Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 40

Titus Andronicus

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

Hi everybody. Hi Dr. Nick. Not sure exactly what the procedure is here, but Werith has been creating quite the furore at the Titus Andronicus article. He is insisting that the following four images be removed because they violate NFCC#1:

1. File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg‎

2. File:Lavinia - Ninagawa production.jpg‎‎

3. File:Titus (Final Image).jpg

4. File:Baby Coffin.jpg

So, the images aren't in the article at the moment as to include them would undoubtedly cause Werith to spontaneously implode. Which no one wants. So here’s a version of the article which includes the images so you can see captions and context and so forth:

Clicktus hereicus

Note, that I plan on making a couple of minor adjustments should the images go back to the article:

The caption for Titus will be changed slightly to read:


 * "Young Lucius leaves the coliseum with Aaron's child, with the sun rising in the background; the final, optimistic, image of Julie Taymor's Titus (1999)."

As regards textual accompaniment, I planned to rewrite the Ninagawa section to read:


 * "The production followed the 1955 Brook production in its depiction of violence; actress Hitomi Manaka appeared after the rape scene with stylised red ribbons coming from her mouth and arms, substituting for blood."

and the Titus section to read:


 * "At the end of the film, young Lucius takes the baby and walks out of Rome; an image of hope for the future, symbolised by the rising sun in the background."

I'd like to note that the Laura Rees image was already up for deletion and was kept. Two quotes from that discussion seem pertinent here. User:DionysosProteus wrote "The image does fulfil the significance criterion. The realism and blood-thirstiness of the stage appearance of Lavinia at this moment in the play is one of its most significant images--probably the image that most spectators/readers remember. That it has been represented in vivid realism, in contrast, say, to Peter Brook's symbolic treatment, is a significant element of the information to be conveyed by the article. Visual representation of this is a vital and useful dimension of conveying that information. The caption makes the significance clear. Both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 satisfied and relevant." In the same discussion, User:Wrad wrote "This image of Lavinia, in many ways, is the play. An image like this is vital to an understanding of how the work is seen today." Note that nobody actually voted to delete the image after it was nominated.

It's also worth mentioning that an admin took a look at the Titus Andronicus page, and found that all of the images were fine except the Ninagawa one, because the image of Lavinia wasn't specifically mentioned in the text.

Werith has repeatedly stated that all four images are replaceable with free alternatives. I don't understand how this is possible in regards the image from Titus and the BBC production, which are, by definition, non-free, non-replaceable images. As for the other two, he keeps on saying the play is 400 years old and in the public domain, and therefore free images are "readily available;" so far the only actual explanation for this he has come up with is that I stage a production of the play and take some photographs, which he seems to think would be a relatively easy task. Clearly Werith has never worked in the theatre! The other point worth making is that the play's production history only begins in 1955, so the fact that the play itself is 400 years old is irrelevant. It was off the stage for over 300 years. He would point out that Romeo and Juliet has no non-free images, so therefore Titus shouldn't have any. This makes little sense when one considers there literally isn't a scene in Romeo that hasn't been illustrated in some way shape or form, whereas, until the mid-1980s, Titus was considered one of Shakespeare's worst plays, and remains one the least staged (and least illustrated) in the canon. Comparing it to Romeo (either in terms of production history or illustration) is not very useful. I have taught Shakespeare for thirteen years now at university level. I do a course on Shakespeare in performance, and only in 2011 was I allowed to include Titus on the course. Every other year when I requested to include the play, the powers that be refused, saying it was too obscure. That's a good indication of just how little exposure this play has had in the grand scheme of things.

As regards the importance of the images to the article itself, well, when I was writing the Titus article many moons ago, I downloaded about eight or nine non-free images. I decided on these two Lavinia images because they serve a very very specific purpose - they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to the play in the modern theatre (in fact the productions took place without a couple of months of one another). Reviews of the play almost always centre on what approach the production takes to the aftermath of the rape. How Lavinia appears after her ordeal is the defining moment of every production, and these two images serve to show a reader, in a way much clearer than textual information ever could, the two extreme ends of the possible spectrum. I think User:DionysosProteus's comments above sum it up more eloquently than I can. The same argument can be made for the other two images – they specifically contrast one another: one shows a director using focus to give her production a pessimistic ending, the other shows a director using a visual metaphor to give her production an optimistic ending.

So I'm not sure if one is supposed to vote here but for the record, I vote to:

