Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 25

TV Patrol

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

This article uses 9 non-free files, I can really only see justification for 1 (WP:NFCC and #8 ). Werieth (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, with the logos they are all derivatives of each other (not even considering past arguments of historical logos), so only one is needed. And we don't need screenshots of the show to understand its a news program. Free images can be had of the hosts (they all appear to be living) so we don't need non-free to show them. --M ASEM (t) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, maybe the screenshots and the images of the host can be removed but the logos and the images pertaining to the "augmented reality" are not to be removed as this best depicts how it evolved as each logo shows the evolution of the show. I am from the Philippines and I know the show very well as I watch it so I have a better say on the article. And besides unlike other shows which only changes title cards, this show, when they do, they're has to be a major change in it. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes in the logo are extremely small and trivial. Unless there's detailed discussion from sources that explain each change, it's unlikely to cause the reader confusion. I can understand the use of augmented reality as a highlight of discussing the show but that's probably the only other image besides the current logo I'd keep. --M ASEM (t) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the writers of the page, including me already have an existing plan of massively fixing the article way before this issue came in. In fact it would adhere to your concern about each logo change being small and trivial into putting why the logo change is also a major change in the program. Its just that our schedules do not permit us to do this in a full blown single time edit because as we all know its better if all the writers would first agree on the content that would be placed.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


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

File:AAFMAA-Logo-SVG-translucent.svg

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

This file doesn't comply with WP:NFCC. As explained at Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format, an SVG file shouldn't have more detail than needed for the article, but this isn't the case as the image displays perfectly at huge resolutions. I'm not sure how to reduce SVG files as a reduction would require removing some SVG elements. Maybe it would be easiest to just convert it to PNG. SVG files tend to be tagged with non-free reduce for months or years with no fix. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Nzarmy.gif

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

The uses in 21st Battalion (New Zealand), 22nd Battalion (New Zealand), 23rd Battalion (New Zealand) and 27th Machine-Gun Battalion (New Zealand) are all icon-like and violate WP:NFCC#8. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your objection. While I can almost see how section 8 applies in this case, I'm not sure about the sizing comment. If the image were larger in the articles, would your objection to its use go away? Blackfyr (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't. The uses would still violate WP:NFCC#8. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm still not seeing how the image really violates WP:NFCC#8, especially since, according to the NZDF site, the image 'may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission' AND it is being used in a respectful manner to indicate visually which forces are part of the NZDF. IOW, if the NZDF doesn't object to Wikipedia using the image, why do you? Blackfyr (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Free of charge is not equivalent to free of copyright which is our metric that we need. It is not that we're worried about NZDF objecting to the use, it is the fact that it has copyrights on it that prevent it from being redistributed for any purpose (including reuse and modification). We have to consider it non-free, and can only use such images in a restrictive manner as part of our free content mission. --M ASEM  (t) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Colonist (The X-Files)

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

There is no need for 6 non-free files, especially when a lot of them are used on other articles. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Gallery of Images" has been removed. I missed that the first time, so I'm sorry about that. However, the remaining four images are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, [rather than] simply provide visual identification of the elements" (WP:NFLISTS). The images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like. For instance, the black oil's application and the mechanism to make it look right are discussed in "production", and without the image, its not exactly clear what it looks like in the series. The same goes for Alien Rebels, whose faces have been sowed shut and the production process is described therein. I would concede that the Alien Bounty Hunter's image, however, doesn't really add much.--Gen. Quon (Talk)   15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that the three current images (the "grey" image, the black oil, and the rebels) have sufficient discussion in text to pass a basic NFCC#8 check. --M ASEM (t) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * However File:Vienen TXF.jpg is already being used in Vienen and File:The Unnatural TXF.jpg is being used in The Unnatural (The X-Files). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werieth (talk • contribs)


 * It's reasonable (and probably in fact better as to minimize non-free) to use the same screenshot for an episode and for discussing a series-running concept, as long as they are discussed in the appropriate manner in both (likely in the episode, it would be about the critical reaction there, while on the series concept, its creation and development).  I will note that The Unnatural is missing a rataionle for the Colonist article. --M ASEM  (t) 15:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk)   21:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the current images as they easily pass NFCC criteria. Cavarrone 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ketodiastix.jpg

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

This image contains information that is common diagnostic data, and I am wondering why color tone data could be copyright. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - its data, and thus should be recreatable in a free image. (arguably the image as presented fails TOO, but I would still think that it can be remade to assure complete freeness.) --M ASEM (t) 13:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The data is free. The image could arguably be below the threshold of originality. The image is of poor quality, so I'd recommend recreating it as SVG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ketostix chart.jpg

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

Pure data and could be represented by a free image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --M ASEM (t) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this chart even meet the threshold for copyright protection in the first place? I think this should simply be tagged with PD-ineligible. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  11:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ali Musa DaqDuq's forged ID documents.jpg

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

This is claimed as US government work. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's the issue here? If it's being used as non-free under fair-use, then it doesn't matter whose image it is. It would seem an obvious pass for fair-use. This is a paperwork issue, not a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Works of the US Government are in the public domain. It was incorrect to upload this as fair use if it is already free use.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Be aware that just because it came out of a US Gov't document does not make the work immediately public domain via US-GOV. They will republish - under fair use - copyrighted material in otherwise larger works that are US-Gov. That doesn't magically make the material that was copyrighted PD-Gov. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to purposely argue around that Masem, but since these are already uploaded to commons...should they be uploaded here as non free content with a link to commons as the source? That is something I have never seen before.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the situation is here, as if being forged official documents if they even have claim, who the photographer was, etc. They could be legitimate at commons, which is fine. I'm just cautioning that not everything published by the US-Gov't is necessasily PD-Gov -created, yes, but not published. --M ASEM  (t) 23:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - All images are already uploaded to Wikimedia commons. Barring any improprieties there of course.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:VCU Athletics logo 2012.png

