Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 36

FAQ? Fair use of text
This is probably frequently asked, but my Google skills did not fish it out of the archives:

Since the guideline deliberately says brief quotations of text without specifying a length, could you direct me to examples of articles that have wide consensus of application of this principle, so that I can gain some understanding to judge whether quotations I see are brief or extensive, and meet the NFCC? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really not that simple - that is, there's no magic word count. The extent to which a source can be quoted depends on factors like the amount of text dedicated to analyzing it, its relevance to the article, and the verbosity of the language in the original quote. A good rule of thumb is "if you can take something out with no loss of article quality, go ahead and do it." Dcoetzee 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! You've encountered the huge grey area of fair-use law.  What constitutes "brief" in fair-use law is highly context-sensitive.  There has been a case where a review quoting two sentences from a 250-page novel was ruled "too much" (those two sentences revealed the twist ending), and a case where quoting an entire work was ruled "fair use", because the original work was embedded in scholarly analysis ten times as long.  Most of the time, "brief" falls somewhere between the two extremes. --Carnildo (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew there is no magic word count. Though I was quite surprised to read that for an audio narration, the magic word count is zero.
 * I take it you are talking about US federal court cases Carnildo. That range is quite startling, and it seems an abuse of copyright law to sue someone for a spoiler, but the judge thought differently!  (I often work with editors in the UK, and they cannot upload fair use to Wikipedia, only fair dealing.)  Are there examples of debates on Wikipedia (that of course never went to court) that I can refer to?
 * However from what Dcoetzee has said, though the quotes I am thinking of are wholly relevant to the article, we might need to beef up the text analyzing it to strengthen the case, and we will usually be OK with 2 sentences.
 * Are song lyrics treated any differently from prose?
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To complicate matters, what about quotations from the Associated Press? Under the license fee scheme they've announced, they want payment for reuse of any quotation longer than four words. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing they're not in charge of fair use policy. :-) — xDanielx  T/C\R 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell/Intro
We need one for this page. Discuss. ViperSnake151 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Album art for illustrating discographies is a valid fairuse
Sorry, but I removed those incorrect assertions. No free image will ever exist, thus it is useful. Section 8 does not apply, since album art is significant for the album entry. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are incorrect - album art in an article about the album is generally ok, but album art in a discography (eg: list of recordings/albums/discs) is not.. the same applies to images of most fictional characters in lists of characters, and screenshots in lists of episodes.. -- Versa geek  02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take some more time and re-read the policy as you dont appear to understand what you removed, that did not prevent the usage of album covers in relation to the article about the album. it was in relation to mass usage of images that provide little if any significant additional meaning to an article in order to make it visually attractive. non-free content in discographies fail WP:NFCC. βcommand 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Versageek - recommend reading back through the talk archives for the previous discussions. However, if conditions have somehow changed requiring a new consensus, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. Kelly  hi! 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will retract my statement, as I misunderstood the purpose of that example. I just saw some album art speedy'd today and was suspicious, the message pointed to that example. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Point 8 of Non-free content criteria
It seems to me that point 8 (regarding the significance of an image) is incredibly vague and open to interpretation on a massive scale. I have seen this numerous times within the Doctor Who wikiproject (Talk:Forest of the Dead and the Talk:The Stolen Earth immediately spring to mind, but there are many others), where users see fit to remove (often without discussion) infobox images on the basis that it doesn't significantly improve understanding of the episode. When would "some" increase in understanding become "significant"? I would imagine this problem arises across Wikipedia also. I would be in favour of this point being revised to make it more specific, or even removed altogether. U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is that it has to either represent the subject of the article, or if not that case, be critically discussed in the article. ViperSnake151 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A single image for identification realistically passes #8 on its own. Wily D  15:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) :While I do not favor a removal of the criteria, as it was envisioned to prevent contributors from decorating articles like Christmas trees, I do think that a bit of firming up of the language could be exceptionally helpful. It is currently being interpreted in such a way that no articles of episodic content can reasonably expect to have an image in it, as a fairly dedicated cadre of editors routinely nominate any images from such fro removal - on basic principle. I have spoken to at least three of the nominators, who all intimate (or outright declare) that image placement in any episodic articles is decorative. Such a predisposition skews IfD discussions from a proper examination, where each image is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While many images in IfD do indeed fail numerous criteria, the continued presence in IfD of a group of editors interpreting (to my reckoning, incorrectly so) the vague language of NFC#8 prevents an honest evaluation of the image, outnumbering not just advocates of the image but the undecided as well. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ViperSnake, the problem I think that is being described is that interpretations arising out of the ambiguity of #8's wording. Without a better wording, my interpretation is as valid as yours. If there is a more solid definition, then interpretations tend to be more in line with one another. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles are all seperate works, with seperate authorship and all. Usage needs to be examined on an article by article basis. Wily D  18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I am against blanket removal of images and especially users who have created accounts specifically to do just this (Pushing a hidden agenda) such as User:CopyrightDrone and User:BKNFCC. Hmmm, but lets not get onto that here. I believe there was a huge discussion to change the wording of Criterion #8, but I'm not sure what happened about that. Nonetheless I feel it must be changed again. There used to more wording there, which was removed, rather suspiciously. It's too wide open to interpretation to the point where everything or nothing could be subject to it. Even I don't fully understand it! -- .: Alex  :.  18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am not sure we are really at the point where we need start waterboarding folk for having a substantially less moderate take on #8 than the rest of us do. We should avoid voicing conspiracy theories here, unless substantially backed up (and even then, there are other venues for such accusations). Let's propose a new wording and get some feedback and find a consensus for that alteration to NFC#8, which currently reads:


 * "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."


 * Anyone want to take a crack at it before I do? My alteration would provide for beheadings and enforced watching of Olsen Twins movies for taking up an agenda. Please, someone stop me from doing this. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not...


 * "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if it is to represent the subject of the article, or if not - is used for critical commentary of the non-free content itself that would significantly increase readers' understanding of it."


 * ViperSnake151 19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It really needs to be limited to a single piece for identification. Wily D 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. There are classes of image type for which "identification of the subject of the article" is a sufficient justification -- for example, album covers, and logos, and some other images -- which have been created expressly to facilitate that purpose.  But screenshots do not fall into that category.  A screenshot should only be used if does improve understanding.


 * Secondly, there is no limit to only one image. If having more than one image allows a significantly better understanding than just one image, then we should have more than one image.


 * Yes, it is not black-and-white; and it is context dependent. But that is the nature of fair use.  My own personal opinion would be that at the moment we probably are now tending to use slightly too few fair use images in episodic articles, rather than too many. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. A single piece for identification, multiple pieces for explanation where required & supported. Wily D  20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) "Significance" is such a beautyfull marketing word; "Washes significantly better then brand X". The term denotes binary importance, which is the crux of it's problem. I learned in physics and math that values are rounded up to the "most significant decimal"; the decimal is either siginificant, or it is not. Even the smallest part of a number is significant provided it falls within the range of the calculation. So this word is abused terribly here, just as it is abused in advertising. Saying that this and that image does not "significantly" increase the reader's understanding is like saying "she is significantly pregnant". The word means nothing in this context; an image either increases the reader's understanding, or it doesn't, so it is always "significant".

We need a better word, or better yet, just remove that atrocity from #8. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "complimentary connection", as in connection to the subject or complimentary connection to the article text? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to argue this point, because understanding is not a binary operation. There are degrees of understanding, and one non-free item might marginally improve understanding, whereas another might make the concept in the article crystal-clear.  howcheng  {chat} 03:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets not make a storm in a teacup. It seems to me that only one editor has been doing this, (and doing it a lot) in which case that person can be educated without negotiating a change to the policy (incidentaly at WP:NFCC not here). #8 has been around for several years, and deletionists have nearly always allowed one non-free image to identify a non-free cultural work. If I am wrong, and it has become a plague, then please correct me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's come to be interpreted more narrowly (i.e., allowing for less usage) since then -- I wouldn't call it a plague, but it certainly has caused a lot of reasonably-used images to be deleted. FWIW, I think the vagueness is problematic as well, and I don't think it's just a few of us who feel that way. — xDanielx  T/C\R 23:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been through this criterion a few times and it's a very fine line to walk, which makes it difficult. The whole point of this is to eliminate unnecessary use of non-free content; to make it so that the article needs it. "Significant" is definitely a bugbear, but it's kind of a necessary evil. We can't allow non-free content where it would marginally increase the reader's understanding (that opens the door to rampant abuse) and we can't shut the door completely without a mass revolt on our hands. So yes, "significant" becomes a judgment call. I believe it's supposed to be narrowly interpreted, given the Foundation's resolution to use as little non-free content as possible.  howcheng  {chat} 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vagueness issue is difficult to resolve, but I don't agree that such narrowness as we have now is necessary. The foundation policy mandates that our EDP must be grounded in fair use policy (and/or other copyright limitations) as they're applied in the US; it doesn't say that the EDP has to be excessively precautionary. EN-WP hasn't experienced any serious legal problems arising from NFC usage and we would have to change our NFC policy quite significantly for that to be a major a concern. (Accepting some minimal risks is entirely proper, considering EN-WP's grandiose social impact.) It also doesn't prescribe that our EDP must support the proliferation of freely-licensed media, and while all of us like the idea, it's only reasonable to say that its significance is subordinate. The amount of users who benefit from viewing our images is much greater than that of users who benefit from reproducing them, and even within the latter category, it's rare for reproducers to actually comply with free licenses when they're offered. — xDanielx  T/C\R 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precaution about copyright law is only one aspect of NFCC, and in my opinion the less important one. The key idea is that this is a free content project, and we should eschew nonfree content whenever feasible. We're not just trying to write another enyclopedia, we're writing a free encyclopedia. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The second ~half of my comment was intended to address that. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that the text of this criterion explicitly bestows to an article's author the editorial discretion to use images wherever they appear necessary. Often times this discretion is then overruled by editors who routinely patrol images for NFCC compliance. The widespread unfamiliarity of the finer points of NFCC present in the majority of content contributors coupled with the practical limitations of having a low number of administrators making and executing the final determination leads to constant debates and factionalism between editors. While the wording of the criterion is succinct, we definitely require a thorough guide to NFCC#8 precedents, perhaps a gallery that illustrates the difference between appropriate and inappropriate (i.e. decorative) use of copyrighted imagery. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