Keep all four images

And that's all I've got to say really. So there you have it. Bye everybody. Bye Dr. Nick. Bertaut (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The two stage productions that show the effects use for that scene seem okay to use because, as you say, they are diametrically opposite approaches and part of the critical reception for those plays. I also do agree that these are not freely replacable as we're talking specific makeup/prop work done for those productions, and not an average school play. That said, the other two images notes are excessive. The one of the figure walking into the sunset is very unremakable and this specific scene is not discussed critically in the text (it's mentioned as the final scene, but that's it). The one from the BBC production is not showing a scene that seems of critical discussion, only to demonstrate a change made for that play, which doesn't need an image for this. --M ASEM (t) 20:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I can see where you're coming from all right. Bertaut (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep first two, delete the third, may be the fourth one as well.  The first two are images from unique productions, especially the Ninagawa one which is highly stylized and may be a one-off, therefore I don't see how they can be replaceable.  Art is by its nature special, you cannot adequately describe art with words alone, and you cannot do an amateur production trying to recreate something done in a renown production, take a photograph and claim that it is faithful representation of that particular production.  Texts alone also cannot accurately reflect the effect created, especially when it is something so unusual as the Ninagawa one.  Having an image that shows the theatrical effects would significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the alternate approaches and what's been done in those productions.  These two images would definitely satisfy the WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 criteria in my opinion.  I would agree with MASEM that the third image is unremarkable, it would not increase readers' understanding of the topic and therefore fail WP:NFCC#8.  For the last one, I am concerned that it does not demonstrate what's written in the text - it merely shows someone looking at a box with a baby, it is unclear from the picture what his reaction is, and everything in that image can be described by words, so it is doubtful as to how useful that image is in illustrating the passage of text.  I'm not saying that that passage doesn't need an image, but a better image needs to be found that can bring more to the understanding to the topic. Hzh (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Fair enough comments about the image from Titus. I think that one is destined for the land of deletion. I can accept that. To address your points Hzh, getting a shot of his reaction would make sense, but the main problem is that the only shot showing his reaction is a close up of his face, nothing else is in the shot. There's a shot of him approaching the closed coffin. He opens it offscreen, then we see the image I've used. Then another character comes along and closes it, and the film ends with the closeup of the kid's reaction. There's no shot in the film where you can see the body and his reaction in the same frame. There is a shot, however, using the same framing as in the image of the baby's father being dragged past the coffin. As he's dragged past, the boy looks up at him, but his back is stil entirely to camera. I also chose this particular image because of how Howell uses depth of focus. Usually, in all stage performances I've seen, the emphasis in the final moments is entirely on the inauguration. Here, however, Howell not only ends with the inauguration in the background, but literally shots it out of focus, instead forcing the audience to stare at the death of the innocent child. That's a very significant directorial choice, and to the best of my knowledge, this is the only production of the play that has ever done it. I could certainly rewrite the text in the article to make this point clearer if that were to make any difference, or perhaps replace the image with one showing the father, and see what people think. Finally, yeah, the Ninagawa production was unique in many ways - it was highly stylised throughout - the play began with the actors still in street clothes and reading their scripts, and the costuming and set-design throughout is bizarre to say the least. If you're really interested in seeing it, you can probably request a copy from the RSC if you work somewhere where you can order a copy under your company's name. I think they still send out copies to institutions, they certainly used to in the days of VHS. I've not seen the production myself, but it got extraordinary reviews. Bertaut (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you would need to ask yourself how does an image enhance a reader's understanding of what's written in the text. Here it looks like words alone say more than what that single image can do, so can a video help?  For example there is a video clip here illustrating a special effect in a film.   Again you would still need to ask how it would help enhance a reader's understanding.  Unless you are certain that it does, then you should avoid going down this path or risk wasting a lot of time doing something that might get deleted. (I'm not recommending doing a video by the way, videos still seem problematic in wikipedia, some don't work, etc.) Hzh (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg is completely replaceable by its current description:"Bailey focused on a realistic presentation throughout the production; for example, after her mutilation, Lavinia is covered from head to toe in blood, with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath". There's nothing important about Titus Andronicus that the picture adds to that text. No one needs to see Rees to understand.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. It's a play, not a book. You have to see it to understand it. If you were teaching a history of theatre class (or a Titus Andronicus performances class, for that matter) and said something like that, you'd get laughed out of a job. You can't teach or communicate performance history with just text. Wrad (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not here to teach, we are here to create a freely distributable encyclopedia, which is a very different purpose. --M ASEM (t) 05:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely reductive reading of my comment and also makes no sense at all. Yes, you're so right. Sharing knowledge is "very different" from teaching. I was so blind to that before, but now I see :) What good is an article about Titus Andronicus if it sucks at communicating the performance history of the play? I thought we made the Internet not suck. An encyclopedia that can't communicate effectively is worthless. Wrad (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Wrad here. Titus Andronicus is a play, and illustrating the stagecraft involved in the production of the play is entirely valid for inclusion in the article.  A play is by its nature artificial, no one had their hands actually amputated, therefore what could "realistic presentation" mean here?  If this had been staged in the 19th century, they would have a very different idea of what is a "realistic presentation" (it would also be interesting to see how this is done in Shakespeare's day).  A play is also a visual medium, not just words on a page, and there is inherently a problem with using words alone to describe something that is entirely artificial happening on stage, and that can't actually be happening for real. Hzh (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could replace about 90 percent of the images on Wikipedia using that rationale. Think of the number of servers we could save!
 * "There's nothing important about (fill in the blank) that the picture adds to that text." And your critical credentials are what, exactly, Kww? According to your user page, you ran a hotel and were in real estate development. How in god's name does that experience qualify you to determine whether an image is critical to understanding an interpretation of Shakespeare in a movie, a medium that visually adapts a literary stage play? Bertaut has taught Shakespeare for 15 years at the university level; I'm sure he'd appreciate a few pointers on what is and isn't necessary in order to understand a particular point.
 * Keep all four images. No copyrights are being violated; this is fair use. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are lucky Im in a good mood or I would be taking this to ANI requesting your block for blatant personal attacks, consider this a final warning. Wikipedia's policies are far more strict than that set forth by fair use law. If you want to illustrate the stagecraft you can do that using free images. Wikipedia's usage of images has two classes, free and non-free. Free files can and are used liberally, however the usage of non-free files is highly restricted. There are quite a few examples where "fair use" would allow something but wikipedia policies prohibit that use. Can anyone explain how a free replacement of File:Laura Rees as Lavinia.jpg would be detrimental to the understanding of the play? To me it looks like a bloody woman on the ground with her hands cut off, something fairly easily replaced by text and or re-stageable and possible to re-create and get a free version of it. Werieth (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently you've got an itchy ANI trigger finger. I can see how you might be able to squeeze in a case using #2, since I questioned Kww on what experience enabled him to overrule the judgment of an academic with 15 years in the field under discussion. How that can be construed as an ad hominem attack is, I suppose, yet another field of esoteric expertise we mere content editors are not privy to, since the question certainly is not irrelevant to the critical matter upon which he offered his comment. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this matter should be dropped. Kww's experience is on editing matter in Wikipedia, and what may or may not be reasonably included in Wikipedia. What he said is not relevant to his expertise on any specific subject, but is relevant to non-free file usage in Wikipedia, and that is what is we are discussing here.  It would be wrong to question him on his knowledge on Shakespeare because that is not relevant here, and the discussion would get sidetracked. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't react well or wisely when threatened; comments struck out. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is fundamentally a difference between a visual presentation of an art form and mere description with word. You cannot adequately describe visual art with words, or rather, you cannot reasonably expect most people to (some of the best writers have highly descriptive prose, but you cannot reasonably expect a wikipedia editor to have such skill, and even the best writer can fail in their descriptive power).  By your argument, you can delete the iconic album image of Beatles' Abbey Road (it's just 4 men crossing a road, isn't it?}, or their White Album (errr, it's mostly just a white page, surely you can do that with any painting software?), and extend that to TV, films, music, and great majority of media files.  An image of a particular production cannot be reasonably replace with an image from another production or recreation, just as you can't replace an image from Star Wars with your and your friend playing with light sabers.  Such recreation has no useful meaning. The production of a play is unique, and the images from that play would be unique to itself.  Hzh (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, however this isnt a visual work, this is working from text. The article isnt about a particular performance, but rather the play as a whole. The way the file is used in the article, its used as an example of realism. Given that the article is about a 400 year old play re-creating a scene is possible. The argument here doesnt apply to Abby road, as that file has a different criteria for usage. It is the primary visual identification for a non-free work. (which in this case the work is outside copyright). Take The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as an example the work is outside of copyright and we dont use non-free files to illustrate it. PLEASE USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON Werieth (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument would apply to a book, but this is not a book. It is a play, it is meant to be a visually represented on the stage or screen, not something simply to be read.  Therefore how the play is staged, the various productions, and illustration of such productions, is entirely relevant to the article.  And as stated, each productions is unique to its own, you cannot simply replace one with another that's also unique.  Hzh (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact the images are being used to illustrate the unique visual differences in the staging of a 400-year-old work, i.e. particular performances, contrary to Werieth's assertion.