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

Needs re-licensed as free (PD-text) Werieth (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be another problem. We have two images, File:VCU Athletics logo 2012.png and File:VCU Athletics logo 2012.svg, which claim to display the same logo, but the images are a bit different. This suggests that one of the images is wrong, unclear which. Also, the SVG file might be replaceable fair use: the logo is clearly below the threshold of originality, but there is no licence from the person who wrote the SVG source code. The SVG source code may be copyrightable as a literary work, and in that case, the source code is replaceable by different source code. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Sud Radio Groupe.png

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

PD shape? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a company based in France, which has a very low threshold of originality. --Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Singapore Armed Forces Crest.svg

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

As explained at Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format, "Fair-use SVGs shouldn't include more detail than is necessary to display them accurately at their current resolution." However, this image contains lots of details which only display at much higher resolutions. The image therefore violates WP:NFCC. I don't know how to reduce an SVG file, so I'm taking the matter here instead. Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If I am seeing this correctly, this image just needs to be reuploaded with a lower (nominal) resolution if the SVG format is to be kept. Another option would be to convert it to JPEG. I don't know what the preferred solution is in such a case, though. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominal resolution of SVG images is unrelated to the size with regard to WP:NFCC. A non-free SVG image can't include details which would only be seen when the file is rendered at a high resolution (for example, by using Singapore Armed Forces Crest.svg ). As this image includes too many details, the solution would be to remove and simplify those geometric shapes which can only be seen when the image is rendered at a high resolution. Alternatively, the file could be converted to PNG. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An SVG file of this size cannot possibly pass NFCC#2: "Respect for commercial opportunities". An SVG file that size and detail is possible to create nearly any commercial use graphic for printing, upload to the internet, etc a violation of NFCC#3b as well: "especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement". The SVG file size determines the PNG preview size which is a violation of NFCC#3b: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace."


 * The process of lowering the SVG size (thereby rendering a suitably sized PNG) is simple. Upload the free, open source program "Inkscape" and the vector art can simply be reduced to about one quarter the size it is now or below the 450px range. However...this image is far too complicated to pass the threshold of simple lines and text that is supposed to be what the SVG category is stating. Although not policy or guideline itself, it does state the correct guide, which is to state that recreation of such logos is limited to those that either pass our use criteria (such as trademarks that are sometimes used as "Logos" but are no copy protected but "Trade marked" and therefore not covered to the same extent by law, or those designs that are not original enough to be or complicated enough to be covered by copy right. I don't believe this should be kept if it is actually copy protected, but if it is, after the lower resolution, less detailed version is uploaded, an admin should scrub the original upload as a copyright violation.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bsaically, the only time we allow non-free SVGs is if we are pulling the SVG information directly from the copyright owner (such as out of a PDF of official letterhead). User-created SVGs that attempt to mimic copyrighted work are not acceptable at all, and in this case, this needs to be uploaded as a low resolution JPG/PNG. --M ASEM  (t) 05:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Seattle NHL.png
<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 am not sure this meets US threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Cullen-report-part-1.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.

Requesting a review, because I am sure that being an official report this should have been covered by OGL. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The document, available online, shows a copyright notice on page ii. Best to leave it as-is. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.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.

Used in 2012 Men's World Junior Squash Championships and 2012 Women's World Junior Squash Championships, but only has a rationale for the former and lacks one for the latter. Both uses appear to violate WP:NFCC#8. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


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

Huge category
<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.

Category:Doctor Who character images has over 300 images in it. The few I checked are fair use and not movable to commons. Should we go through all of them or has it been done already? A trusted admin may wish to go through and delete the obvious ones on sight. We may wish to look at other cats, ie. Star Trek, Star Gate, Buffy, Zombies, Werewolves, Vampires, and Casper (cat) etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think all those images need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Someone should go through the category and list the suspicious cases here. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  12:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Several of these appear to be used in the infobox of episode articles and seem to violate WP:NFCC. However, this needs to be checked on a case-to-case basis as there presumably are other images which satisfy all points of WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of them do appear to be images of characters used on fictional character articles, and there's a weak consensus that this is always appropriate - that is, if the character's notable enough for a standalone article, the character image is a reasonable thing to include to show implicitly how the character was portrayed (but again, that's weak consensus). Episode articles have to be reviewed, though. I know that the newer reincanation of the show, the editors have been good, but I suspect a lot of the older series have problems with unnecessary episode images. A case-by-case is needed, but I recommended asking the Doctor Who project to assist here. --M ASEM (t) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


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

File:99.9-Magnum-radio-logo.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.

PD shape?, I am not sure this is complex enough for TOO to apply. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as well. While each of the single elements (typefaces, the black and red bars, the yellow box) definitely falls below TOO, the combination of those elements into this logo might be regarded by the US copyright office as a creative step sufficient for copyright protection, but in this case they might as well rule in the other direction (compare this with the third example at Threshold of originality). --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The image also exists at the Commons, please see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coyote wadi. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:1013Thebounce.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.

Threshold of originality not met,PD-textlogo? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:PapalMass1.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.

Image is stated to be public domain, but a Non-free use rationale has been provided. Either this image is 'free' in which case it should be on Commons, or it is not free and the statment about public domain removed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it a photo or a painting? If it is a photo, then PD-Italy should suffice. If it is a painting, then it enters the public domain in the United States 95 years after publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sir Thomas Blaikie.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.