fair use review
There is currently a discussion of the possible removal of fair use review. Please feel free to join the discussion at MFD/Wikipedia:Fair use review, or if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use, then please have a look at the backlog. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Album covers of soundtracks in film articles
I have recently come across several film articles that contained a soundtrack section at the bottom with an extra CD image, e.g., and the album cover is basically identical to the film poster. I know that album covers still have significant general support as infobox images, but I wonder whether my bold and widespread removal of album covers from such articles would be met with heavy resistance before I go ahead doing so (citing WP:NFC). – sgeureka t•c 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article had extensive coverage of the soundtrack (and not merely a list of tracks as did your example) then I'd say the usage would be permissible to exactly the same extent as it is in a freestanding album article. The fact that we're talking about a section vs an article is a mere matter of organization, that section could someday be forked into its own article, and I see no reason to change what we allow simply because of how we've organized the page. It's the context thats significant. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel that the majority of articles in Category:Film soundtracks do not justify a separate article at all, and I may (or may not) approach WP:ALBUM what they think of merging most of them back into the film articles. This will certainly affect how many soundtrack album cover images will be kept in the end, but as I said, I have not formalized any real plans yet. – sgeureka t•c 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if you cannot support the significance of the cover it should not be used. βcommand 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

MFD: WP:Fair use review
Anybody who is interested, please join the discussion at MFD/Wikipedia:Fair use review. In addition, if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use, then please have a look at the Fair use review backlog. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop this spamming. In particular, the statement "if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding the legal doctrine of fair use" is highly problematic. The limitations on non-free media come predominately from Wikipedia policy and far less so from the law. (Generally the things which are probably illegal just get speedied). --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you refer to my comment as spamming? I think the relevant guideline says "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki"; in this regard, I posted my request to only two or three places.  If you consider my post to be spam, then please refer to the specific guideline, or if you prefer, we can take this to WP:3O; if you simply take issue with how I worded it, then that's fair enough.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Commerical Creative Commons licenced images
I was cleaning up the entry on Henry Wellcome and intended to add an image from Wellcome Images. However, these are published under a the non-commercial use Creative Commons licence.

I believe the image meets Fair Use criteria (I believe the only images of Henry Wellcome are owned by the Wellcome Trust, it would not undermine any commercial activities the charity peforms etc etc). However, this isn't exactly a Fair Use issue; wikipedia certainly has permission to use the image, it just violates WP image policy to use non-free images.

Any advice? Is there an equivilent tag for justifying the use of non-free but appropriately licensed images? Should I put it under a Fair Use tag, or just leave the article unillustrated? Lowk (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The painting is more than 100 years old. The creator of the painting died in 1956, 52 years ago. I'd think that regardless of the copyright claims of the Wellcome Library, by British law the image is in the public domain via PD-UK. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah perfect. Thanks a lot. Lowk (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ergh. I think I would have cropped the image to remove the frame and the "Wellcome Images" label. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fark. That tag is wrong.  The UK is a 70 years state for artistic works.  50 years applies to sound recordings, certain dramatic performances, films and works of government, but the majority of artistic works are subject to 70 years protection, including most photographs or paintings.
 * (1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.
 * (2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows. ...
 * Dragons flight (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: Copyright law of the United Kingdom which provides more detail on the complexities and exceptions, but 50 years in general is an incorrect assumption. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * UK law also provides for sweat of the brow copyright, meaning that modern reproductions of public domain works can be copyrighted in and of themselves. en.wiki works under US law, so they are fair game for uploading here, but not to Commons, wherein they have to be legal both in the US and their home country. You may need to tag those with an additional Do not move to Commons.  howcheng  {chat} 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!
At FAC and FLC, we were starting to call on Black Kite for his expert reviewing of the blue murder that nominators were getting away with in the articles/lists WRT images, audio clips, etc.

Where IS he? Nothing on his page????

If he's gone (OMG), please advise me of who's also good at grilling people, because I need back-up now at Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Final_Fantasy_compilation_albums. This list with countless album covers and audio clips, and I'm sure they don't pass 3 and 8.

Much obliged. TONY  (talk)  16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Black Kite was harassed off the project by fair use supporters. He gave up in frustration, and is no longer editing. He's not the first, and won't be the last. There's far, far too many editors who can't read an encyclopedia article without pictures. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And far too many intransigent folk who feel images apparently represent the dumbing down of encyclopedias. Sad to see Black Kite go, not sad to see stubbornness depart. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody who polices fair use images thinks images dumb down the encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's appalling. Looks like a band of supporters is required when you have to deal with especially sticky users. The featured-article and featured-list processes, of course, contain regular reviewers and directors who are very grateful for skilled assistance in cracking down on sometimes outrageous infractions of the NFCC. Only yesterday, Masem looked into a case of eight "FU" album covers in one article. No reason there shouldn't be some quid pro quo there. TONY   (talk)  10:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy III
I'm here to plead the case of that article. All the images have been removed per "Unacceptable: An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above." I fee l this is not the case for the following reasons: For the above reasons, I would like to ask that, for this article only, it be recognized not as a discography, but as an article about music, with CD sections. I do not ask necessarily for all the images back, but at least some (I think 1 would be minimal, and even acceptable under current conditions). I am willing to respect all the guidelines here on the Music of Final Fantasy III page, but I would like to have a discussion about this which is a bit more profound than the "Discography -> 0 image per NFC. Q.E.D." I usually get. While I realize and appreciate that you struggle with these requests every day, It doesn't mean they can't be discussed. happypal (Talk | contribs) 06:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) *This article is not a discography: It is an article about the music in a game, for which CDs have been released, and are thus discussed. While I can appreciate this is a bit of POV and playing with words, but this article isn't just a list with images.
 * 2) *Further more, Images are authorized in Album articles, and this one is clearly built as concatenated album articles. This is not because they are not notable to stand as their own article: They are more than notable enough to warrant their own article. They are all on the same article for the goal of a better article, and for easier user browsing. This is exactly the case of movies/games with embedded soundtracks (Dexter (TV series) & Secret of Mana). It's not because there is more than one CD that it immediately becomes a discography, and image removed.
 * 3) Article meets "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." This is the case, as all of these CDs have critical commentary, references, reviews etc.
 * 4) Finally: "8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I feel this is the case, as each of those CDs are clearly individually discussed and referred to in the article, and their image is necessary.
 * I'm agreed, there is a blatant difference between these articles and the likes of Margaritaville Cafe: Late Night, in that they are fully fleshed out with plenty of critical commentary, etc. EvilRedEye (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From Non-free content:
 * "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section."
 * What don't you understand in that paragraph? Kariteh (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you don't have to be aggressive about it, especially since it proves rather than rebukes my demands...:
 * small sections of information: Said sections are not so small.
 * non-free images should be used judiciously, meaning they can be used, and are not banned right of the bat.
 * Thus, if the images are used sparingly, (1 or 2 per Music of Article, for the main soundtrack, for example), it is fine, according to guideline? That, and I'm not sure I understand your stance on this (Self revert back: ). Was this revert because of this current discussion (waiting for it to end), or because you felt the images were okay? happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't quote the rest of the guideline but it is important too and addresses your points. As for my revert on Music of FFIX, I did it because that is not a discography article, it's a full-fledged article dealing with the creation and influences of the music, etc. Kariteh (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, note that this discussion is about both images and audio clips, not just images. There is not fundamental differences between them as they're both non-free contents. Kariteh (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. My stance on them are the same as the images.happypal (Talk | contribs) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that article is too much like a discography to warrant the images. Croctotheface (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get what you are saying: You say "As for my revert on Music of FFIX [...] is not a discography article, it's a full-fledged article [...] etc.", Are you saying that Music of FFIII is a discography, and not FFIX? I'm not sure I see the difference between this and that. If there is so much of a difference that I am missing, then fine, I'll accept, although a bit confused.
 * Is it because of a Creation and influence paragraph? Is that enough to bump it out of Discography status? Is it just that both articles are right on either side of the very thin line of list/not list?
 * You also say "I didn't quote the rest of the guideline but it is important too and addresses your points". Even under the status of list/discography, don't they approve for at least a few images? Are we disagreeing on this point (few image rather than all), or are we just barking around in circles here? happypal (Talk | contribs) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to understand the reasoning behind the self-revert made by Kariteh on Music of Final Fantasy IX, where the user reverted the removal of the album covers. The only difference between this and that is the the Creation and Influence section or the lack of it. Is that the reason, and what is the real difference between a list article and not a list article? Isn't a Reception section enough to change it from a discography? What makes an article a discography and what makes it not? &mdash; Blue. 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Already replied above. Kariteh (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. All you said is: "What don't you understand in that paragraph", quoted a few paragraphs, told me that, the rest of the guideline addresses my points and your views on FFIX. You didn't even make it clear if you are for or against the images on the article. What about Music of Final Fantasy XI? It too has a Creation and influence paragraph, yet I don't see images on it. Should we put them back? As for everything that was said above, I think I can now safely say that "Music of FFIII (or any other Music of FF) is not a discography article, it's a full-fledged article dealing with the reception and legacy of the music, etc.", and put the images back in. happypal (Talk | contribs) 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does me being for or against the images matter? This being said, after re-reading the guideline, I think they (the images and the audio clips) should really be removed from Music of FFIX and Music of FFXI, since their characteristics aren't specifically analyzed in the articles, unlike the logo in the Wii cover of Okami or the instruments in the promo clip of Halo 3 Original Soundtrack. Kariteh (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here because when I tried to put the images back in, my edits were reverted, and I was asked to plead that article's case here. Your specific opinion matters because you are the only person who answered, and the fact that you have been pointing to the guideline rather than telling your stance has caused us to argue. Regardless, I think I have gotten my answer. I think that maybe giving each and every album in the article both a cover and excerpts might be too much, but from reading the guidelines, I think that the main soundtrack at least validates their use. Thanks. happypal (Talk | contribs) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

