Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/AMSat, 20 Dec 2008 08:15:11 +00002008-12-20T08:15:11+00:000815vUTC 39

Unacceptable use images #4
Lost in the previous discussion above was my suggestion to NOT use Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima as the example for WP:NFC images #4 ("An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war") because that case specifically contradicts #5 ("An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article" and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is its own article). Is there any opposition to replacing that with Six-Day War?  howcheng  {chat} 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me. I don't believe the image is being used in an appropriate way on Six-Day War.  It is primarily being used to illustrate the whole article, rather than to illustrate a discussion of the image.  I also don't believe the image is significant enough to deserve its own section in that article.  Whilst iconic, there were also other iconic images of the Six-Day War, and editors on the page (rightly in my opinion) judged a specific section on the image would be WP:UNDUE.
 * Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a good example of acceptable use because it is a page specifically commenting on the image -- the point the section is trying to make.
 * Whether or not other pages can or can't talk about that image is irrelevant - they are not being cited; only this specific page is being okayed. Jheald (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think there's a disconnect here, because when I see read this, it seems to OK the use of Raising the Flag in other articles.  howcheng  {chat} 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should add the words "the article" then, to make it absolutely clear that it is the article that is being cited as an example, not a blank cheque for the image. Jheald (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work. The example reads, "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war" (emphasis mine). In other words, using Raising the Flag is prohibited in the Battle of Iwo Jima article (as we were discussing above). Maybe you can find a better example than Paratroopers at the Western Wall ... an image from a war that is famous in its own right, but that doesn't have its own article, and thus can be used in the war article.  howcheng  {chat} 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the section isn't saying the "Raising the Flag" image is okay for Battle of Iwo Jima; it's saying it's okay for Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I don't understand why that's not sufficient. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what I suggest:
 * Unacceptable use #4: An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war and the image is being used in an article or section of an article specifically analysing the image's historical importance or iconic status (e.g. the article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima).
 * Does that work for you? Jheald (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what you had proposed above, right? It works for me.  howcheng  {chat} 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this wording that excludes the use of the image on Battle of Iwo Jima. However, such agreement is pointless since if you try to change to this wording, someone will revert you faster than you can say "free enyclopedia". CIreland (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "An article about the war" to me means any article related to that war, however tangential.  howcheng  {chat} 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose the whole idea, which is a blatent example of policy creep; the "beautifully crafted" (Hammersoft tells us above) guideline says non-free images must be used in a minimum of one article. If it had meant a maximum of onme it would have sais so. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind helping out with putting album covers onto discographies? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, what? Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about two different things here? This guideline says nothing about non-free images being used in a minimum number of articles. I'm just trying to clarify the language used in this example, because I read it completely differently than Jheald did.  howcheng  {chat} 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC #7, which is reproduced in this one. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All that means is that we don't retain nonfree images when they are not currently in use for an article. It certainly does not mean we should splatter them as widely as possible, it simply means we're not a webhost and aren't going to keep around nonfree content when it's not in use. It takes exceptional circumstances to justify a nonfree image in more than one article, in almost all cases a link to the main article with the image suffices. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In many cases it suffices unfortunately only for an impaired encyclopedia and less informative articles.  Ty  15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A free content encyclopedia is not an impaired encyclopedia. Rather the opposite. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not impaired as far as re-use is concerned (actually it is, because GFDL terms have to be adhered to which are cumbersome), but it is impaired as far as content is concerned in important areas, when draconian interpretation of minimal is applied. Minimal needs to be minimal to present content of world class standard according to normal expectations in the particular discipline.  Ty  05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most Wikimedia projects get by just fine with no non-free content at all; of the minority that allow it, most of those are still more restrictive than us. CIreland (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)