Subject of image died in 1861, Assuming this is contemporary image, I find it highly unlikely the artist died less than 70 years ago. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was made by a contemporary artist, then it should be PD. If it is a recent painting, then it may be copyrighted. Right now it is missing a source, so it violates WP:NFCC. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was painted by John Philip, who died in 1867. The painting is currently in the Aberdeen Art Gallery.  A better/bigger version can be found on the BBC "Your paintings" website.  Jheald (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:The Sound band.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 am not sure whether this image will be allowed on Wikipedia. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming the band is currently active with this membership, a free image is possible, and thus this image fails NFCC#1 (barring any discussion specifically on the photograph itself). --M ASEM (t) 06:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The group in question disbanded in 1988, and the singer is dead. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes it fair game to use the image under non-free terms, since we can never get that group together again. There might be a chance there is a free photo out there but assuming a reasonable search has been done, this image is okay to use as a non-free photograph of the band. --M ASEM (t) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Education Vulva.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.

Not sure how to report copyright infringement.

Anyway, this picture is not free. It's from a photoshoot of a Japanese AV model Hatori Yiu. You can see the originals here: http://idol.sankakucomplex.com/post/show/162410 http://idol.sankakucomplex.com/post/show/162411

Or the whole photoshoot here: http://idol.sankakucomplex.com/post/index?tags=hatori_yiu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.80.74.153 (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This image is on Commons, so this issue needs to be raised over there. See Commons:Deletion policy. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  14:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw. there seem to be more files involved. According to the information at Commons, File:Education Vulva.jpg and File:Klitorisvorhaut und Klitoris.jpg are both derivative works of File:Vulva.jpg, so there might be three copyright violations. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After investigating the provenance of these images, I agree they may be copyright violations so I have nominated them for deletion. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulva.jpg for more information. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mongolian Pechora-2M.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.

Photo possibly copied from http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/1237 and edited via Phoptoshop to hide its water mark.--SojerPL (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mongolian airforce Mi-8.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.

Photo possibly copied from http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5842968.--SojerPL (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mongolian airforce Mi-24.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.

Photo possibly copied from http://mgl-armedforces.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_9671.html.--SojerPL (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mongolian airforce Mil Mi-171.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.

Photo possibly copied from http://mgl-armedforces.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_9671.html.--SojerPL (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Koh Poh Koon.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.

He's alive! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hard to find a proper portrait of him. This is one of the best I can find, complete in PAP attire. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 14:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter if there's no easy photo to find. If he is alive, and not a recluse or in prison, we assume a free picture can be taken, and thus do not allow non-free images to be used of living persons. --M ASEM (t) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. But I was just commenting, it wasn't an oppose or !vote. Cheers. ✉→ Arctic Kangaroo ←✎ 05:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


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

Queen of Swords (TV series)
archive top
 * File:Mysterious circle2.JPG
 * File:QoS2cast.jpg
 * File:Queen of Swords Titles 2.jpg
 * File:Queen of Swords.JPG
 * File:Texas Hollywood.jpg
 * File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG

I cant see how these pass WP:NFCC&8 Werieth (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the rationales, after all that is what they are for. Blanket deletions of all IS excessive. REVUpminster (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ill counter that, blanket usage is excessive. I wasnt removing all the files, I was removing all but the title card. There was only one other file (per Masem) that should be kept. Werieth (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The title card one is fine ("Titles 2") as the means of ID'ing the show. A cast picture "QoS2cast" with actors in their character roles is reasonable for such a show. The rest are all problems, particularly the Texas Hollywood one as that is an actual, still existing place and thus free imagery can be obtained. The other 3 are all excessive and unneeded. --M ASEM  (t) 14:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * File:The Queen of Swords 3.JPG covered by WP:NFLISTS #5 REVUpminster (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But fails WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) You have the cast picture for that, a separate one is not necessary. If the lead actress' look in the masked Queen role is really important, there woudl sources that describe her appearance and thus would help to satisfy NFCC#8. But right now, that's just not there, and as I'd consider the cast picture not a question for such a show, this is duplicating that. (You can also sorta get an image of her from the title card too, in a Zorro-like outfit) --M ASEM (t) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The cast photo came from promotional wallpaper for computers freely available on the defunct website but does not show the character of the title. The titlecard image does not cover WP:NFLISTS#5 There is another wallpaper image of the character freely available in costume that is available.REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The mysterious circle image is to explain what in words is a difficult subject. REVUpminster (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The mysterious circle image shows two people swordfighting/fencing in costume. It's not critical to understand the article, and fails NFCC#8. Again, on the main character's costume, there's nothing really discussed about it that requires a visual representation - she is one of the actresses in the cast photo, but now doning a black mask and outfit. That really doesn't need a new image to describe it unless that look is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. That is what is lacking to be able to use it. --M ASEM  (t) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The costume was one of the reasons sony sued and also one of the reasons it failed. See Legal issues REVUpminster (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will give you that (but urge to try to improve on that rationale), but I would suggest moving that image down to the Legal section where showing that she looks similar to Zorro is important. --M ASEM (t) 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is nobody independent going to comment or comment to what is regarded as excessive as I have now seen featured articles with seven non free images.REVUpminster (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no firm number in how many non-free media an article can allow. Some are such that zero non-frees are appropriate, some may have 10 or more. The matter is more whether each individual non-free use is appropriate which each picture having to meet all 10 points of NFCC. In your case, I think there's 3 reasons non-frees (title card, cast pic, and her outfit in light of the lawsuit), but that's it. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Within the article there is a link to the mysterious circle article. This image explains how it was used in the TV series. It is not about the fencers. REVUpminster (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it has to be seen via non-free imagery. In fact, this is the type of case where while you discuss that they trained using the mysterious circle, an image of an actual "mysterious circle" (which we have on that linked article) may be better representative of the implication here. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The image on the mysterious circle article contains five circles and only serves to confuse how it was used in the TV series.REVUpminster (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then no image is required as long as you have a link to the page on mysterious circles. This is effectively a WP:NFC issue, just because something is mentioned doesn't mean non-free media is required to show it. You can use free (As suggested) but no image is a possible solution too.  The non-free doesn't help here. --M ASEM  (t) 13:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