collage of an image
What about the use of a user made collage made from images made by the copyright holder of its merchandise used for list articles? Would that be allowed? &mdash; Blue. 08:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no, because it amounts to the exact same number of copyrighted images: "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images. Such an image should be provided by the copyright holder or scanned/captured directly from the copyrighted work, instead of being created from multiple non-free images by the user directly." Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

know the damn law
i normally stay far away from stuff like this and i just randomly wandered onto this page. but i've long noticed that wikipedia is full of people who zealously police copyright laws, and i've never much liked it. reading the above section on Henry Wellcome, i noticed a comment from User:Hammersoft, who seems to be one of the enforcers, asserting a "50 years + life" claim followed by a "70 years + life" claim under UK law to an old 1906 painting, and quoting a law. someone else posted a link to the wp page describing this law, and if you actually read through the page, esp. the historical section at the bottom, you see that works published before 1911 have only the "42 years or life+7, whichever is longer" protection. works published *after* 1911 have copyrights of "life+50" or "life+70" depending on whether the author died before or after 1945. in this case the painting was published before 1911 ("published" seems to mean "painted"in this case), and the author died in 1956, so the copyright expired in 1963.

someone else claimed that images of non-copyrighted works can potentially be copyrighted under a UK "sweat of the brow" law, but it is far from obvious that this is the case, according to the wikipedia page describing this.

my point is not to argue about copyright law arcana. but i'd like to emphasize that


 * the onus is completely on self-appointed law enforcers to know the law well before trying to enforce it on others.
 * incorrect assertions, or vague claims about copyright status, do nothing but increase the FUD level, which is already too high.

so i'd like to strongly suggest that those of you on this page who care about copyright enforcement please compile a guide that describes in clear terms, for each country and type of work, what laws actually apply and under which circumstances. this would say, e.g., under "u.k", under "paintings", that copyright ends:
 * if made before 1911, the later of 42 years after it was made or 7 years after author's death.
 * if made after 1911 and author died before 1945, 50 years after author's death.
 * otherwise, 70 years after author's death.

in fact, i'm really surprised, given the amazing level of copyright vigilance on this project, that no one seems to have bothered to do this!

Benwing (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do see now that there are pages like Non-U.S._copyrights where some of this info exists, but it still seems to me that the current state is far from ideal, since even the "experts" seem to get confused. the page i just mentioned, for example, has "four-point tests" and such scattered among a whole bunch of other verbiage, and i still don't see where even to start. what there needs to be is an obvious starting page for *all* types of works in *all* countries that consists of rules, with extra verbiage *under* the rules, not all around, with links to sub-pages for specific works and countries that follow a similar format, so that it's obvious, for new and old alike, what steps to follow when you're not sure what the rules are. Benwing (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice (TV serial)
I've just reviewed Pride_and_Prejudice_%281995_TV_serial%29 at Featured_article_candidates. I've queried the FU justification of the four images in question, which appear to be ornamental, rather than covered by #8. Can people here advise me whether reviewers should crack down on justifications on the info page (Image:Pride-and-Prejudice-TV-miniseries.jpg) that sprout language like this:

Purpose: "It is illustrating the topic of the article - the mini-series - in the infobox, and shows the two protagonists in one image."

Replaceable?: "It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value."

These seem to be BS claims, pardon the French, and I'm seeing such quite a lot. TONY  (talk)  15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are just three non-free images in the article, and the FAC nom already asks for input about the necessity of one (the cast image). WP:MOSTV says the infobox image should either be an intertitle shot, a poster, or a DVD cover, and the DVD cover was picked over the other choices since it "shows the two protagonists in one image", even if that's a BS claim (no offense taken). Either way, an intertitle shot, a poster, and a DVD cover would all be non-free, so the replaceability claim holds up as well. The third image shows an iconic scene that is mentioned in five different paragraphs, two of them in-depth, so no problem there. All IMO. – sgeureka t•c 08:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * K, I'll see if I can spruce up the info pages a little. They do need to show "significant increase in readers' understanding". TONY   (talk)  16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use review
What to do with Fair use review. It is not used as much as it should, which was the reason for the mfd where the consensus was keep/reform. I think it would help if fair use review gets more teeth. After a certain time of discussion the image gets deleted, or removed from articles where it fails the criteria. And also that the image can not be put back simply by consensus on the article's talk page where the image was removed from. I miss a system like this when I did nomination where input non-free content experts would be helpful. (wether I am wrong or right). Right now with Images and media for deletion you miss the non-free content discussions easily in all the other nominations. There is now a merge tag for merging with Possibly unfree images but those two don't seem to mix. With non-free images, you know an image is non-free, there is no "possibly" about it. Garion96 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