 * I have a suggestion that can put this entire issue at rest, how about you, Werieth, give us an example of "re-creating a scene" to illustrate just one of the points Bertaut makes in the article. (My immediate reaction to reading that was a mental image of how tabloids use archive images to illustrate their stories: "Lady Wilmington shot her husband using a pistol much like the one illustrated above". I suppose we could do the same for the article: "Realistic effects and blood much like the illustration were used for the character of Lavinia, played by Laura Rees, in Lucy Bailey's 2006 production at Shakespeare's Globe") Tom Reedy (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am for keeping both play images, Werieth does have a point that as presented, the Rees image (and caption) alone is borderline. However, I point to an initial comment that I agreed on - that the Rees play image and the Ninagawa one, showing the same scene but diametrically opposite fashion in terms of using costume, makeup, and props, are counterpoints to each other. I ask if it is possible to somehow rewrite the article or the like such that these two images can be used in close proximity/side-by-side, along with text from critical sources that compare these specific productions? --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A similar image from a different performance is here there is nothing about what license the file is under, but if someone contacts the user they may be willing to re-license the image. As anyone attempted to contact the copyright holder of the Rees image and inquire about release? (I would bet not) However often groups are willing to do just that if we ask. Given that the article is just using that file as an example of the realism why cant a free substitute work? Is this a case that no one has bothered to try and acquire a free image? or that its not possible to create an image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose? Werieth (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I need to keep repeating that each performance is unique, and that recreating something yourself would not be true to that, however good you think it is. The article wrote about that particular production, so you illustrate it with images from that production, rather than some random recreation. If you think you can sound exactly like Mariah Carey there is still no way you would be allowed to illustrate one of her songs with one of your recordings. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah Ha, we have a break through here! Lets extrapolate the example you give with Carey. The this article isnt about Carey, but about a specific sub type of R&B which Carey is well known for. She may be the most widely known example of the style, but just about any musician can provide an example of the style. We should reference the fact that Carey is widely know for the style but the example doesnt need to be her, anyone can provide the clip. Getting back to Andronicus, the article is about the 400 year old play, not a articular production of it. Right now the Rees photo is being used to in reference to that production, but its primarily an example of the realism portrayal, and that exact image isnt critical to understanding the play as a whole, but only as an example of the style that some directors are using for the play. Which Rees may be the most notable example of that style, but any similar example can serve the same encyclopedic function. Just because we reference one example of the realism doesnt mean we have to display a non-free picture of it, when a freely licensed image of a similarly realistic image could serve the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that no, it isn't being used to illustrate "realistic stage techniques", or "various Titus Andronicus interpretations", it is being used to illustrate a particularly controversial staging. That's why we have sections in articles, so that we might go into detail on the various aspects of a 400-year-old (or brand new, as far as that goes)play. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * God Lord, I wasn't expecting to have to read this much material when I got home. Apologies that I can't be online more often, but I only really get the chance to participate when I get home from work in the evenings. So having read everything above, my original position remains unchanged, and I see little point in repeating what I've already said, but I would like to address a couple of issues which have been raised. I agree with what Wrad says about communicating. This also leads into a point Hzh makes. Werith is wrong when he says "this isn't a visual work." That's exactly what it is. Titus Andronicus is not a book - it's a play. It wasn't written to be read, it was written to be seen. That's one of the first things you teach students of drama. I remember the first plays I studied in college were Sophocles' Theban plays, and the lecturer used a performance video during her classes, especially when she was talking about how violent the blinding scene can be. Hzh's point about different opinions as to what constitutes a "realistic" production is also important. Different people can get different ideas in their head when you utilise terms such as "realistic approach" and (especially) "stylised approach," so using extreme examples of each is a good way of grounding the discussion. And I think Tom is also correct when he says you could apply Kww's reasoning to 90% of the images on Wikipedia. With the exception of perhaps illustrative diagrams and the like on scientific articles, pretty much every single image on the website (free or non-free) could theoretically be replaced with prose. As regards Hzh's question about placing the images side by side. I think that would be difficult as they are in different sections in the article, but text could certainly be added to directly contrast the productions, and with a bit of digging, I'm sure reviews could be found which do the same. That wouldn't be a problem. Bertaut (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could apply my logic to a lot of images on Wikipedia. It's not applicable to free images, though, only copyrighted ones. That's why outside of the identification uses (logos, album covers, single covers, and book covers used in articles about the respective products or companies, albums, singles, and books), non-free images rarely survive deletion review. It's rarely necessary to use copyrighted images to illustrate concepts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those two images aren't specifically for illustrating concepts only, but they are used to illustrate particular pieces of work that are the subjects of critical commentary and discussion. That is generally permissable per WP:NFCI, no different from the screenshot as described in #5 and visual art in #7. Hzh (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could possibly be persuaded with the Ninagawa image, but not the Rees. Nothing about the NFCI criteria overrides NFCC#8, and the Rees image doesn't pass NFCC#8.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I go back to my earlier point that if there was a way to use both the Rees and Ninagawa on the same line - supported by critical discussion - to compare and contrast modern stage productions's use of visuals, you'd have a stronger reason to keep Rees, but I would edge on it being very borderline (the Rees image) in standalone as it is, even with the text about that play itself. --M ASEM (t) 13:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So if we don't like the we just keep nominating an image until we get the result we want? Just like some editors, the side with the most persistence wins. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop mis-representing things. You are referencing Files_for_deletion/2011_April_9 which is a poorly done FfD, not a Non-free content review. Also note the FfD is two years old. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're indeed correct. I'm no expert on deletion procedure. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So Masem, just so I'm clear, you're saying essentially the same thing as Hzh - move the images closer together and include some kind of critical commentary directly contrasting the productions? That can certainly be done. As regards academic work, one would, unfortunately, be quite limited in what one has to chose from. The only scholarly edition of Titus published post-2006 is the Cambridge Shakespeare edition by Alan Hughes, but that was only a 2nd edition and contains nothing on either production. The other main source would be the second edition of Manchester University Press' superb 1980s Shakespeare in Performance Series. The Titus book, by Michael D. Friedman, was only published in July of this year, and I haven't seen it yet, but it is interesting to note that one of the chapters is actually called "Yukio Ninagawa, Bill Alexander, Gale Edwards, Richard Rose, and Lucy Bailey". So there'd certainly be material there. The original In Performance series was excellent, and the Titus book by Alan C. Dessen is considered the definitive source for material up to that time period. However, what would be more readily available would be professional journalistic material of the time. The productons took place within a couple of months of one another on two of the most significant Shakespearian stages in the world, so reviews of the time would certainly compare them. And it wouldn't be hard to locate such reviews. The bottom line is what you're suggesting could certainly be done. Bertaut (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would help a lot; I obviously can't judge without seeing the results but my first take is that it is a much better situation than the present towards better justifying both images. --M ASEM (t) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just done a very very quick search on JSTOR and found reviews in The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator, The Independent and The New York Times all contrasting the productions, as well as a 2013 essay in Early Modern Literary Studies focused entirely on the contrast between the depiction of the rape scene in the two plays; "Mythological reconfigurations on the contemporary stage: Giving a New Voice to Philomela in Titus Andronicus." Bertaut (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly the type of sourcing that would drastically help with the non-free imagery. I would suggest we hold off on these two images until Bertaut + others have had a chance to work those in. --M ASEM (t) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the proposed text is sufficiently to understand what's going on, and that a non-free image won't significantly enhance that understanding of what "with her stumps crudely bandaged, and raw flesh visible beneath", and how that is contrasted with red ribbons. The article sure looks better with the pictures in it, but looking better is not a good argument for using non-free content. 77.241.234.180 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Right so, all done. Moved the Ninagawa paragraph from the "Adaptations" section into the "Performance" section, so the images are now right beside one another, and added a paragraph of journalistic and academic material discussing the two productions. Bertaut (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's still nothing about the topic that is difficult to understand with respect to the image of Rees. Ninagawa comes closer. I would still argue that it's not necessary to understand that particular depiction in order to understand Titus Andronicus, but I also recognize that that's not a clear-cut issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