File:PBS idents
<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 non-free logos in this article violate WP:NFLISTS and should be removed. I suspect that many of the old logos are PD-US-no notice even if currently listed as free. The current licence claims are not necessarily correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no sourced discussion about the old logos, so yes, all those should be removed; particularly given that nearly all the newer ones are just simple variations on the "3 heads" theme. I can see keeping first PBS one (text only) and the second, bold-letter PBS one - that arguably could be considered just text and failing originality. If the NET logos are not free, one could be kept as an example, but not all four. --M ASEM  (t) 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole point of this article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years.
 * If you remove the images, you essentially gut the article, and drastically reduce the understanding of the topic that any reader is going to be able to derive from it.
 * Seems to me that should only be done if we actually think there is a real copyright problem -- otherwise we are directly hurting our readers. Jheald (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this is part of our mission. It's been determined in the past that we dont have galleries of old logos if there's no supporting sourced text to use for them. As for "gutting" the article, I'm worried how poorly sourced it is, in the sense that all but the first few iterations of the PBS logo are uncited sections. I'm not doubting the factuality that these were the logos, but the point is that if you argue that the article is to show how PBS (and before it NET)'s presentation has developed over the years, you need sources to avoid original research. Again, I support the "3 heads" logo that the remaining modern logo fall out of because of the discussion from sources about that origin, and to that, even more support for the bold-face PBS that preceeded it (to show how the "P" became the head in the subsequent logos) but none of the rest of the logos really have that type of detail, and ergo appear to be original research. --M ASEM  (t) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OR generally requires some thesis or proposition to be advanced. Saying that a logo existed, when you actually produced the logo and say where it came from, seems to me simply to be including a verifiable fact.
 * I'm curious that you see the article as OR -- it seems to me to be reasonably surveying the idents that were used, by showing the idents that were used.
 * I also don't see that you can deny that without these images, readers will not get the understanding of the topic that they otherwise would, so they and we and the encyclopedia will be (unnecessarily) poorer than we need to be. Jheald (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're stating that to understand the growth of PBS, it is necessary to understand the changes of its logo as part of that. As a hypothesis, that's certainly possible but not one backed by sources demonstrated, at least across the spectrum of changes to the logo. It is certainly factual that PBS at one time used these logos, no question, nor OR there. But its also common sense that companies and entities change logos all the time. The OR kicks in when you say that the article is necessary (and thus the imagery necessary) to show how the logo influenced PBS's recognition and vice versa; you only have sources to demonstrate that for two, three of the logos shown and not the whole set.  Understandably, it is important to show PBS has having come from NET but you don't need logos to show this. The entire development of the logo as a separate topic, when most of the changes lack sources to explain why the logo changed, is basically OR, perhaps a POV spinout of the main article on PBS (where the change in logo is better documented for comprehension alongside the history of PBS).  I'm not saying that one can't built an article on the changes of an entity's logo over the years, separate from the article on the entity itself, but that separate article is going to need extensive documentation to be consider appropriate and not OR, and even then, the issue of non-free and meeting all minimal use and comprehension requirements will be a separate point. --M ASEM  (t) 20:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. The topic of the article is PBS Idents, not the "growth of PBS".  The article is specifically about how PBS has identified itself; and I really don't see any OR there, it is simply a factual presentation of what idents PBS has used. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you are basically arguing this is a list of non-free images, which we never allow. Again, practice is that sourced commentary is required to meet NFCC#8; there may be exceptions, but certainly not for old logos. --M ASEM  (t) 05:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - given that the context of the article is talking about those logos - it seems appropriate to include the visual. I would agree with the sentiment that removing them effectively guts the meat of that article.  The visuals are helpful when reading the descriptions - not including them would take away value from that article.  Now if we want to debate if that article should stay, fine, but this specific thread is about the use of logos in that article.  --Varnent (talk)(COI) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree that removing all, or many, the logos would gut the article to the detriment of the reader's understanding however, without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail WP:NFCC and really should be removed. That being said, if it is important to keep so many of the logos then those whose desire is to keep them really need to start tracking down sources to support the use of each and every image thereby passing NFCC#8. Non-free rationales that state To show the logo as used and Screenshot of 2009 PBS idents are just not good enough reasons for NFCC. For me it is quite simple, no sourced commentary = no image. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Can you provide the text of the NFCC #8 you think you're applying?  Because it appears not to be the one you have linked to.  You appear to have in your mind an NFCC #8 that says without any sourced critical commentary most of the logos clearly fail.  But the wording of the criterion you have linked to is if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding -- which you seem to accept is exactly what the majority of these images do. Jheald (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, an article about a thing (or a set of things) which doesn't show those things is nearly useless. These clearly meet NFCC8, though sourced commentary would make for a much stronger case. Hobit (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFLISTS is very simple: if an article is a list of non-free things, then you can't have images of all of the non-free things: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." That said, you might be able to prove that some of the old logos might have been published without a copyright notice somewhere at some point. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How do you prove that its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding but by providing WP:RS to verify its significance. Additionally WP:NFC #9 applies for images to be acceptable. IMHO #1 does not apply and Logos states that: there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale. Add these all together and what do you currently get; unacceptable images with unacceptable rationales. If you can change that then we can certainly keep the images because they will be well justified. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (i) Sometimes the nature of the significance is obvious, simply by nature of what the image is in relation to the topic of the article, without needing any further source.
 * (ii) WP:NFCI #9 is presented as a sufficient condition (one of many presented in that section, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list). It is not presented as a necessary condition.
 * (iii) I'd agree the rationales probably need some work. But a sufficient good reason, per WP:Logos, would be "to allow the readers to see the logos, which are the direct topic of the article". Jheald (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC does not allow for the nature of the significance is obvious; there's a reason we ask for a well-thought-out rationale for each use of an image in #10c. Even the most "loose" case listed at WP:NFCI, that of cover art images, we have the standing principle that branding and marketing are implicitly carried by the cover art as to allow for one non-free image, details explained in the various boiler-plate license and rationale templates. Note that this doesn't extend to multiple cover arts - all subsequent uses have to have good reasons to be included typically by critical commentary on the additional art. Logos are generally treated in the same fashion when used on the page the entity they represent.  You cannot just present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary". --M ASEM  (t) 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, not true. There is ample precedent for alternate album cover art, as the template documentation says (and has been run past WT:NFC enough times ), for "alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" -- where an album has had a different dominant image associated with it in different places, or at different times, then if the purposes set out in the footnote to NFCI#1 are to be achieved, it is appropriate to show both images. See eg here for such a case, just this week; which is in line with previous decisions.