why is the trascluded text suddenly small?
Can someone please fix this. Enough that it's within a box, yes? TONY  (talk)  04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, this is due to the class, which puts it to 95%. Can someone have a look on how we could force it at 100% here? --  lucasbfr  talk 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the navframe class... it's not even a navframe, and all CSS is hardcoded anyway. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring
I have protected the page for 3 days to stop edit-warring. Discuss things on this talk page, please. Neıl 龱  16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the current addition to the guideline will help editors, as there is much discussion about what is and/or isn't allowed (myself included). I think the problem of the edit warring comes from using actual numbers, leading editors to take them at face value. I can already see this guideline creating edit wars between parties for an article with 2 images, and an article with 5 images. I think we should make sure that editors understand that every article should be assessed individually, that any item in the list which has an image should be notable enough to warrant it. The first 2 images are not "Free".
 * "In general, using zero, one, or two images of major item in the list may be acceptable, if that item justifies its use. Using more images will likely be unacceptable, and if an article is using more than 5 images, there are some very good chances it is already way past fair-use justification. However, all articles being unique, each should be assessed individually. Editors must also recall that every image must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria and no images that fail any of these criteria should be used."
 * That, and I changed "Character" to "List item". happypal (Talk | contribs) 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there is any consensus for the arbitrary numbers. I quite agree with the addition of Editors must (also) recall tthat every image must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria and no images that fail any of these criteria should be used.  I believe the numbers came from the "support" side of a failed Guideline RfC.
 * ✅ PeterSymonds (talk)  23:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could someone put the appropriate "disputed" tag on the disputed phrase of the guideline? I'd do it myself, but I can't find the correct tag.  There's no question that it's disputed. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, also disagree that there is any sort of consensus to use arbitrary numbers. Either the disputed tag goes in or it gets reverted to the status quo prior to the edit war, per WP:BRD. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the proposed compromise is all right, but it's so nebulous it really solves nothing, in my opinion. People are going to interpret it however they want to, either to justify their position of zero non-free images or infinite non-free images. The key sticking point is "justifies its use". There's no agreement on what that means, and there seems to be no middle ground between free-content enthusiasts and pop-culture enthusiasts. Kelly  hi! 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I have a lot of respect for you, but it is not the free culture versus the pop culture enthusiasts. Personally, I find many aspects of pop culture to be inane and useless, but myself and others feel strongly that the right to use fairuse is a freedom, too. I don't think it is as black and white as people might have us believe. Anyways, this is not a debate of the law. The law does not stipulate the quantity of fairuse images. Foundation policy allows each project to determine the fairuse policy within the scope of the foundation core principles. Disputing the use of fairuse in articles where there is little to no chance of getting free alternatives seems like a silly thing to do. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you, I'm not an extremist on this. Sometimes a non-free image is required, particularly for historic images where no free equivalent can be obtained. By "pop-culture enthusiasts" I mean the people on the other fringe of the debate, who would essentially favor no limitations at all on copyrighted material. Either fringe interprets the policy to support their position, which leads to endless argument. I'm not sure how to resolve this. A "bright-line" number such as the one proposed would seem to be a starting point, but if it contains subjective loopholes it's essentially useless as a policy. Kelly  hi! 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have had this guideline not stipulate numbers of images, instead adding the 6 suggestions (using a montage, etc.) to help cut down on numbers and hoping that users would use common sense. However, given that we still have lists today where there's almost an image for every character, and when pointed to this, the editors point to the fact that there's no limit on pictures, means that we have to set a bar.  Now, I'm not say "0-2 ideal, 5 ok, more is not recommended" is the right set of numbers, but they do reflect a reasonable start that should help editors see that we are looking at limits.  If editors find this to be too restrictive, we can discuss extending them.  However, to leave the guidelines with no numbers at all and expect editors to minimize nonfree use seems to be an impossible proposition. --M ASEM  17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have had this guideline not stipulate numbers of images, instead adding the 6 suggestions (using a montage, etc.) to help cut down on numbers and hoping that users would use common sense. However, given that we still have lists today where there's almost an image for every character, and when pointed to this, the editors point to the fact that there's no limit on pictures, means that we have to set a bar.  Now, I'm not say "0-2 ideal, 5 ok, more is not recommended" is the right set of numbers, but they do reflect a reasonable start that should help editors see that we are looking at limits.  If editors find this to be too restrictive, we can discuss extending them.  However, to leave the guidelines with no numbers at all and expect editors to minimize nonfree use seems to be an impossible proposition. --M ASEM  17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I deplore the numbers and prefer to apply case by case reason, but the numbers text does appear to reflect the now long-standing practice. The notion that we must have the numbers text comes from an attempt address an unsolvable problem: That some people will make any argument, even nonsense ones, to get what they want. The idea being that if we make the policy super over-specific that they'll cut it out. I don't buy it. Sometimes I wonder how much this policy is abused to keep unencyclopedic fancruft under control vs the legitimate use of keeping Wikipedia preferring freely content in all cases where there is a choice. Oh well. I have no material objection to the numbers staying, though I wish things here didn't work that way. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this captures my feelings exactly. I guess a definition of fair-use overuse is kind of like the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscenity - you can't really put it into words, but "you know it when you see it". I don't know how something like that gets written into policy, but a number at least gives a starting point, kind of like how 3RR is used to define edit-warring. That policy also has exceptions that are examined on a case-by-case basis. Kelly  hi! 18:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a reader, I don't see the problem with fair-use images in lists, provided that the intent of them is to educate rather than to reduce the value of the work. I mean, if a 2 hour movie has 10 images taken from it in order to illustrate what major characters look like, that's only .006% of the movie. Less if the images are appropriately cropped so they only illustrate the characters in question. For TV series, it's even less. I have trouble believing that using such small fractions of a work to illustrate the characters of the work, in a way which is hard to do with text, is something that we need to take issue with. If anything, we should be encouraging this use, as an image is often necessary to cover a character in encylopedic detail. — PyTom (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about how much of the original work is used (that is a concern is considering fair use from a legal standpoint); its the fact that being a free (as in speech) encyclopedia means we need to limit non-free images to as few as possible. This does not mean no images (though as others have noted, other Wikis like the German one, disallow any non-free images), but that we use as few as possible.  Groupings instead of individual elements.  Avoid pictures of live actors that appear no different from any free pictures available, and so forth.  The mentality of "one image per character" is what we need to avoid, and the numbers help to suggest this. --M ASEM  19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is when the pendulum swings so far in the free-content direction that it damages usefulness as an encyclopedia. Having an image per character serves to help identify that character, an obviously encyclopedic usage. When you move to group shots, it becomes more difficult to identify individual characters, which means the image is more decorative in nature... hurting what the NFC policy is trying to accomplish. Removing images without replacing them damages the encyclopedia, which should be avoided. — PyTom (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a tough argument to buy: one single non-free image that is sufficient to identify the visual appearance of n characters is always better than n non-free images of single characters, from both the Foundations resolution and the WP mission. Mind you, we have to consider low resolution problem that might arise, which I would see going beyond the typical 0.1 megapixel limit in order to make sure all characters in a group shot are IDable.  It's still one image over several that end up serving the same purpose. --M ASEM  19:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the move to cut down on the character images started primarily with "List of" pages which contained almost nothing more than dozens of character images each with no more than a one sentence caption and perhaps some episode data. They were effectively non-free image galleries, at best they were useful as navigational tools. From there the enforcement crept into hitting articles with many non-free images even if each of the image was paired with substantial text. Now the standard practice is fairly aggressive. I think these shifts happen, in large part, because the very rigid absolute positions like "more than 5 is too many!" are far easier to enforce and less subject to dispute.  If we'd give the folks trying to do clean up more support in the clearly bad cases, perhaps we'd see less of a shift towards highly restrictive rigid practices over time? --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The constant combat drives away the moderates and leaves the hardliners. Kelly  hi! 06:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal:Give WP:FUR some teeth
Tying with a statement further up the page, perhaps we should promote WP:FUR to an official process, along the lines of WP:AFD or WP:IFD. For controversial instances of fair use, an editor could nominate an image there for which it is felt that it does not satisfy the fair use criteria in some form or another. People can comment, and an uninvolved admin can then close the discussion. Remedies may be to delete the image, remove it from one or more usages, or to somehow change or fix the rationale. This process would be enforceable, as opposed to how WP:FUR is currently just an advisory process. This provides an enforcable forum, as right now the fair use battles are being fought with speedy tags on image pages, or on user talk pages, or on policy pages. This moves the battle to a case-by-case basis, and away from generalities. Thoughts? Kelly hi! 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have WP:PUI. We don't need two processes which decide if images are outside of policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, PUI is only for claimed free images that are suspected to be non-free. There's nothing for dealing with disputed fair use except for speedy deletion tags and occasionally IfD, which doesn't really fit. Kelly  hi! 19:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, Possibly unfree is for discussing if a image marked as being free, is actually non-free for whatever reason. In a way right now, WP:IFD is kinda the "fair use disputes" board (but its not), I think we should set up a new board, like Fair use claims for discussion (WP:FCD), it'll be structured like PUI.... (Whoops edit conflict) ViperSnake151 19:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * oops. I intended to write WP:IFD. TMDTLA. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively expand the mandate of IfD to allow closing admins to decide questions of acceptable fair use non-free usage policy compliance. There, Gmaxwell!! Kelly  hi! 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly, please don't make me stab you. Stop using "fair use" here, it's not relevant and it's an exceptionally misused. Admins don't need to decide "fair use", they need to decide if an image conforms with Wikipedia's policy for non-freely licensed content. The continued use of the words "fair use" is harmful, it's misleading even when it's understood, and it's more often than not misunderstood, "Of course we can use this! it would be unfair to say no!" ;) Because of this all the operational pages that used those words in their titles were renamed more than a year ago, to great effect, but since everyone had forgotten FUR it was missed. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would solve the problems for instance we had (and still have) with Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg. The closing IFD was totally ignored there. Also of course the other way around, when an image is decided to pass the criteria it shouldn't be removed without another discussion. But IFD is too large as it is. A separate page, in casu WP:FUR, would be better. Possibly unfree images is too unrelated too work with fair use. Garion96 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Image:Darwin on Trial.jpg - ugh, IDCab. Yes, for organized groups like that one, and any other WikiProject heavily involved with articles that use non-free images, you need to have something set in policy with enforceable results. Kelly  hi! 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem aren't the images in and out of themselves, but how many are used, and in what context. For a list of characters (for example), I wouldn't nominate just one character's image as failing FUR (or all of them at once either...), but the entire article. The discussion would then discuss the article, and what images are or aren't needed, on an article basis, rather then per image.
