical but unstated metric of requiring critical commentary" -- that's not the way policy works. Especially when that requirement (which was once added to NFCC #8 for a week or two) was specifically removed to allow NFCC #8 to better reflect the flexibility to do the right thing of the U.S. Law.
 * Instead NFCC #8 is quite plain: does the image add sufficiently significantly to reader understanding, which the community is to decide.  For an image added to an article on an artist, to show the kind of work that the artist did, the answer to that is routinely going to be "yes".  Jheald (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that an image without any commentary like in Henk Kuijpers adds significantly to a readers understanding of the article. Yes, the article looks more colorful and might be more pleasant to the eye, but this doesn't convey any trustworthy information to the reader. The reader can interpret the image in any way he or she wants in the context of the article, but that is just like any other unsourced statement in Wikipedia: it is original research. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are arguing for the slippery slope between showing a representative image of an artist's work without any non-OR discussion about it, and the use of a screenshot of a TV episode without any non-OR discussion about it. From NFC's POV, they fail in exactly the same way.  Toshio's hit the nail on the head when it comes to NFC. --M ASEM  (t) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept.  Because adding to reader understanding is what we're here to do.  That is what NFCC #8 asks the community to judge.  For example, if the image shows some particular striking creature effect.  But a random image from a random episode is going to have a much harder time meeting that criterion than a representative image from an artist's work, which is pretty much always going to meet the criterion.
 * But that is the call that NFCC #8 asks the community to judge. The material is verifiably by the artist, or from the episode, so this isn't a case of the article being used to advance some novel thesis or proposition.  Rather, it is part of the normal editorial judgment of what verifiable material to include in an article, and what not to include.  WP:OR relates to the content of the article, and the theses and propositions it develops.  WP:OR does not relate to editorial judgements, talk page discussions, discussions about significance and other meta-level discussions that are discussions about the content of the article, and what it should be, rather than being the content of the article.  File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg is not advancing some contentious thesis or proposition about the artist, it is merely being what it is, allowing the reader to see for themselves what his work looked like.  Jheald (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "If somebody can make a good and convincing case that the screenshot adds something properly significant to reader understanding despite no direct commentary on it, then fine: the image ought to be kept." is screaming to be gamed and is the start of a slippery slope, and why we don't let that arguement fly to justify NFCC#8. This is why for most images that fall outside of NFCI we consider the presence of sourced commentary as a starting point. Yes, I don't deny there's probably exceptions to that determined by consensus, but look at any FFD or FAC that involves these types of cases, and you'll see editors looking to only keep images where sourced discussion exists. To flip this around, if we truly have a notable creative person who's notability rests on their creative product, I do find it hard to imagine that zero sources would exist that discuss their creative product critically as to allow non-free image use.  However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use - as otherwise it would fail NFCC and we're supposed to remove this within 7 days (unlike where with notability, we can take time to judge that fact).  So it is not the issue that we would never accept non-free images of a creative person's work on the article on the creative person, but instead that we need to have that meet NFCC before it can be used. --M ASEM  (t) 05:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "However, per NFCC, that sourced discussion has to be present to justify the image use" -- No. You're pulling policy out of your armpit again.  That is not what NFCC #8 requires -- and e.g. here is a DRV and a deletion discussion which upheld that.  What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding.  That is the test laid down by NFCC #8.  "Sourced discussion" is not the test.  I am sorry for you if you find that personally inconvenient, but you can't just dream up your own criteria because you find the actual policy inconvenient.  WP:NFCC is not just a charter for deleting images.  It is also a commitment to preserve images that advance reader understanding sufficiently to justify the copyright taking.  That is what NFCC #8 tells the community to make the basis of its judgement. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "What NFCC #8 requires, quite explicitly, is the community's assessment of whether an image adds to reader understanding."


 * I don't know where you got this from. Anyway, that is not what the policy says. All that NFCC#8 says is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The requirement you give here doesn't exist. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And the people who jusge that are the community.  Jheald (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We should start a poll at VPR split into Keep and Remove votes and then, after, say 7 days, close the poll and count the votes. The side with the most votes wins. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  11:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Vial of Life decal.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is pure text and could be represented by a free image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --M ASEM (t) 13:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --evrik (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.