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

History of painting

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

I don't see the justification for 46 fair use images in 1 article. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the current state of this article, I do know there have been issues with this article and image use before and there's general agreement that some non-free examples are appropriate but they have to be discussed as prime examples of contemporary art. --M ASEM (t) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has too many unfree images. However, I think that we need to split this up on multiple discussions as the discussion otherwise risks being too messy. It might work to have one discussion per section as all images are specifically related to one section.
 * I also think that the article contains too many free images. It is very painful to read the article on a small screen. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, outside the NFC issue, the huge number of images is a problem for viewers on the low bandwidth/small device side. Since each section is basically a summary of the article under the leading "main" link, there definitely could be a cut-back in the number of images overall, working that if more examples are wanted by the viewer, they can clickthrough to the article, or even a Commons image category. --M ASEM (t) 21:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Customizing a major survey article so that it will read well on a mobile phone screen seems a bit Procrustean to me, especially since tablets are becoming the most common device used to access the Internet. The most important priorities for an encyclopedia article is that it be accurate and comprehensive. I took several art history classes at university and we looked at literally hundreds of slides of paintings and sculptures. Is there some way to code images so that they wouldn't show up in the en.m.wikipedia.org mode? Or, since WP articles show up with section links on mobile phones, perhaps the great majority of the images could be placed in galleries so that the text and the images would be in separate sections. Either would be a better solution than denuding the article of most of its images, because any article on the history of painting with few images would be third-rate coming out of the chute. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except we're not an education institution, we're a tertiary source; showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article. We still consider size limitations - not just reading area size but bandwidth (particularly as many mobile plans have capped data limits). Remember, we're not saying that to outright remove the images, just better use sub-articles on the individual eras where putting a single 30-some image gallery makes sense, than to have 5-8 30-image galleries on one page. --M ASEM (t) 03:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "showing lots of pictures in a textbook make sense, but not in an encyclopedia article." Huh? You might want to take down volume 25 of Encyclopædia Britanicca (another tertiary source) and thumb through the article "Painting, The History of Western" if you think it doesn't make sense that encyclopedia articles use lots of pictures.
 * And EB was never known for spending money when they could get something for free, a tradition they hold dear to this day, and all the copyrighted images (lots more than a paltry 46) include acknowledgements for permission to publish, a methodology WP editors could profitably imitate, thereby rendering most of these discussions moot.
 * Good luck on finding all those editors to rewrite the sub-articles so we can accommodate the literally dozens, I'm sure, of those people with low-data phone plans who now are unable to slake their curiosity while driving down the road. I did not know that our original vision had been revised; I must have missed Jimmy Wales' announcement:
 * "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the amount of human knowledge that can be reasonably accommodated on a cell phone with a low data plan. That’s what we're doing." Tom Reedy (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All the sub articles are already there - all those "main article" and "see also" links. And using lots of pictures harms our chances to meet that quote, because that is overhead on data plans.  This is why you have to understand, we are not paper - this means we can cover more, but our presentation is going to be far different from normal printed works too. --M ASEM  (t) 04:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't click on the link, did you? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that Wales has no say outside of being another voice in contributions on en.wiki, what he says has no weight irregardless. en.wiki has accessibility requirements for articles to meet the broadest range of devices, and what's being asked is onyl to trim the excessive image use from one article, given that the other sub-articles all can support the respective galleries. We're not losing anything at all. --M ASEM (t) 05:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read the entire page out and its links, and we have no policies, guidelines, or even suggestions restricting the number of images that can accompany an article.

I think there needs to be a serious rethinking of image use policy. Is there a formal discussion going on anywhere that you know?

And just FYI:

1.WP:JIMBO

2. irregardless Tom Reedy (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:SIZE (particularly the section about technical reasons), and MOS:IMAGES (under Consideration of dl size) then if ACCESS doesn't convince you. No, nothing there says you can't flood an article with images but common sense is clear. If we aim to limit text to about about 100k of prose, we also need to keep image amounts to a reasonable level. Are we asking all pictures to be stripped from History? Heck no, but really, you don't need those galleries - one or two images in each major section - with the associated links to the various periods and schools that already exist - would do the same job. Again, this is why we aren't paper - a paper encyclopedia could make one nice long article with all these images, no question, but we have to serve that content in chunks that are better suited for the digital world. --M ASEM (t) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is why I asked if there were any way to limit the number of images that would be downloaded by a mobile device while leaving them in for a full-scale computer (though my phone has a much larger capability than my first computer did). I don't know if there is a list of articles by size, but I daresay the 100KB limit is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
 * Seriously, it's not 2001 any more, or even 2010, and I think a lot of WP policies need to be scrutinised in light of the major changes that have come about in the digital world since then. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Im using a new computer, and almost 400 images causes issues for me. Back in 2001 1-5 images was a lot, now 100 would be about the same. This article as almost 400. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Downloading problems are generally caused by bandwidth, not computers. I have an 11-year-old computer that downloads just as quickly as my brand new laptop. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Im on a 11 Mbps connection, which is fast so its not my connection. It takes a good 30-60 seconds to load the page, and causes the browser to temporarily hang. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: I'm running the low-end Verizon FIOS (15/5 Mbps) and it took a total of 8 seconds to load the entire page from the click. I'm on a Dell Inspiron 17 with an i3 chip and using Windows 8 and Firefox browser. 30-60 seconds? Something's wrong somewhere in your setup. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He said it was his computer, not bandwidth. I can attest that with even a fast gaming computer here running Windows 7, History of Painting takes a good half-minute to load all the images. And this is far higher than what we consider as the lowest common denominator for devices. Remember, we have to think about people in schools in Africa or the like, probably using donated or low cost computer that are 5+ years old. --M ASEM (t) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember, we're talking 100k of readable prose - this is after in-wiki markup like tables and citations - and then there is that conversion to HTML. I just checked History of Painting and the as-delivered HTML is 608k, from 118k of prose (see this tool). That dosn't include images; average thumbs are between 6 and 10kb, and take the 391 number below, and that's now 2.3M - a total of 3 M for an article. Consider that many people have data plans limited to 5 GB for mobile, you've just used 0.1% of their bandwidth for the month. --M ASEM (t) 15:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The points I'm bringing up are more general than this particular article, which is why I asked if any kind of discussion was going on about updating policies. I'm in the middle of a major project at the moment, but I'll keep a note on my back burner to pursue this once it's completed. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that es:Historia de la pintura is a much better article. There are much fewer images and usually not more than one per section. The article is more focused on the text, and it is easier to read through the article. Spanish Wikipedia doesn't host any local images, meaning that only free images from Commons can be shown, but this should only affect the "modern" sections; the sections about art from hundreds of years ago should be unaffected. For example, Spanish Wikipedia only shows one photo from the renaissance whereas English Wikipedia has 24 images in the section "Renaissance and Mannerism". --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the last section on modern schools and I disagree with you. Aesthetically the layout is more pleasing, but it's not a better article than the English language page. And with that, gentlemen, I'll leave it with you until my return. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And importantly, these galleries can be related to the individual articles (if not there already), so no effective content is lost. --M ASEM (t) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dropped in to see if a disposition had been reached and thought of a few more comments, and then I'll leave it with you:
 * There are a total of 391 images on that page. Werieth (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an important article - and images need to be seen. There are important images from antiquity through the early 21st century and an article on the visual arts is visual. In my opinion the english wp article is far superior to the similar art historical articles in other languages; we should be proud of what we have...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But the same picture galleries can be shown on the separate school/period articles without running against WP's accessibility size issues. Again, its not stripping all images or removing from WP, but realizing that you can't have 391 images in a single article (free or otherwise) without burdening the end user. --M ASEM (t) 21:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested to me in the past - to break it down into periods; or to subdivide into separate articles/ the 20th century and the 21st century are clearly the most difficult to do for a number of reasons. Not only the imagery (many of which are unfree) but also because of historical significance which shifts as tastes change; and remains unclear and complex. In my opinion it's a great article that by necessity bends the rules but delivers the goods...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is already broken down by periods/schools, that's the thing - all those "main article" and "seealso" links. All that needs to be done, effectively, is remove the galleries and relocate them to these articles as necessary, leaving maybe about 30-50 images inline (as several are now) as a top level demonstration. You already have it set up nicely for summary style approach, and we're not asking for a rewrite here.  If one would consider an printed version, likely all those sub-articles would be part of the main article that would last for 30-40 printed pages, but a digital version of that is far too much bandwidth for something of that size. --M ASEM  (t) 05:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Several years ago re these issues regarding the History of painting I created and/or expanded History of Eastern art, Western painting, and 20th-century Western painting. However the History of painting article explores in depth painting from all over the world including works from Antiquity, Caves, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the European middle ages, the European Renaissance, modern Europe, Islam, Pakistan, Iran, Oceania, Australia, New Zealand, India, Africa, North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, the Philipines, China, Japan, Southeast Asia; et.al. both historical and contemporary works under one roof which is an enormously valuable asset to all and should be preserved...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And we're not telling you to dismantle the prose at any of those articles that you've spent time to develop - just relocate the image galleries to the respective subarticles. History of Painting - given how broad and deep the concept of painting goes - has to serve as a good high-level outline article, which it does now without editing any prose; in a printed version, it might serve as an exec summary/quick overview before each school is explored in detail in a single large monolithic article. WP can't support articles of such length in considering our lowest common denominator of viewing devices, and you've already done all the hard work in creating the smaller articles. You just don't need image galleries in the top-level article when they serve a much better job in the side articles. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The article is now ~200kb, 100 over the recommended page size. I know that Masem said above that the as-delivered HTML KB was in the 600s, but my page information says 122.03 KB. Why the difference in reading?