 * My change to WP:IFD would be the possibility of nomination of articles in their entirety. happypal (Talk | contribs) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like that. Kelly  hi! 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said (sorry Kelly), as it is not WP:IFD's job, and it would probably hinder their work. I guess I'd recommend a new page: Articles for non-free media removal. Yeah, that doesn't sound bad. I think we need to start seeing the problem the other way around. Not "When is media usable in an article" but "When does an article warrant the use of media". It's a bit of a play on words, I guess, but there IS a difference. happypal (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have an additional page for it, might as well use Non-free content review, I've gone through the trouble of renaming WP:FUR. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need yet another process page? If you don't like the use of non-free images in articles, you are free to discuss on the talkpage of the article. I'm not going to comment more on the idea of centralization, since I do not think it would be WP:AGF to do so. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the "study in chaos" plan hasn't worked out so well. Few people are on the same page. The situation is a mess. Heated arguments are rampant. Application and interpretation of policy vary wildly from page to page. An such an antagonistic environment, where every page starts from square one, it's no small wonder the situation is so terrible. Under these circumstances, centralization seems a pretty sane option. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job. Yes, somehow that was the only place where the name fair use was still kept. Now to give it some teeth. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What teeth? If you are going to propose a new facility to remove content, you will need to take it to the village pump. This is too big of a change not to. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, advertise the proposal if it gains enough momentum to be taken seriously. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to get some consensus on what form this would take and then we can draft up a proposed change to the page, and advertise at the Pump. Right now I'm thinking of something with a similar structure to WP:PUI, with daily log pages. Discussions can be closed after a week or two. I guess we would need some templates for image or article pages to link back to closed discussions. Kelly  hi! 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like PUI would indeed be good. To Dragon65, of course it needs to go to the village pump first before implementing. Garion96 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me get this right: the proposal, in effect, will make it easier to police the misuse of NFC from day to day? Or will it kick in only where users resist your entreaties? Anything that reduces the workload and increases the effectiveness of those involved in implementing NFC policy is worth considering. TONY   (talk)  06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea. It reminds me of the ill-conceived LfD (links for deletion) idea that was floated at the peak of the WP:BADSITES debate. How can this be enforced? Why should it be enforced? There is no legal issues involved here, merely an ideological one. People have a right to disagree over what constitutes fair use. Involving yet another process is not going to change anything. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no different than any other noticeboard we have for enforcing a wikipedia policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #1 is in violation of WP:NOR
An interesting argument has been presented that I find extremely cogent. A non-negotiable policy we have adopted long before WP:NFCC is as follows: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. What is it that allows us to describe the subject of an article without providing an image or sound? The human ability to observe and experience. However, the problem with observation and experience is that they tend to reflect our own biases. Unaltered images and sounds provide accurate, reliable sources where as personal observations and experiences do not. There is a reason why video evidence in trials are 100x more crediable than eye-witness testimony. People see and hear different things, not to mention that our recollection is not always accurate. Therefore, Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all? is not acceptable as it tries to codify original thought or reasearch into policy. That part of WP:NFCC, based on a mere foundation resolution, is not allowed to trump a foundation principle like WP:NOR. Per WP:BRD I have been bold and removed that passage from WP:NFCC as it is in violation of WP:NOR. I welcome discussion on this change. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why NOR applies only to encyclopedic content, i.e. text in article space.  It doesn't apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy discussions, etc.  I don't like the "ask yourself" test but that's for other reasons - I don't think we should use a helpful hint format to state policy.  But the current language is stable and has broad consensus, and I don't think it should be changed for this reason.  Wikidemo (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Come on Dragon695, that is an utterly ridiculous stretch. On the basis of that argument we might as well delete the whole of Wikipedia because from an OR perspective an illegal copy of other source material would be arguably better off. What is your obsession with removing that particular text? --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) By the same logic, I can state that every article that summarizes sources (all of them) is in violation of OR because it is a retelling of the experience and opinions that the editors have of reading and interpreting those sources. Which of course is not going to happen.  Some images cannot be turned into text while retaining visual-only elements and/or engaging in OR to describe those elements (such as most works of art), but when we're talking about modern works of television and film with human actors and human-like characters, it is very easy to describe them without engaging in the type of OR we discourage. --M ASEM  13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the difference is that we can cite reliable, textual sources for much of our information. We are allowed to summarize and synthesize from reliable sources, in accordance with policy. This is the same problem. There are no citeable sources to describe a character in a video game, but there are screen shots which do. Which is more reliable? That is the question. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it more succinctly, it is up to the disputer to provide a reliable source which could be cited to replace a fair use image. On another note, I disagree that this part of section 1 has broad consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were to say, Bob is a teen age character in Bob's world is that not WP:OR? If I can not provide a citeable source for my assertion, it is my opinion based on my interpretation of an image. If we provide the actual image, then it is left to the reader to decide how to interpret it. That, I believe, is why we forbid original research. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not ask for sources for "The sky is blue" (something which could also be demonstrated with an image): material which is obvious and above dispute, and which can be referenced back to primary source data, doesn't generally need secondary sourcing. Cases which need to be sourced should be sourced, no argument. And certainly there are at times reliable sources for what characters look like exist, how many times have we heard writers describe the big sword of the final fantasy guy? :) Besides, "images" is a far broader area than video game characters.
 * Were WP:NOR applied as aggressively as you seek to apply it here we might well end up mass deleting whole swaths of subject areas: There are not many good secondary sources on comics, video games, or recent cartoons, for example. Good thing it doesn't work that way.
 * In any case, the value of images in these cases is understood, otherwise we'd forbid non-free images entirely for these uses. Yet we don't. If someone is bludgeoning you by saying we must remove all non-free images because text could theoretically be used, point me to them so I can bludgeon them back.
 * I'm going to caution you against making further edits to the policy in the immediate future. That you removed a hunk of policy with the WP:NOR argument above with an immediate and broad-based condemnation of your edit here is a strong indication that you're suffering some kind of bias which is preventing you from making good judgments with respect to the policy. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will drop this dispute if you will stand by your promise. The person in question has left, but yes there were some WP:TE removers of fair use who were using that line to bludgeon us. I still don't understand why it is necessary, though. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will, the "replaceable by text" condition has its worth, but the usage should be narrow indeed. I'll stand by you in most cases where someone would try to apply that. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even worse, if OR were forbidden with respect to interpreting images, then all free images would be forbidden because by definition they are not published in (copyrighted) reliable secondary sources.Wikidemo (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Along with the entire text of Wikipedia save, perhaps, the terrible crud copied from EB1911! :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We have always permitted the use of primary sources, including video games themselves, provided that the claims about the primary sources are completely descriptive and uncontroversial. This is laid out in the section WP:PSTS. Thus it is perfectly acceptable, from the point of view of the NOR policy, to write an original description of a video game character rather than including an image. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think editor's own opinion on what something looks like or what someone's age is are very reliable. An image or sound is much more reliable in conveying the look and appearance of a character. The camera does not lie. Sure we do allow sub-standard sources, but only when better sources are not available. An image is a far better source of reliable information then someone's description is. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover, we allow use of opinion, original research, and everything else under the sun for people to support an argument that an image is replaceable. So an argument like "that photograph is unclear and does not illustrate the subject well" does not need a citation to a secondary source describing the photograph.  Wikidemo (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the claim that images are categorically superior from a reliability perspective is false: Image do lie, they can be manipulated, outright fabricated, and even when 'accurate' are still sometimes more misleading than text. Like any other form of communication images are subject to confusion and deception. People often find images more believable, but that view is a often abused liability of human judgment. Regardless, we're arguing corner cases here, it's pointless. In a case where an image teaches you something important that the text does not, the policy language you removed would not forbid the image.  The policy did not say "Images can always be described in text! Don't use them!" it said "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all? If the answer (...) is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion." --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. I have an image here of a grey sky, another one here of a patch of orangey-red sky, another one here of a patch of purpley-pink sky, and even one of a pitch black sky with little twinkling lights in it. I guess I manipulated those to deceive those people who think the sky is blue. Carcharoth (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR and NFCC #8
Interesting close :