 * Secondly, as noted above, we're not talking about logos being "used on the page of the entity they represent". We're talking about PBS Idents -- a page that has as its specific topic these idents.
 * The bottom line is that NFCC #8 calls for the community to make a judgement as to whether the image adds something sufficient to reader understanding of the topic. It is sufficient to present an image and demonstrate it meets NFCC#8 by saying "it's obviously necessary", so long as the community agrees that it is obviously necessary -- or, rather, that it obviously adds significantly to reader understanding, since that is the actual test.  Jheald (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But even with the album project they are alert to being careful with secondary album art, typically limiting it to a release in a different region, which can be understandable in terms of branding and marketing. But everyone else - books, video games, films, etc. this simply isn't used.  On the second point, the only immediately allowance to use a logo of an entity is on a page about that entity.  Just because you happen to have a page about the logo doesn't necessarily make it allowed to use many iterations of the logo. (This points to the inherent problems with this article in terms of OR, notability, and lack of sourcing and conflicting with NFC policy).  And on the third point, I will grant we do have cases - very exceptional ones - where the use of an non-free image is obvious and needs little justification. But those are very exceptional, and in the couple I've seen, someone is nearly always able to rewrite the rationale and article to improve the support for the images.  You're asking us to make an exception for ~8 non-free images (beyond the few that have been ID'd as ok). That's just not going to happen.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The uses of all those images on PBS idents are utterly inappropriate. These logos merely serve an identification purpose on that page (identifying a specific incarnation of the logo). All those uses violate WP:NFCC. Logos are only allowed for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entities page. The progression of the logo can be described by text. All those logos need to be removed from the page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  15:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Use of a logo for identification of the entity they represent at the top of that entity's page is one permitted use. Policy does not say it is the only permitted use.  Here the logos and idents are the actual topic of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec: originally in reply to Masem, but it applies equally to Toshio)
 * The topic of the article is PBS Idents. If we're going to have an article on that topic, we need to show the idents, because they are the very topic of the article.
 * Now if you feel the topic isn't notable, you're welcome to take it to AfD and seek the view of the community. And if you feel that some of the logo iterations could be explained in words, that could be a reasonable case for removing some of them.
 * But if we are going to have an article on PBS Idents, we need to show the idents for readers to be able to understand the topic. It's that simple.  Direct application of NFCC #8.  Jheald (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very accurate assessment. I also agree with the comments that the rationale statements could use improving - they are dancing on the line of being barely passable.  --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this text explicitly: First, gray dots appear and disappear rapidly. A white circle is drawn around the dots. A vertical line is drawn over the circle, but then is erased. A small fire appears in the circle. Several curved vertical and horizontal lines cover the circle to create an image of the globe. Several white lines appear under the globe to form the letters "NET". The globe ultimately winds up on top of the "T". The music playing in the background during the animation is industrious-sounding. When the animation is complete, an announcer says, "This is N-E-T, the National Educational Television network. (for the 3rd NET logo, for an example) helps the reader understand the history of the PBS Idents, much less the history of PBS/NET itself. You cannot simply present an non-free image and let the reader infer from it, under NFC policy.  The arguments being used here would simply allow any non-free image to be used if the text just describes whats in the image without significance. --M ASEM  (t) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what the topic of the article is. (An argument which could not be made for every non-free image).  In this case, the topic of the article is directly PBS's idents (and, by reasonable extension, those of its direct fore-runner NET).  So informing the reader what those idents were directly adds to their understanding of the topic.  Jheald (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather humorous
Looking at the debates in this section, File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg, Star Trek: Voyager episode images, and Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee I just have to laugh. The culture of Wikipedia has long since changed away from being a free content project. These debates are illustrative of this simple fact. Consensus will never, ever be achieved that these images should be stripped. Far too many people want the images included than think the images should be excluded. Whatever arguments each side has to support their positions are really irrelevant. What matters most is the weight of numbers. The numbers are inexorably on the side of inclusion. It doesn't matter what WP:NFCC, WP:NFC, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy say. The presence of these things merely add fuel to the fire of the overarching dispute. Supporting the reduction of non-free content usage on this project has become an extremist position. Yet, these disputes will keep erupting. I think the disputes themselves have become disruptive to the project. Without these disputes, there would be considerably more harmonious editing. The Foundation has never and will almost certainly never come down on us for being even more inclusionist of non-free content than we already are. About the only line in the sand we must hold is a rationale for each image (note; not each use, just each image) and not use non-free content to depict living people. All this kerfluffle over too many images, or one episode image per episode, etc. is useless dispute. NOTHING will change. I wonder how many windmills will have to be tilted at before this reality sets in. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that WP has moved away from being a free content project. We're still a free content project, and produce vast amounts of free content.  But what en-WP has never been is a free content only project.
 * The degree of limitations you want to put on non-free content have no relation to the balances the people who evolved WP:NFC had in mind when they drafted it. Your position has not "become" an extremist position -- your position has always been an extremist one.  But thankfully, perhaps, WP has rejected it, like the body rejecting a splinter.  Jheald (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're attributing things to me that do not exist. It isn't my position. Regardless, the fact remains this isn't a free content project. That much is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, but nor does it claim to be. It's free as in beer and strives to be free as in freedom where it doesn't significantly detract from our articles and where needed to meet legal obligations. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does claim to be free as in libre. See Mission. Reality speaks otherwise. As to "where it doesn't significant detract", that argument was lost an eon ago. There's plenty of articles where non-free content is extreme. Reducing those is effectively impossible. Adhering to our mission is now an "extremist position". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, we produce vast amounts of free content; we can hold our heads up high as a free-content project. The Foundation set down long ago that the non-free content we also provide doesn't make our free content any less free.  .  Believing that our mission encourages us to be free-content-only project, or that our non-free content is somehow failing our mission, is an extreme position; as is failing to acknowledge that a commitment to improving reader understanding of the topics of our articles is one of the tier-one motivations for the WP:NFC policy, on a par with any of the others. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we can't hold our heads up high as a free content project. Free as in beer, yes. Free as in no ads to slog through to see content, yes. Free as in libre? That's just a mirage. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) apparently stating that I'm espousing some idea of free content only. I never said that. Please read carefully what I said in this subsection above. You will find that I actually am agreeing wholeheartedly with you, that the arguments about whether something is compliant or not are the disruption themselves. It's time we ended it all, and just went with your interpretation (again correct me if I'm wrong) that anything goes, so long as it makes us more encyclopedic. I agree with you. It is in fact how we operate. The principles behind WP:NFCC were long since vacated. That's why we can have things like Megatron, Mickey Mouse universe, List of Miami Vice soundtracks and National_Australia_Bank and nobody is concerned. The Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content. There is no reason to limit non-free content, except where we get into questions of legality under fair use. The arguments about limiting non-free content are void and disruptive in and of themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that people do care about the free-content mission and the balance of non-free content within it; it is just that we can't enforce it with guerrilla tactics and "zero tolerance" type policies that some would like to see it enforced. Again, from the earlier discussion, the fact that the ratio of NFC to articles has stayed at about 11% over 3 years implies that most editors respect the use of NFC in "exceptional" occasions.  Can we be better? Sure, but we can't get there by going all Judge Dredd on NFC enforcement. --M ASEM  (t) 22:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Claiming that "the Foundation long since abandoned any ideas behind limiting non-free content" is to imply some shift has occurred. But no shift has occurred.  WP:NFC now is pretty much identical now to how it was first codified.  The balances it set out then are still the balances now. The same balances the Foundation held up as an example of best practice when the Foundation issued its content resolution, practice that Kat Walsh then went on record as saying the Foundation absolutely wasn't trying to alter.  On the one hand, a commitment to informing our readers; on the other, a commitment to legality, to wide legal reusability, to using other people's copyright only soberly and carefully, with an eye to WP's reputation -- and to NFCC #1.  All of those put quite real limits on the amount of fair use we use.  WP's pages actually come over as quite sparing in the fair use material we use, as I think the numbers Masem produced the other day show, certainly compared to what we could use.  And that's a good thing, worth defending.  Yes, I am sure there are some aberrations, but for the most part WP:NFC is doing its job, and as a result we're in a much stronger position whenever there is non-free content that we want to use to advance reader understanding.
 * The one thing I've never understood though, is your obsession with reducing NFC use just to total numbers -- essentially treating every usage the same, regardless of the qualia of the usage: what kind of material it is, how serious a copyright taking we're talking about, how much visual weight it has in the context of the whole article, how valuable what it conveys is to readers -- these qualia, rather than the brute numbers, are what really determine perceptions of whether or not we're being responsible or not about copyright.
 * So for example the banknote images may be many, but in copyright terms the copyright taking is very minimal, the information they contribute is directly encyclopedic and valuable, and the low-key way they are presented in a table tends to make our use of them look sober and responsible -- it's relatively discreet: what it doesn't do is overwhelm the article, or load it up like a Chistmas tree. And (as argued elsewhere) it's just plain sense to show what the artist's work looks like in an article on the artist.  Plus, both of these uses were widespread in use and accepted when the WP:NFCC were adopted.   So suggesting we have all lost our principles, or there has been some great shift, to such an extent that all you can do is laugh darkly, strikes me as simply unfounded.  This has always been the WP:NFC, and it has always been the main stream. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:VEGAN works boths ways. You cannot argue "well, this usage is only a small fraction, it won't hurt". We have to be vigilant about continuing to look for ways to reduce NFC while understanding en.wiki wants appropriate non-free exceptions for the work. --M ASEM (t) 01:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't accept the view that WP:NFC is some kind of ratchet, designed to get people to constantly invent new ways to try to make NFC use ever more restrictive -- and interestingly, when Doc9871 made recently made this accusation at WT:NFC you were first in the line to refute it . Instead, WP:NFC was surely framed to set a balance that would be stable and lasting, to allow NFC to be securely used where it would indeed add to reader understanding, while ensuring that no more was taken than was indeed needed to achieve the purpose.
 * As for WP:VEGAN I don't see that it's relevant. We're not a 'vegan' encyclopedia.  Angr might wish that we were, but we're not.  So Angr's protestations that you can't be a little bit vegan, and that WP:NFC is no more than moving the deckchairs around, are irrelevant -- we're not trying to be vegan, and that is not what WP:NFC is for.  Jheald (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the Foundation, NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, a word many people forget. We should be looking to making sure we're only bringing out NFC for the "exceptional" cases and trimming it out when it is of mundane utility. So while I've pointed out 11% being the NFC to article rational, I can also argue that that number doesn't suggest "exceptional" use either.  Now, to me, I see it as a challenge, only because some editors have engrained that non-free is the same as fair use, which is not the case, and as cases like Beta's in the past point out, NFC removal is, in general, not exempt from most basic dispute resolution steps.  We can't enforce editors to cave into demands to minimize non-free but we can strongly suggest in that direction and guide editors to find new avenues to cut back on non-free image use while still being a useful encyclopedia.  The Voyager episode images, for example, are exactly one of those cases of how to approach this.
 * VEGAN is very relevant because without strong reasons backing the inclusion of specific non-free media, you fall into the same slippery slope of a vegetarian pot-luck with "just a little bit" of meat dishes. Again, that's this 11% number from above - some might argue that 11% isn't bad, maybe we can allow for 12%... and that parable rings true. --M ASEM  (t) 14:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:VEGAN, whether it's 12% or 11% or 10% doesn't matter -- for Angr the only number that matters in 0%, because you can't be only a little bit vegan. It's not a position I subscribe to.  Jheald (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one on en.wiki is aiming to zero; the project as a whole accept limited use of non-free, so zero is neither required by the Foundation or a goal by consensus. But we need to have limits in place to prevent broad non-free use beyond exception use. We know we're going to be mostly but not all vegan, but we're going to limit the meat dishes to specific ones, not allow it to overflow into all the others where they don't need it, even though we'd be in the spirit of the broader fair use allowances. Again, a challenge of the balance of a free project and non-free media. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Go and read Angr's essay again. The whole point he is making is that you can't be "mostly but not all vegan".  It's something you either are, or you are not.  (And his position is that we should be).  What he is saying is that "trying to be a little bit more vegan" is not a coherent idea.  This is the whole thrust of WP:VEGAN.  But it is irrelevant, because we don't set out to be vegan -- we aren't a non-free content only project, and don't set out to be.  There are some very sound reasons for the WP:NFC policy, but the message from Angr's essay is that "being more vegan" is not one of them. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My point has been that non-free inclusion, if we aren't vigilant in making sure that usage doesn't leak past reasonable accepted uses - with the understanding there's always IAR cases - we end up on a slippery slope of non-free inclusion. The argument "just a bit more won't hurt us" is exactly the wrong mindset.  Mind you, I'm not rejecting considering new generally-accepted uses of non-free, but we always should be looking to shoring up to the most obvious appropriate uses and cutting out the least-accepted ones; while we could consider the current amount/approach to non-free as acceptable and without problems, if we get careless and do not remain specific to reducing non-free, we end up slipping down the slope of far too much inclusion. --M ASEM  (t) 19:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