2. The article now is 200KB, and it has hovered between that and 195KB for 2 1/2 years now. In fact, in May 2010, 3 1/2 years ago (the bottom of the first page of edit history), it was 175KB, so why the urgency to cut down the images. Have any irate cell phone users or people with slow Internet connections been complaining? How about the technical people, are they complaining about the strain on the servers?

3. Last I checked, this is the non-free content forum, not the oversize article forum. The inciting post asked for justification for 46 fair use images in one article, such discussions being within the scope of this forum, but it has gotten sidetracked into areas outside the purview of this policy and become an exercise in administrative deletionism and rewriting the mission statement of Wikipedia (heavily ironic in my view given the editing histories I've been browsing lately). I see no discussion whatsoever about the rationale for the fair use images; presumably if they're all moved to another page they're fine. At least that's the message I'm getting from the discussion here, that the non-free is not the problem, the real problem is too much content in an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Spltting the galleries across the individual period/schools articles will include spreading the amount of non-free across those in the contemporary period, thus reducing the NFC issue too. Yes, the total image count (free + nonfree) is still a problem too, but the solution to fix both are integrated. We are definitely not talking about deletion as nearly all the non-frees being used have articles on the individual works, and moving the galleries to smaller articles can allow more room to discuss the importance of those works. --M ASEM  (t) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And as for page size, my 600k count was from copying the page source as a whole to a text editor to get the count there. I suspect the 200k you have is raw character count (ignoring HTML), as the raw prose count (that ignoring references, headers, and other non-prose sections) is just north of 100k. And the page size has always been a problem, but it is impossible to get the editors on that page to do anything about it since they think it is fine as is. --M ASEM  (t) 21:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've put the larger question about SIZE and number of images to VPP. As what might result will impact if we need to deal with the number of NFCC after that, I recommend closing this thread, opening it only if it is necessary pending that discussion. --M ASEM (t) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia - about education and conveying information - not I-Phone candy; this feels like censorship under another name. The article is a good one...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BULLSHIT. We are not trying to outright delete the images - we are trying to bring the article into conformity with the rest of WP policies on accessibility and non-free content. Every article has to meet that. What works great in textbooks and printed material simply can't work on WP. --M ASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're plain wrong. Clearly this is a major attempt at censorship; with an incorrect interpretation of the guidelines...Modernist (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what censorship is, then. Are we trying to prevent these pictures from being show at all, anywhere, on WP? Heck no. I've said before, all of them are notable pieces of art, and so a non-free image of them is perfectly fine on the article pages, as well in limited cases of artist pages. Some selected examples are perfectly fine in talking about modern schools of art. We just don't need or can support a large gallery of non-free images (or images in general) on a high-level outline article. --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well what censorship means. The article is important, educational and encyclopedic and stays as is - to the contrary of what this projects incorrect interpretations of guidelines dictate...Modernist (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you know what it is, then don't call something that's not censorship as "censorship", that's pretty much the equivalent of calling to Godwin's Law in terms of non-free policies. You cannot dictate how the article will appear, that is up to consensus (BTW: this is policy issues, not guidelines, so there's a stronger need to conform to the expected). And while I agree that it is pleasant to look at with the galleries, it will lose no education value or its importance (in considering there are dozens of side articles on specific periods and schools) if the galleries were simply removed, leaving everything else intact. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the context of writing about visual art, the suppression of visual content is censorship, because in the absence of the images, the text can convey little. Arguably, the images are more important than their accompanying text. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Censorship would be forbidding any text or images about visual art, period, from being on WP, anywhere. We are saying, on this one specific article, you can't have as many images as you currently you, but you can show them at several other locations on WP including on articles about the artist and the work itself. No information is being surpressed. The cries of censorship are bogus here. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