 * The importance of the image presented is strictly opinion or original research.

This seems very odd to me. As User:Wikidemo put it further up, ''NOR applies only to encyclopedic content, i.e. text in article space. It doesn't apply to arguments in talk space, image space, policy discussions, etc.''

According to NFCC #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

That, surely, is a question for argument, discussion and judgement. It is not a question to which WP:NOR applies. Jheald (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Actually, the whole nomination seems strange to me. The only visual reference for a television episode up for the Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form Hugo Award.  An image which illustrates the two most prominent alien characters, and the realisation of their scarecrow-like hench-creatures.  And which rather well captures the sense of sinisterness and creepiness they brought to the roles, and to the episode as a whole. -- And yet we are saying that removing this image does not significantly impoverish the understanding of the topic we can bring to our readers?  I had no idea IfD had gone so far.  But that's a discussion for a different place.  No doubt an RFD... quite soon now). Jheald (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read that as meaning all the discussion of the image should've been deleted as original research, not the image itself. Once that happens, image fails NFCC#8 - but it is unclear.  Have you asked the closing admin to clarify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 July 2008
 * Closing admin has accepted his close was "poorly worded". . I've notified him of this discussion.
 * I'm not sure an image has to be referred to explicitly in an article. If one can make a solid case that it "significantly increases a reader's understanding of the topic", as IMO this one does simply for the reasons I've set out above, then that is the test, and that would be sufficient.  Jheald (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to re-examine and possibly open a discussion in regards to how we interpret NFCC (specifically 1 and 8), so as to avoid these unfortunate mistakes that seem to be continually plaguing us and serving as albatrosses for certain admin and editors in IfD. This larger discussion would help us to find the middle ground between foundation needs and community consensus. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there is a disconnect between foundation needs and community consensus; I don't think there's anyone here advocating unlimited fair use. The issue is how to interpret what the foundation says.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For those who may not have seen, the IfD in question was brought to DRV and is currently being discussed on AN. — xDanielx  T/C\R 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the one being discussed on AN is a different close, but by the same editor, and with a similar rationale. This one above only had its IfD closed yesterday, and hasn't yet been to DRV.  Jheald (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the correction. — xDanielx  T/C\R 09:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guideline addition
This has been shot down in the past, but I'd like to try proposing it again:  I think we should add something equal to the following to the guideline under "# 2.1.3 Images".


 * In article sections which contain a non-trivial amount of explanatory or descriptive text, such as a complete paragraph, WP:NFCC may be applied to the section as though the section were a freestanding article.

The addition of the above text would remove the discrepancy where content is forbidden in a section but would be permitted if someone simply split the section out into its own article. Incentives for creating articles is not the purpose of the NFC policy.

The most immediately obvious effect this would have is permitting illustrations which are currently not allowed in *some* character list articles, specifically ones which have a chunk of text per-character. In some cases this would result in a large number of non-free images in a single "article" but each usage would still be coupled with enough text to have justified the usage under policy had the information happened to be organized somewhat different in Wikipedia. An example which I think this text would permit is List of Torchwood monsters and aliens, while it would not go as far as permitting a screenshot per row in List_of_simpsons_episodes.

I believe the proposed guideline supports the policies demand that non-free images not be used as decoration or navigation, but to allow coupled with where it has a legitimate explanatory purpose.

Thoughts? --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason that we don't permit nonfree images of every character in List of Torchwood monsters and aliens is not because it puts too much nonfree content in one article, but because it puts too much nonfree content in Wikipedia as a whole.
 * NFCC is sometimes misinterpreted as though each article has a "free pass" of several nonfree images. That's the only interpretation that supports the idea that, by splitting a list into longer articles, more nonfree content can be added. The actual wording of NFCC is clear that there is no allowance of nonfree content per article. If no nonfree image would be OK before the split, none would be OK after the split, either.
 * I can't support the proposal because I think it would encourage people to add more text in an effort to "save" excessive nonfree images, rather than encouraging people to simply remove the excessive nonfree images. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I think I'm seeing is cases where non-free content has fairly little importance in illustrating the subject of a broad article "Foo (tv show)", but where it would serve an arguably important role in illustrating "Bar (character in Foo)" if the article happened to exist. Today we'd evaluate the image with respect to the subject of an article while I'd prefer we evaluate it with respect the section simply because the section could be spun off into an article, and might be spun off just to satisfy our policy.
 * Your free pass concern seems very material to me, I don't know how to resolve that other than to say that we need to avoid the free pass mentality in all cases, not just in the cases this additional rule might encourage. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal makes sense to me. There's nothing wrong with adding text that "saves" an image, and no reason to think this would be more prevalent where the text is in multiple sections on a single article, versus in multiple stand-alone articles.  The text is judged on its own merits as to whether it's encyclopedic, relevant, verifiable, etc.  If that text deserves a non-free image and the image passes NFCC, so be it.  The decision on whether to put related topics in a single master article, spread it across multiple child articles, or some combination, is a stylistic choice made for purpose of overall organization of the encyclopedia.  That's an orthogonal question to whether a non-free image is appropriate to a given topic.  One shouldn't affect the other because they're unrelated.  Having said that I can see a call for a higher bar than "non-trivial", and also a distinction between "list" articles and those that simply happen to cover multiple topics in the same page.  There's also a distinction to be drawn between parent articles with child topics (where the image could go in the child article) versus articles where there is no child (and hence no other place to put the image). Wikidemo (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're speaking to my intention: I'd just like us to regard the manner that ideas are spread among articles to be generally irrelevant to the NFC policy. I hated saying 'non-trivial' which is why I gave a rather lame example. Can you suggest revised text? --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A very rough draft, probably too wordy. This could go in the examples part of the guideline (and note, it doesn't expand use in lists/galleries, so it might differ from the original proposal). In cases where articles treat multiple topics in sections that could stand alone as articles, and are grouped together in a single article solely for purposes of style and organization, then it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis to use non-free images that apply to topics in the article sections rather than to the article as a whole.  The foregoing is not intended to enable use of images in articles structured as lists or galleries or to permit duplication in a parent article's short summary of a child article in which the image is already used.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, partially in line with CBM's arguements, but also on the fact that it's going to throw the ball over into the court of Notability and Undue weight; editors may engage in pushing on these latter two points such that they can merit enough text to justify a picture, expanding a short, well-written encyclopedic description into a long paragraph or two or three that, while not necessarily engaging in OR or POV, gives too much imbalance to that one element just to give it a picture. One thing we need to keep in mind is that every Wikipedia page can be exactly one click away from another wiki page, thanks to metalinking (whether wikia or a different wiki) where the Foundation's mission doesn't extend and thus such images and expansive text can be used extensively. --M ASEM  15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the existing behavior throws it over the wall: Regardless of what the policy says (I'm not forgetting Carl's points), right now you can get a lot more non-free images into Wikipedia by splitting an article into a dozen smaller articles, which may or may not be allowed to survive per WP:NOTE. I can only see a rule which makes it clear that sections and articles can be treated the same as reducing the problem shifting. Your point about the whole of the internet being only a click away is an excellent one, but I'd be more inclined to use it as  an argument justifying a restrictive policy than specifically in this case. --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're positing that people would go to considerable lengths wikigaming and wikilawyering to get their images in, but is this realistic? I would hope people are editing with a higher purpose than that.  