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

File:BBC News titles.png
<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 has a fair use rationale for one article but is used in three articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably none of the uses are appropriate. The BBC News logo (the red box) is simple to be un-copyrightable and sufficiently serves as a logo for all three programs. (That said: I can't tell if this is a title card for the show(s) or not. If they are title cards, and the fact the title of the show doesn't appear is really really odd and why I'd consider removal from all three). --M ASEM  (t) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is of the generic titles to BBC News summary's, weekend news, and the BBC News channel. BBC News at One, BBC News at Six, and BBC News at Ten use a version with the number in the titles. Hope this help. --  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer the original comment, rationales could have been added quite quickly for each of the articles. Cloudbound (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


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

Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter
<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 concerns the following three images: All three of the NFURs assert that the use of the image is justified because it is needed "[t]o illustrate how composite color artifacting was used in high-profile, commercial IBM PC games of the era." (emphasis in original) I don't think that merely being of a high-profile game makes these images irreplaceable under WP:NFCC #1, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this. <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I want to add that these three images appear to form a non-free gallery, which is generally not allowed per WP:IG and also violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimality of use). <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Ultima2 CompVsRGB.png
 * File:KQ CompVsRGB.png
 * File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png
 * File:Microsoft Decathlon RGBvsComposite.png might be below the threshold of originality. The purpose of the section appears to be to show how different computer equipment renders the same image differently. I'm not sure why it wouldn't be possible to use a freely licensed image for this purpose instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because there are not known free software games from that era. The use of composite video in artistic images as it was used in commercial games can't be illustrated with technical images like the rest available in the article, you need to show real art from that period. I had never seen the effect that CGA composite video graphics produced on a composite video monitor, and didn't know they produced a plain color effect. After seeing the Ultima II image, I finally understand how all those games from my childhood were supposed to look like. Diego (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


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

File:1953 Playboy centerfold.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.