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

File:McCann right eye.jpg

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

File doesnt meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The section tells that she had a distinctive coloboma mark, and the image shows what that looks like. I think that the image is replaceable with Commons:Special:PrefixIndex/File:Coloboma. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However, we have a free image of a similar (not example) mark on that page, and as we are not a missing-child-tracking-service, it is unnecessary for us to show exactly what her mark looks like, particularly given that this image File:Madeleine_McCann,_aged_three_and_(age-progressed)_nine.jpg also shows the same mark (albeit not at that resolution) as well as fully identifying her. --M ASEM (t) 14:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant: the image violates WP:NFCC because similar images exist on Commons. Unrelated to this, I have nominated one of the Commons files for deletion, but this doesn't change anything with regard to File:McCann right eye.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Werieth doesn't say why the image doesn't meet the NFCC. It has been the subject of extensive commentary. It shows Madeleine's key distinguishing feature, and it isn't possible to describe this using words alone, so per Non-free content criteria, "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse. No one is harmed by the use of the image, and Wikipedia, its readers, and perhaps the family and police are helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It hurts WP's free content mission, and the current image used in the infobox clearly shows the eye deformity, so the image fails WP:NFCC, minimal use as duplicative of the infobox image. (Again, we are not a missing child finding service; it's great they want to have the photos widely distributed to locate their daughter, but that's not our job here) --M ASEM  (t) 16:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How does the image hurt Wikipedia's free-content mission? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The file is non-free. Werieth (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every piece of non-free harms the free mission, thus why minimization of non-free is first and foremost. And since we have an image already that shows the eye, we don't need a second one. --M ASEM (t) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If this image were in use on the coloboma article then the nomination would have some merit. However, the section is describing Madeleine and inparticular a distinctive feature of her face i.e. we are not interested in showing what a coloboma looks like, we are showing what her coloboma looks like. It meets the FU criteria: it is the subject of sourced commentary, not replaceable by a free image, and conveys visual information about Madeleine that cannot be described by text alone. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But again File:Madeleine McCann, aged three and (age-progressed) nine.jpg (which is of no question in its use in the article) also shows her coloboma feature, and thus this specific image is duplicative per WP:NFCC. --M ASEM (t) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can barely make out the mark in the infobox image. The purpose of the infobox image is to show her face not an eye defect, so it has been sized to that effect. To serve both purposes the infobox image would need to be much bigger, but the only part of the image that really needs to be at a higher resolution is her eye, which takes us back to where we are now. If we cut to the chase we have free content guidelines so Wikipedia won't be legally compromised, and no-one is going to sue the foundation over this image. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure you can see it, and even then, this would be a case where I would consider the original resolution (or something in between) to be appropriate to use to show this off while providing the image of the child and minimizing non-free use by using one image instead of two. And no, the free content guideline is not to prevent WP from being sued, but to maintain the free content mission. --M ASEM (t) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And to check, I just compared what I would crop to in that original image to match the crop of this image in question, and basically have the same end resolution (about 120x90 px) -- as such this solution would not lose any "high resolution" details of this eye crop image. --M ASEM (t) 22:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not about coloboma. The images in the coloboma set are nothing like hers, and their use in the disappearance article would not inform -- they might even mislead. The reduced image used in the infobox does not adequately inform. The article needs a focussed depiction of this specific feature of this specific face. A crop of the full-size version would serve (isn't that what the picture in question is?), but that is also copyright (of the McCanns). So I don't believe NFCC#1 and/or NFCC#3a are violated. The McCanns' permission could be asked, but I think this is already a fair use. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's a slightly different image (the hair is a bit darker). But note that I'm not talking about a crop of the face image - I'm saying that if you take the face (the photo + current day extrapolation), at the full size it was in the Telegraph article, then the resolution of the eye in that image is nearly-exactly the same as the resolution currently used for the current crop of the eye. So the only correct action is to reupload and adjust the justification of the comparison image, explaining that in addition to identification it is also highlighting her coloboma, and then delete this image. No crop of the eye would be appropriate since it is visible even at thumb size and then can be seen in detail if the reader clicks through. You cannot have both the identification picture and a crop of the eye as long as the infobox image clearly shows the coloboma (just not at high detail.) --M ASEM (t) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The apparent difference in hair colour is probably an artefact of the creation process. The image file for the eye picture refers to the Belfast Telegraph, but with duff links. You may like to compare the picture used by the Belfast Telegraph here with the one used by the Daily Telegraph. They are the same picture. Now, NFCC#3a includes the phrase "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Certainly, the existing reduced image in the infobox fails to do that. I argue that the full image also fails to do that: an image that draws attention to the eye as its only significant feature and an image of the whole face plus a speculative image of how she may now appear convey very different kinds of information. Few readers will know how to click through to the full-size version. I'm arguing essentially that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (to use the terms of NFCC#8). --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a crop from the same image, that's an outright failure of NFC; we don't use crops, we use larger images, and if that means that not only we use the larger size Telegraph image, but also increase the size of the image as used at the article to reduce non-free, that's the solution we take. Mind you, I storngly argue against how important an image solely of her coloboma is - it is clearly present on the thumb size, enough to establish that this is an identifying mark. That's all it is, like a birthmark or something similar. It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia, and we cannot justify a non-free image of her specific coloboma in an article about her and her disappearance, when that feature is clearly present in a separate image. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please could you show me where it says we are not to use crops? Because at WP:IUP, I find "A limited variety of edits (crops, rotation, flips) can be performed losslessly using jpegcrop (windows) or jpegtran (other); try to use this where possible." I suggest that the argument "It is a detail that would be important if we were a site that aimed to help find missing children, but we are an encyclopedia" is a strawman, because I have not argued (and nor has anyone else here) that we are here to help find missing children. But if you want to pronounce that "we cannot justify" something, let me ask you this: we are making an encyclopedia, which is a resource to educate people, right? Now why would anyone want to educate people about the disappearance of a 3-year-old-girl, or draw any attention to a 3-year-old girl? Morbid curiosity, or is there a better reason? If we can agree on that, then we might agree on what can be justified. And I'd also like to ask this: has anyone yet asked the McCanns, whose copyright the image on the left of the montage is, what they think of our use of it? --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A crop of an image already on the page is repeating an image which is against WP:NFCC. And with that current image used to identify the girl in the infobox, you've also identified her distinguishing mark so in terms of an encyclopedia article, one non-free image is all that is necessary and satisifies the minimization of non-free content. If the mark was something not obvious from her profile shot, like a unique birthmark under her hair or elsewhere on her body, and was the subject of discussion, that might be reason for using a close up of that mark, but we're talking about her eye which is clearly seen at thumbnail size in the profile image currently.
 * And again, the key here is that the image is non-free specifically because the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified, which fails the free media test for WP. This is an issue about meeting the Foundation's free content mission, not about any possible legal issues with the McCanns. If they did release the images for free completely, then there would be no argument about these. --M ASEM (t) 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "the McCanns want the images to be distributed freely but not modified": I wish you had said that at the outset. Have you a citation, please? --Stfg (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what SlimVirgin said above: "The copyright holders (the parents) made it available and want it to be widely distributed, so there are no legal issues for Wikipedia or anyone copying its content. The only reason they can't release it under a free licence is that they need to be able to take action against misuse." I have not checked on that verification, but I do think that is a reasonable reason on their side to not make it free. --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "need to be able to take action against misuse" is NOT the same as "but not modified". If you had provided evidence that they had said anything that would clearly forbid a crop, I'd have changed my !vote, but that is not a fair representation. I've had my say and have paid careful attention to what you've said, but if you're going to misrepresent things, I'm done debating with you and my !vote remains as strong keep. Of course I understand that the law and Wikipedia policy trump all our !votes, but you have failed to convince me. Closer: if I fail to make any further replies, please don't apply "silence implies consent". In my case, it doesn't. --Stfg (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not what I trying to say (my bad on the confusion). There is nothing in their language that prevents us from making a crop, attributed to the original image, so no, that's not why I'm saying we can't use the crop; that is strictly coming from our NFCC language and specifically WP:NFCC. (The reason I need to bring up what the McCann's said is that regardless of how widely distributed they want these images, they fail to be free images under Foundation's definition due to the inability for end-user modification - that is, this is not a legal issue with the McCann's copyright or potential for abuse, but trying to maintain our free content mission.  We are able to use one non-free image instead of two simply by using the higher-res profile shot; since that minimizes non-free, that's the route we are required to take. --M ASEM  (t) 17:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. I have never disputed the picture's non-free status. We disagree on the question of fair use and on your reading of what NFCC requires. My view hasn't changed, but I shall now stand aside for others to have their say, and defer to the closer. --Stfg (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I didn't say the McCanns want the image to be reproduced but not modified (clearly, by cropping it, it has been modified). I said that I assume they can't release it under a free licence in case it is ever misused. The family has been pestered by Internet trolls for five years, and they might want to retain legal control of images for that reason. Having said that, the image has been published widely by friend and foe, including on a book cover by someone who has accused them of involvement in her death. They are suing the author for defamation, but have made no attempt to have the cover changed that I know of. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per Slim Virgin. --evrik (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The characteristic eye mark is clearly visible in the infobox image, and makes this image duplicate, so SV's reasoning is a non-start. --M ASEM (t) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Project.net Logo.gif

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

PD-textlogo? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 03:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Looks like a U.S. product, so yes, PD-textlogoTrademarkedMove to Commons. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sola FK.gif

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

PD-textlogo? or maybe PD-ineligible-USonly|Norway ? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 03:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is definitely PD-textlogo in English Wikipedia. If you wish to move it to Commons, check the laws of the country of origin too. If you are sure it isn't eligible for Commons, consider adding Do not move to Commons to it. I advise against using PD-ineligible-USonly because it lacks text about logos and their use restriction. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:CensoredRogerRabbit.jpg

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

This is the later edition of the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit? Is this image necessary? George Ho (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There might be a possibility of using the second cover, but there first needs to be sourced discussion, which I believe specifically would be about how they decided to edge off the darkness of the cover after the family-friendly movie was released. I thought I've read that but I have no idea where to find that, but that would support the second cover. But as the article is, no, that second cover fails. --M ASEM (t) 02:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Charlottenlund SK.gif

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

PD-textlogo? or maybe PD-ineligible-USonly|Norway ? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 03:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is definitely PD-textlogo in English Wikipedia. If you wish to move it to Commons, check the laws of the country of origin too. If you are sure it isn't eligible for Commons, consider adding Do not move to Commons to it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Heming IL.gif