No system is immune to gaming, and when resistance to abuse becomes a primary goal in rule-making one often loses sight of the actual goal.  Best to design rules for the majority of cases and count on enforcement, refinement, good faith, and perhaps examples and illustrations, to keep the outliers at bay.  Maybe it's best to say what we want, and what we don't mean to allow, and phrase the proposal in that way. Wikidemo (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We currently have a tragedy of the commons where the overall use of nonfree content is higher than our mission dictates, because images are justified on a per-article basis without regard for the encyclopedia as a whole. It's like smoking in a closed room: if only one person does it, the air stays clear, but when enough people start doing it the room gets cloudy. Our goal isn't to eliminate nonfree content, but its use need to be minimal from the perspective of the entire encyclopedia, not only minimal on an article-by-article basis. In other words, we have to watch the forest as well as the trees. I would be more willing to support gmaxwell's proposal if it were accompanied by language to this effect. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "we need to keep in mind is that every Wikipedia page can be exactly one click away from another wiki page". The truth is that even that is too much of a effort for most of us, and keeping an everything on 1 single page is important. I know for a fact I very often read articles of the like "Characters in" or "Music of" or "List of episodes of", but I almost NEVER click on the "Main article" links. We should try to avoid having editors split their articles just for the image reasons.
 * I do not see a problem with editors adding extra text for "saving" an image. On the contrary, this would add to the overall quality of wikipedia. Must of those articles are written by fans which care more about their game/show/music than the fact that wikipedia should be free. If we can tell them "Make your articles better, or the images go", and they comply, then what is the problem?
 * Finally, even under these conditions, some articles/sections will still reveal themselves not notable enough to warrant an image, so I don't think we have to be too afraid of editors going overboard. happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to stop anyone from conditionally agreeing to anything, but aren't photographs the commons? It's copyrights that claim the commons, and fair use that says "no, you can't have it."  Free images aren't a way of keeping privately owned sheep off the town square, they're a way of saying "fine, your sheep can have your grass.  we'll make due with something else."  Anyway, it's not obvious that we have too many nonfree images as it is.  How many are there, really?  From Betacommand's figures a year ago we probably have 200,000 to 250,000 non-free uses in 2.4 million articles total, so about 10%.  Of those the vast majority are in several orderly image classes - book covers, album covers and other cover art, film posters, corporate logos, and notable artwork.  Am I forgetting anything?  All those are easily dealt with and don't hinder re-use.  The more difficult cases - pictures of dead people, historical photographs, cartoon and fictional characters, actors and musicians in role, etc., are relatively few in number.  Say, 50,000?  We've probably burned through a million words talking about it on this page so in terms of effort versus benefit, our washcloth is already dry and trying to wring out even more fair use is going to be less and less productive.  Wikidemo (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point to bring up: we effective have language and come to the consensus that this idea does not work for episodes and album lists, so why should it be expanded to other areas?  (I'm asking for a good reason, not completely dismissing it).  Mind you, I think most involved presently recognize that there's a difference between lists of characters and lists of episodes when it comes to non-free issues, as we agree the former can have images, while the later should not save for possibly one leading one (eg Smallville (Season 1)).  If we expand to let other types of lists to use images based on text devoted in a section, we're going to slippery-slope to having to allow the same on these two types of articles.  Of course, I can also see the argument that if we can get discographies and episode lists down to one leading image, then why can't character list end up with the same?   Again, I think it is important to recognize that we do have two different "classes" of lists and we need to somehow make sure that they aren't treated discriminately but with relatively equivalent approaches befitting their intended function. --M ASEM  19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most of us can see a fundamental difference between true lists, pages which are merely enumerating things, and pages which collect discussions on each item out in a set. In the former case there is appears to be a fairly deeply rooted consensus that non-free illustrations are unacceptable in every instance, but in the latter case we appear to allow the image when the discussed item is on a page by itself but reject it when its on a page with two dozen similar objects.
 * I think I'm taking exactly the opposite position from the one you seem to be taking on your last point. We do have two different "classes" of lists, and because they are different they shouldn't be treated the same. The policy is intended to allow the use of non-free illustrations which are contributing to a discussion, one 'list' type lacks discussion and so it clearly can't use the images, the other type has discussion, so the rejection of non-free images there should be on different grounds.--Gmaxwell (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. Way back in the day, I brought up the notion that "list" didn't really apply to the characters article that I edited and another editor removed all the images from.  I still believe this, and I don't even like using the word "list" for it, since those articles do not resemble lists of things.  My shopping list does not have two or three paragraphs describing what each item is and why I want to buy it.  I think that the guideline should differentiate between these two types of lists.  I think I'd be OK with a rule that tied image use to a threshold level of text content, but I think that could invite overuse.  I'm talking about a case of some minor character who gets a lot of discussion, arguably more than he deserves, and therefore qualifies for an image.  The too much text issue probably doesn't hurt anything all that much; having a well-written-yet-too-long section about some character isn't really so bad, but overuse of non-free images is more serious. Croctotheface (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with GMaxwell's proposed change. It would be a good idea to allow more non-free images in articles such as this. Johntex\talk 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I support GMaxwell's proposal. As they currently stand, the NFC rules create an unnecessary disincentive to merge articles.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This disincentive to merge comes from an overuse of nonfree images on short articles, not from the failure of NFCC on longer articles. If several images wouldn't be appropriate in a single large article, they aren't appropriate spread across several short articles either. From this point of view, the proposal is backwards. Instead of lowering the threshold for long articles, we could raise the threshold for short articles to match the threshold for large articles, to avoid the incentive to split articles only to use nonfree images. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind pointing out a short article on something like an episode, character, etc, (something about copyrighted-media that could conceivably be merged into a master article) which you believe should have zero non-free images on the basis of policy and good judgment? Perhaps we can figure out how to better make the rule clear for those, while permitting the stuff that isn't a problem. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about 1,68 (Shorty album), or about 90% of Category:Stub-Class Album articles. While I would never let this item have an image in a "Album discussion list", if we removed the image from that article, it would really have nothing left for itself. It is the only thing holding the page together, and identifying the object in the article. What I guess I'm saying is that we DO need to make a distinction between a small article, and a subsection, but we shouldn't downright ban images in "List/discussion" articles. happypal (Talk | contribs) 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that wouldn't be permitted... there is no discussion there. But it wouldn't be permitted in a section as proposed above, or at least I wouldn't have intended it to be. What do you think of Wikidemo's rephrasing? --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I am opposed to this addition. You might as well give up on limiting fair use images if this is added. NFC policy is so badly twisted now to support irrational conclusions that adding even more lenient wording is a recipe for disaster. We fought like mad to get album covers out of discographies. There was a huge battle over screenshots in episode lists. If you add this wording, discographies will see album covers again and episode lists will see screenshots again. Bet on it. If you add this wording, forget ever trying to encourage a free use encyclopedia again. We are already the world's largest repository of non-free media, and we're a free project supposedly? We want to liberalize our policies? This is a non-starter. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this proposal for two reasons. One, I was under the impression our standing orders were to reduce our current use of fair-use, and this runs contrary to it. Two, I haven't seen this sort of constructed rules-language since I played M:tG back in the ice ages. It practically begs to be misread, misinterpreted, and generally cause problems. Nifboy (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate approach
Let me suggest an alternate approach, because I'm not comfortable tying the use of non-free media to just having a certain quality of text; that just begs for a lot of playing the system.