An editor brought up on the MM talk page as to whether this image should be in the article to visualize the text. I uploaded it and put it in the article. It is a rather notable image, it was pivotal in her carreer, and readers may wish to see what all the fuss was about. I feel it should stay but we should seek consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are plenty of other images of Marilyn on that page to show who she is. A nude (even tasteful as that is) is not necessary to visualize the article, in line with WP:NFCC (we have free images that show who is is) and WP:NFCC (already numerous non-frees on that page, though arguably on her more famous and critically acclaimed awards). --M ASEM (t) 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? There are no other non-free images on her page. That is the only one, the rest are public domain so it passes #3a. It passes #1 because there is no free equivalent of that centerfold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is zero discussion about that centerfold image. As best as I can tell, the only place where nude images of Monroe come up is about a possible scandal under the "Leading Films" section, and that doesn't talk about the artistic nature of the nude images, just that they existed. This violates NFCC#8. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The same 1949 calendar photo is in the 1953 Playboy. Hefner bought publishing rights after the scandal and that is why his first issue sold so well, I would think. I don't know why that isn't mentioned. Probably censorship by consensus. If it were a famous photo of her with clothes on then there would probably not be so many delete votes. We need to decide on policy, not our personal views of nudity in Wikipedia. Most readers would want to see the photo to see what all the fuss was about.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the nudity aspect (it is a tasteful nude, as I've mentioned). But there's zero discussion of the image itself, just that she did nude photos, which does not require illustration without commentary. That's the failure of NFCC#8 here. --M ASEM (t) 14:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI#8 - Image with iconic status or historical importance. The image is there to show not how Marilyn looks, it's to show how she looks nude which happens to be historically significant and important to her career, and is subject of direct coverage from multiple high quality sources. Diego (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's zero discussion critically about how she looked nude. NFCC#8 fails. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not true. "The press speculated about the identity of the anonymous model and commented that she closely resembled Monroe". (See resembled Marilyn - duh, that's obvious if you know it's her - but people didn't know, you have a whole paragraph about that fact). Also you know that critical commentary is but one reason why NFCC#8 can be met, not the only one; that the image itself affected her career is enough reason to show it. Diego (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 99% of the time, this is how NFCC#8 has to be met, and in a article on a person, I see no reason why this is not the bare minimum requirement. But more to the fact, the argues presented are basically "there existed nude photos of Marilyn, so the reader must see them to understand they existed". No, that is not true. Sure, we need to acknowledge that they existed, but the reader's comprehension of the topic is not harmed if the photos are omitted, since there's nothing critical about any of the specific photos that is essential to work alongside the text. Ergo, it fails NFCC#8. --M ASEM  (t) 15:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time someone says "but this can be explained with text", Jimbo kills a kitten. So please don't. Diego (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. This is exactly a case where, as there's zero discussion (sourced or otherwise) about how she looks without clothes on, the existence of nude photos (which is documented) can be explained in text. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad then that WP:NFCI#8 doesn't agree with your analysis. If you excuse me, it looks like we're both running out of arguments and just repeating ourselves, so I rest my case. Diego (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCI is a guideline, NFCC is a policy which can override any of the NFCI cases (as stated). Even then, NFCI#8 looks for sourced commentary, which this image lacks. Just because nude photos exist doesn't mean they have to be included for the reader to understand that nude photos exist. --M ASEM  (t) 16:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It turns out the image is probaby public domain. I found a calendar on Ebay that has no copyright notice. I emailed a collector to check any versions she may have to confirm this. If she does then I may have her contact OTRS or WMF legal if needed to confirm. Then we can upload a full size version to commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the image is PD, that's fine. As I've made clear, it's not the fact its a nude, just that its a piece of non-free (presently) that is not needed. As PD, there's no question that it could be included. --M ASEM (t) 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She can't take her calendar out of the frame but she did send me a pic of a jacknife with the same image and no copyright. I think I will upload the full resolution image to commons and see if it survives over there. I will use the photos from the Ebay calendar and the knife as proof of no notice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold 1953.jpg. I uploaded it to commons and put it up for deletion review if anyone wants to join over there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It can't be on commons. It can be used 1 time in 1 article per WP:NFCI 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance. Theworm777 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Changed vote to delete cause I now feel this gives WP:UNDUE weight to the fact she posed in the nude and I am not sure it is needed. Theworm777 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it undue weight? There's sourced commentary and of her reaction to the photo being published, of how it could have triggered a scandal, and on that the image affected her public relations.Diego (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. A user named 'Kelley Studios' (the photograher's company) popped into the discussion over at commons. He states that it has been in court and every time the copyrights have been upheld. The official versions all had proper notice but the bootleg/pirate ones did not. The image at commons will should be deleted then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DeleteNon free fair use images should only be used when an image is absolutely essential to the article, this image is not.--KTo288 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear failure of NFCC#8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally amazed. We wish to deleted one of the most iconic images of a superstar on the grounds that the text can describe it adequately yet we need to keep File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg which is not even referred it in the text and gives the reader no further insight on her bullycide. Totally amazed indeed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with the sentiment. The original intent of the non-free content policy and its exception doctrine is in practice long forgotten, nowadays the best way to protect an important image or to remove a trivial use is to nitpick over the minutiae of the written rules; the process is essentially broken, for lack of eyeballs, and the few of us that participate need to stick to process to achieve any results and get over our fundamentally different perspectives. So far for Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If the image is iconic, it would be discussed, and then there would be a reason to keep it. We have plenty of free images to show who Marilyn was, unlike the other case (and where no free images are going to be possible), so it's not like we aren't illustrating Marilyn's article. Remember, while NFC may have been set up for one reason, it's goal has shifted per the Foundation Resolution to minimize non-free use. This is a perfect case where it should be applied like that, give the plethera of free images around to show Marilyn. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I give up. Now the prudes have changed it to the fair use cover of the 1953 Playboy where she is dressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As is noted above and all of you know, there are plenty of other images of Marilyn that can be used without the same problems per NFCC#8, by fair use doctrine and don't distract from the article per WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:NFCC and because this calender image contributed to making her enormously famous if not infamous in the conservative 1950s. This important image was responsible for putting her squarely into the American male consciousness and kept it there...Modernist (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is true, why is there no discussion about this in the article? Without any discussion, the image can be removed and the topic still well understood, thus NFCC#8 fails. If the calender nude photos was what made her famous (which doesn't seem to be the case) there will be sources that back that up. --M ASEM (t) 14:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the need in the article for an in depth discussion of how and why the calander and the playboy exposure contributed to Marilyn's becomming the muse to million's worldwide, no question - this image opened the door for her enormous fame. The 7 Year Itch, Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and The River of No Return helped as well of course. She was very talented and the Playboy, calender picture opened the door...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But we clearly need more than there is in the article. There's zero question these images exist - the sources confirm she did nude shots for a calender, etc. But NFCC is not used to simply illustrate something that exists. I can understand from the text alone "oh, there 1950's nude photos of MM," which is not hard to envision the type of posing and tastefulness done at that period.  This is a case where the specific photo itself needs to be the subject of discussion, not that it just simply existed. --M ASEM  (t) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Text has been added to the article by Diego...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


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