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

Is font below the threshold of originality? if so, PD-ineligible-USonly|Norway ? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 03:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is definitely PD-textlogo. Rendered typefaces and calligraphy aren't copyright-eligible in U.S. If you want to move it to Commons, please check the laws of the country of origin too. (Norway?) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Georgiacancercoalition190.png

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

Is this PD-textlogo? or are the interlocking "c" s too much? -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PD-textlogo. The Copyright Office refused to register a design where a circle and two lines were included in a "U", ; I don't see how interlocking C's are a problem.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 23:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the copyright office did approve the registration of text surrounded by a border, see http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf – this one is debatable. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


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

History of British film certificates

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

There are 20 files listed as non-free but do any of them actually meet TOO in order to by copyrighted? Werieth (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that the UK employs a lower efforts for consideration of originality, logos like File:BBFC 12.svg which would probably be PD-textonly in the US fail the UK's TOO test. In light of that, I have to wonder if the # of nonfrees can be reduced by using montage images created by the group (eg the most modern ones are nicely groupped here :); this would necessitate a change in how the tables are presented but would allow them to show all the non-free logos. --M ASEM  (t) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO many of these files should be converted to use instead of a non-free license. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, we may consider them non-free regardless. The fact that they are ineligible in the US doesn't prompt us to remove rationales. George Ho (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true. If they are free in the US, than we don't need rationales at all. See for examples. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You know what? We'll deal with general matters later, like RFC or Village Pump or Non-free Content talkpage. In the meantime, probably we should not treat US as the center of universe (or the sufficient amount of determining the copyright status) for these images. George Ho (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the English Wikipedia only the copyright laws of the United States apply, and because they are too simple in the US, therefore these files are free. Free files, however, doesn't need non-free rationales. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

From WP:copyrights, "Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States." Shall we ignore what it says? George Ho (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just Jimbo's opinion and I don't see how it applies in this case, as the United States has copyright relations with the United Kingdom. That's more or less just an advice for consideration for countries like Iran. Therefore image tags like PD-ineligible-USonly, FoP-USonly (Kept at TFD 2012 May 22) or PD-US-1923-abroad can be used and every file, which uses them is free. There is no reason to treat these files as non-free without a consensus to the contrary. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is that Wikipedia content should be free to use only in the United States but illegal to use anywhere else (i.e. Wikipedia should not be free content). This position is for example explained in the second section of Non-U.S. copyrights.
 * The pre-1989 ones seem to be too simple for copyright protection in the United States. It is dubious whether the other ones are sufficiently simple, so it seems better to treat them as unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Route 66 intro title card pilot episode.jpg

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

Is the logo of this image free from copyright? If so, is this image replaceable by free logo? --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As this aired in 1960 for the first time, it was originally copyrighted for 28 years, extended to 75 years in 1976, which means it is copyrighted until at least 2035. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all logos alone without copyright background meet threshold of originality. I'm asking you whether the logo alone is too original to be free or too simple to be copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comparing this with the response from the United States copyright office where they refused to register File:DUB Magazine Logo.jpg I assume they would refuse registering it as well because of a lack of sufficient amount of original creative and artistic authorship and would deem the difference between plain typefaces (without the outer marks) and this logo de minimis. As such, I think it could be uploaded as free because of not meeting the threshold of originality for copyright protection. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that the logo is confirmed as "free", can the free logo itself replace the non-free screenshot with the Chevy convertible behind the logo? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that that the image of the car in the title card screen is the subject of significant discussion. (That is, the example that I would use is that even if the text for "Cheers" was free, the use the the text over the colorized old photos is an iconic part of that show's reception, so it would be improper to replace it with a free equivalent. However, for other shows where the intro sequence doesn't have that, and the title card can be recreated in a free manner, then yes, replacement should be done). --M ASEM  (t) 21:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a point at WP:NFCI for such uses of title cards? Without that point, the use is a violation of WP:NFCC#8. I know we have such uses for other shows as well. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what NFCI is for. NFCI is for cases that are very common cases where there's little issue about NFC being appropriate (typically short-circuiting NFCC#8 issues) - but images still must meet NFCC to be used. NFCI makes no attempt to exhaust all allowable image uses, so just because the case is not listed at NFCI doesn't mean the use is involved - as long as all 10 points of NFCC are otherwise met. --M ASEM  (t) 05:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NFCC#8 is certainly not met for the use in the infobox in Route 66 (TV series), so the image should be removed from that article. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  13:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Practically speaking ,only until recently have we considered and found reasonable consensus that non-free TV show infobox title cards that which primarily consist of the show's text-only logo (PD-textlogo 99% of the time) over random live images from the show can be replaced with a freely-made/licensed SVG of the show's logo, barring any sourced discussion about the title credits otherwise (aka the Cheers case). Thus yes, cases like Route 66 should be replcaed, though by NFCC#1 and not NFCC#8. (The title card is being used to help identify the show, just as we would use a movie poster or the like, implicitly showing branding and the like. However, this can be done in the same manner with the free SVG logo version, hence why a NFCC#1 issue). --M ASEM  (t) 14:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we should replace title cards such as File:TNGopeninglogo.png with a version with a transparent or monochrome background, or am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't that also reduce the amount of implicit marketing and branding the title card carries and as such probably weaken the strength of visual identification imparted by the image? --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is just a string of text over a star-field. It would be possible to make a freely-licensable SVG of the text logo that would do the same job, since there's nothing "unique" about the starfield aspect. A thing about title cards - like most other TV episodes, is rarely a show provides a single static image that they frame as the representative image, hence why in general we don't automatically allow screencaps of TV episodes as the identifying image since that's subject to interpretation to the editors involved; same would apply here. The only static part is the logo and that's fair to consider the branding and marketing. Of course, if the credit sequence is of discussion, like the Cheers example, then we should use the title card to try to minimize non-free use. --M ASEM (t) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


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

Licensed to Kill (1965 film)

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

This article has two posters in it. Are two really needed?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One is U.S. and one is U.K. I think they add to the article. --evrik (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't do this for any other film - we use the film poster of the country of first release (generally). Unless the second poster is the subsequent of significant discussion, we don't include these at all. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Lois Lane

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

I cannot see justification for 10 non-free files Werieth (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of those there: I can only see reasonable justification for: the current infobox image, one of the comic covers (while she has subtly difference appearances in the storylines, they aren't significant), the Modern Age character, and the animated series frame. One might be able to justify the Kidder version too (given she played that through four films), but the subsequent live actions versions aren't appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 00:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced live-action images with free photos. George Ho (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:1927 George Hicks.jpg

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

Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC in Woolwich East (UK Parliament constituency). Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:1928 William Craven Ellis.jpg

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

Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC in Barnsley (UK Parliament constituency). Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:1928 Archibald Williamson.jpg

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

Violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC in Moray and Nairn (UK Parliament constituency). Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Julie London, Rory Calhoun, and Allene Roberts filming The Red House (1947)..jpg
<div class="boilerplate" 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.

If this poster is copyrighted, then it fails WP:NFCC as the film isn't copyrighted; see The Red House (film). Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Allene Roberts (Publicity Still, 1947).jpg


 * Agreed, the film appears to be in the PD, so any copyrighted media from the film (which this poster could be since the photograph copyright would be different from the studio copyright) should be replaced. --M ASEM (t) 18:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we also talking about File:Redhouseposter.jpg? Or do you just mean the other publicity stills when you say "poster"? While the film itself is PD, and therefore we can reasonably replace just about anything involving the actors themselves with a film screenshot, I think there's something special about film posters that just isn't replaceable in the same way. Also... any chance that copyrights of the film poster or publicity stills weren't renewed either? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that the film wasn't renewed, it is very possible that the other material wasn't renewed either. A poster made specifically for the film was probably not renewed. However, we don't know where this material comes from (it looks more like a promotional photo) or where it was first published. If it was published in a magazine which was renewed, then maybe it would be covered by the magazine's renewal. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough as far as the publicity shots are concerned. I sure wish there were a more convenient way to verify the copyright of the poster though. Do you know what the deadline for registration/renewal was in the relevant period? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


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

Hercule Poirot
<div class="boilerplate" 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.

There seem to be too many non-free pictures of Hercule Poirot on this page. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of the four there, the last one (from Case Closed) even isn't discussed in prose and thus should be removed immediately. The two with Finney and Ustanov are likely unneeded, though if the reception on Finney's version was expanded (given he was nominated for an Oscar, you'd think there would be more to talk about), then I could see that being used. You'd definitely need a lot more for the Ustanov version. --M ASEM (t) 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, guys. My assessment is a stronger version of Masem's. The last one needs to be promptly removed. Finney's version also needs to be removed as it loses its WP:NFCC credibility to its WP:GEVAL issue. However, Albert Finney article needs a photo. The Ustanov image, however, draws NFCC#8 credibility from the fact that it prevents the article from becoming David Suchet-centric, a WP:NPOV issue. So, I say: Definitely let it stay.


 * I must warn you that the area concerning Agatha Christie and her creations is riddled with WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO issues: Blurbs are copied ad-hoc, statements like "escaped justice that way" are seen a lot, character names are changed on the unsupported assumption that they'd change after an assumed marriage, etc. One's time is better spent fixing these issues than bothering the images.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


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

More edit-warring by Werieth at MAHLE Powertrain
<div class="boilerplate" 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.

As is his only pattern of editing here, Werieth has blanked all NFC images from the article at MAHLE Powertrain. This time with the summary "files are replaceable". The FURs were updated to note why they weren't replaceable (This is not an engine, it is a render of a design for an engine. The render model is MAHLE's, it is not available outside MAHLE for others to "take a picture of") and the removal undone. Werieth then proceeded to revert and issued a template warning for uploading copyrighted files (upload?). This was followed up by a threat of being topic banned. Also the suggestion that "any mechanic can pull an engine and take a free photo", indicating that he still (even after the FUR) wasn't aware that these weren't even physical engines. Someone who is ignorant as to what an image is and how it was created, but is still happy to threaten other editors when pontificating about their need for deletion.

These images may or may not met NFCC. I'm happy for editors to discuss this and to follow such consensus, as is our practice. However I'm tired of Werieth's blanket actions and edit warring (for which he has already been warned repeatedly). I particularly resent being threatened with topic bans by someone busy playing mall cop. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * He has since blanked 2/3rd of the article, alleging an (unsourced) copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the phraseology (usage of terms like our) and the tone of the content I removed it as excessive, advert like, and probably copied from somewhere else. The files where removed as an obvious violation of NFCC. you reverted without any edit summary, given your history in the last case that was brought here, and your failure to accept policy I thought warning you about and then possibly seeking a NFCC topic ban for you was appropriate if you continue to fail to understand policy. Werieth (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS that article needs significantly better sourcing, right now they are primarily sourcing from their own website/information. Werieth (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Filling in a detail because not everyone may be aware of it Non-free_content review/Archive 38 a case where it was a textbook violation that Andy refused to address. Werieth (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the engines have been produced and available somewhere in the public, then non-frees may not be used. If they are engine renders of potential products, then significant aspects of the future model, including discussion of the importance of these features and where they are on the engine render, must be described, or otherwise the picture fails NFCC#8. None of the images prior to Werieth's removal met that, so he's completely allows to strip the article of them, particularly those that fail NFCC#1. (Though, Werieth has been warned not to edit war over those removals if there's any subjectivity to them) --M ASEM (t) 22:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Bringing a mud slinging title to this thread is inappropriate. Restoring the images without discussing the restoration was inappropriate. Andy, you are way, way out of line here. I think an NFCC ban would be highly appropriate if you step over the line again. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What no further baseless, policy incorrect, or personal attack statements? Werieth (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sensorites.jpg
<div class="boilerplate" 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.

Fails WP:NFCC. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest 2 talk 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if the image was the face of the alien creatures, rather than the back of its head, there would be better reason to allow it. This one , however, clearly fails. --M ASEM (t) 17:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sebanner white.png
<div class="boilerplate" 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 looks to me like a PD-textlogo. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 14:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The whitespace effect is too simple for copyright (Within the US at least). --M ASEM (t) 14:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems that the logo meets the criteria for being an acceptable use on Wikipedia:
 * "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image.
 * The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution.
 * The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Suburban Express, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
 * Because it is a non-free logo there is almost certainly no free repesentation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary."
 * Therefore, I oppose file deletion. N2e (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No one is proposing file deletion. It is being proposed that the logo is ineligible for copyright due to not meeting the threshold of originality. The question there is whether we should reclassify it as free rather than nonfree content, not delete it. I support the reclassification, the "line through" effect is a far simpler text effect than others held not to meet TOO. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I have no problem whatsoever with reclassification of the image. I probably, however, don't have sufficient knowledge to opine on which classification of the image is most correct.  N2e (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Peter Capaldi's début cameo as the Twelfth Doctor in The Day of the Doctor.png
<div class="boilerplate" 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.

Non-free content. And not justifiable. You can adequately say "Capaldi appears but only his eyes and forehead", without an image. Indeed we've got a free shot of him on the Twelfth Doctor article. In actual fact, this is being used in an infobox and not for discussion of the image anyway. Clear fail. Scott Mac 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with deletion. This shows none of his character; to me it just look like a unfree photo of Peter and not a character. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest 2 talk 00:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree too. --M ASEM (t) 00:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree as well.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 13:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, as this is the only usage of this file, and the desired result is deletion, this should be nominated for FFD and this report closed (once that is done). --M ASEM (t) 00:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what that means. If there's a consensus that it doesn't meet the criteria, and this is the only use, then we delete it. No need to close this discussion just to open another one somewhere.--Scott Mac 02:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Files For Deletion is meant when admin action will be required (deletion of the image), while here it is not necessary expected (typically in the case of too many images on a page or the like) and allowed discussions to be closed by non-admins. --M ASEM  (t) 03:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an admin. I could/can delete it myself - but I wanted some input first.--Scott Mac 14:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Columbine High School massacre
<div class="boilerplate" 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 don't think the image of the guy going out of a window satisfies WP:NFCC. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest 2 talk 00:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - and I'm surprised that the article is not using the more iconic image of the monochrome shot of the two students in the middle of the event, which would clearly pass NFCC. --M ASEM (t) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That image was in the article a few weeks ago but was deleted for lacking a FUR. I'll re-add it, with an appropriate one.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was at File:Columbine Shooting Security Camera.jpg. Actually, the deletion rationale was that it failed NFCC#8. It doesn't appear there was any discussion, however.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at its deleted history, it was tagged by Diannaa for failing NFCC #1, 8, and 10c (but there was a rationale, only with "massacre" spelled wrong on the 10c side), and then it was deleted under an F7 claim by Nthep stating NFCC#8, which is absolutely wrong; CSD cannot be used delete subjective statements.  If anything, if Diannaa wanted the image to be deleted under #8, FFD was the way to go.  As such, I'm restoring it, and dropping a note to Nthep that that action was completely wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 15:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


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