First we need to have a review/noticeboard for non-free misuse/overuse issues. The current attitude is unfortunately a result of one-on-many approaches, and while for most issues on WP, consensus is generally applied, here, we have a specific requirement that we have to follow from higher up, and thus we get what appears to be "non-free police". Having a noticeboard to make it a many-on-many issue will hopefully tone down the issues. (this is different from IFD: this should be able a general multitude of images and not just specific images, and not necessarily with the intended result of deletion).

That said, I would be better if we say that for standalong or within article "lists" such as character lists (as opposed to discographies or episode lists), that major elements may have a non-free images under the presumption that there will be a paragraph or two about them, and in limited cases minor elements may have non-free images. But, the current 6 points about lists in NFCC still apply: a montage is always better than individual pictures, etc. So, for example, if the show's article has a nice non-free montage image of the cast, but the character page uses individual pictures, those would have to go. I would also provide the 'hint' that if a picture of a character or element is used for an episode image, reusing that image is much less harmful than creating a new one, and thus it can be reused (though with a new FUR to reflect that).

I would also add that in this case, having more than 10 non-free images on such a list is going to raise questions; it may legitimately need more than 10, but that needs to be strongly justified.

Now, it is keep that we have the noticeboard for this. If editors read too much into the wording for this and suddenly shows start having 20 or so "major" characters (some minor characters being treated as such) we need to review that, and thus the noticeboard is there. If this is consistent gamed in this fashion, we would need to rewrite it and restrict it more. --M ASEM 11:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * how about just ask a simple question when using non-free content? its a fairly simple question, why does this article have to have this image? if you cant come up with a good reason to have the image it fails WP:NFCC. βcommand 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but you see that has a huge, inherent problem, that you yourself are so good at displaying. When one user states "We need this image for reasons X, Y and Z", you (and other users, I hasten to add) jump in and say "Ahh, but X, Y and Z are not valid reasons". It's thus open to interpretation. We need to clamp it down so that it isn't open to interpretation. Talk Islander 20:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if you want zero ability for interpretation then we should do what de.wiki does. otherwise that will not happen. I dont remove images if you can give a solid non-in-universe reason that an article needs a specific image. if its a its because that is what he looks like its a very very weak argument. If on the other hand its a key element such as Image:Picard as Locutus.jpg in Borg (Star Trek) which shows very key elements of the species, and the unique traits of that race, I wouldnt remove. My basic position is can you make a unique argument for saving that image that is not generic? βcommand 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the limit of your suggestion we couldn't accept reasons at all, since all reasons would need to be read and interpreted. Beyond that it's all a matter of degree. Attempts to remove judgment from the application of policy will make it less flexible, ultimately making all parties less satisfied with the outcome and increasing the number of stupid corner cases that people use as arguments for chucking the whole thing.--Gmaxwell (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to agree about what "lists" are for the purpose of this guideline
I think the major hurdle we need to clear is agreeing on what is and isn't a list. If Gmaxwell's comments in a discussion above are correct, the initial notion of "no fair use in lists" came about because of lists that were clearly lists: the image was paired with some minimal text, so the whole thing was little more than a gallery of non-free images. There exist some lists that primarily list elements, such as List of dog breeds. The issue is that many "characters" articles aren't "lists" in that sense--they're compilations of stub- and start-class articles. The fact that many of them use "list" in their titles led to an overly broad interpretation of the policy (if Gmaxwell's history is correct) and led to massive removal of images that probably should have stayed. My understanding is that back around January, we reached the consensus that such articles were not "lists," but perhaps I am mistaken about this. I think we should have the guideline distinguish between actual lists that should never get non-free content and articles that may be called "lists" but are in fact something else, which can have non-free content. After we do that, we can set up rules of thumb that will help editors keep fair use minimal in those articles that can have it at all. Croctotheface (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's less "no non-free images in lists" being the core issue, and more that concurrent with the enforcement on true-lists (which couldn't have non-free images due to lack of analysis/discussion) we also adopted a practice of automatically declaring many cases with >5 non-free images, and all with ~20+ non-free images (mostly in of which were true-lists) to be excessive. So a true-list would have its images removed for two reasons, one because there was a lack of analysis/discussion, and the other that 20+ images was impressively excessive. Both were true.  But the first doesn't apply to these collection articles ("list of foo characters" that has extensive character discussion) and I don't believe the second should in those cases due to the rationale I discussed above.
 * So perhaps some definitions:
 * True list an enumeration of items, possibly with descriptive text, but without discussion or analysis per item.
 * Collection article an article which enumerates members of a class and proves both descriptive and analytical text for each member.
 * My proposal was to leave true lists alone, and to apply the NFC standards to the members of collection articles as though they were free standing articles. (Effectively eliminating the argument that All 60 items of type foo is automatically in the wrong because 60 is too many non-free image, and allowing the image if we'd permit the 60 non-free images if each element had its own article.)--Gmaxwell (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "if each element had it's own article" test because it invites an argument about whether the element passes notability guidelines, which shouldn't enter into the analysis. I responded to the overall argument above; my point in this section is to call attention to the fact that the guideline does not make clear that "true lists" should be treated differently from "collections" and to say that we should amend it so that it does.  The argument that "lists don't get non-free images" reared its head even after I thought the issue was settled.  If there is consensus that these kinds of articles are different, we should make that clear in the guideline.  "True lists" don't get non-free content; "collections" are a different class of articles and do. Croctotheface (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to skirt around the policies by identifying a split between "true lists" and "collections" completely ignores the base principle that we are a free content encyclopedia, and non-free content must be kept to a minimum, per Foundation dictum on the matter. I don't care what people choose to call an article. You can call it an prose-pack, text-assembly, verbiage-vault or anything at all if you want. It does not matter. The article must still be subservient to the Foundation's stance that non-free content usage must be kept to a minimum. Taking List of Torchwood monsters and aliens as an example, the notion that we should have one image per collection-item (there are 41 items) on an article that's 43kb long, is ludicrously absurd. We do not need 41 images to increase reader's understanding of an article that is 43kb long. We're not writing kiddie books here with lots of pretty pictures and "see spot run" text. We're writing an encyclopedia. Even if all the images were free, we still shouldn't be embedding that much imagery. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I never advocated "one entry per item" anywhere; I'm confused about why you'd bring that up in response to anything I said unless it's to attack a straw man. The problem here is that "kept to a minimum" requires interpretation.  Your constant insistence that you have the magic interpretation, that only you and those who agree with you you understand the Foundation's wishes, is what's ludicrous here. Croctotheface (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to have the magic interpretation. If you can cite where I said that, I'd be happy to acknowledge it. But, the reality is I didn't. I did claim *you* did. Perhaps you're mapping that memory as indicating me rather than you? I'd be quite happy to accede to your interpretation, if it kept fair use to a minimum and had some reasonable means of management other than a list is list because it is and a list is not a list because it isn't, and the way you can tell is by significant prose. That's an arbitrary measurement, and one so subjective as to be meaningless. I've seen people claim the same argument that discographies are not discographies because they contain information on track lists, release dates, chart records, release notes, etc. so therefore they are clearly more than discographies and deserve album covers. You'll note the extreme absence of album covers at Category:Discographies as a measurement of how successful that argument was there. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing definition now in the guideline page is pretty good: "articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work" Wikidemo (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Significant prose content" is no more subjective than "minimal use." It's the way the guidelines always work.  The reason discographies should not get non-free images is not that the albums themselves will tend to have individual articles, so having album covers at both place is not necessary.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can probably show you a thousand references to albums in discographies that do not have articles for the individual albums. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, go for it. Croctotheface (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And waste time? No thanks. I'd rather say you're right, I'm wrong, and we should have as much fair use as we need in order to promote the mission of producing an encyclopedia (and free content can go to hell). The point is, the discographies do not lack album covers because every single album (or even a most) has an article where the album cover resides. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that every one has one, just that there's a tendency. It makes the situation different. Croctotheface (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It has no effect on the situation whatsoever. But you and I will categorically refuse to agree on anything, so we might as well give up. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rethinking this in light of the Foundation resolution
I think it's important we take a look again at the Foundation resolution, specifically that Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. emphasis mine. The use of images in "lists" or "collections" of characters or other fictional elements, or whatever we're going to call them, has been called out as a special case by the Foundation that we need to limit. The above suggestion, of allowing an image to be used just because there is enough text there is not a "narrow limit", since it's always possible to add more text and thus justify it. Mind you, the resolution does not say "zero" either, and the key word we need to keep in mind is "complement". Now, we're free to interpret from that, but this is the "law" we have to work under - consensus cannot override that, and this operates as a superset of US laws, so arguments about fair use don't apply.

However, I think I'm confident that this can be read that we should not be attempting to making full blown character/element identification guides to allow readers to visually identify these; that well exceeds the narrow limit described.

That said, given that there is a push to want more images, I think there's two ways to go about this:
 * 1) Characters/episodes/etc. that are notable - in that there is plenty of secondary sources to describe the character to allow it its own article, then one may use one image (but not required and also falls under other nonfree use concerns); more images may be appropriate but will likely fall under heavy scrutiny.
 * 2) When these are not notable, and as done in current practiced, merged to a list, images should only be used to support the list/collection - that means focusing on cast shots or montages, or finding representive samples to extrapolate the rest.  At this point, I'd go to the previous discussion of 0-2 images ok, up to 5 generally not too much in question, more than 5 will need to be strongly justified to use as a baseline.

I realize this is more limiting than what editors above are suggesting but I think it is necessary to point out that we have a starting point for guidance from the Foundation that we cannot change. --M ASEM 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing that I want to point out about this comment, which is generally well-reasoned, is that Masem is right when he says that "we're free to interpret," so I'm a little puzzled about why the very next clause implies, basically, that we can't. We need to figure out what "complement" and "narrow limits" mean.  I think that the "threshold level of text" test would get to complement, but probably doesn't set a narrow enough limit.  To this end, I think I agree with Masem on the merits, though I wouldn't be opposed to tweaking the upper limit of the numbers we had been discussing before.  Minor characters shouldn't get images (unless it's an iconic image that deserves treatment in the text, or they're in the group shot, and so forth) because the benefits readers get from images of major characters are significant, while the benefits of seeing minor characters are not significant, and I generally agree with Masem that such use is not sufficiently narrow. However, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to interpret "narrow limits" differently. Croctotheface (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's been multiple attempts, both current on this page and in other forums, to attempt to more objectively define the limitations of non-free usage. This has always been problematic, and will always be problematic. Attempting to set objective targets creates a situation where people will (and have) skirt the rules, come up with ways to maneuver around them rather than subscribing to the spirit of the policy. The policy is intended to be broad, and the guideline intended to describe how the policy typically gets applied, without providing a narrow paint brush defining a black/white line. If you say "five images" then you will see lots of list articles with five images, when one montage image would be plenty...and you will see massive debates about five vs. one. In trying to identify specific objective targets, you're just shifting the argument. The policy and guidelines do not anticipate every possible application nor can they. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that recent events have shown that the lack of some type of objectivity has led to edit wars, the departure of one long-time admin, lots more discussion at AN/I over this, and more. I'm fully aware that if we give the average editors five images, they will use all five images.  However, without anything like that, people will use more and then getting them to remove them becomes like pulling teeth.  I would think that it is in the best interest to tackle this two-fold: set some levels that give the right guidance, and then having something akin to a noticeboard or AFD where the merits of the #s of images are discussed should there be significant opposition.    The latter is always good to have, but in combination with limits, we can at least put practical "limited uses" into effect while providing the right advice and hopefully guiding editors towards even less usage.  --M ASEM  21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, and sounds right and proper. But, in practice, the reality is otherwise. I've seen so many arguments about image removals as to make one believe there's nothing else in the world but such debates. They've occurred all over the project, have made it to arbcom, and a host of admins and editors have ceaselessly argued over this. The net outcome is there is little in the way of common ground. Guiding editors who believe fair use usage is ok into using less is effectively impossible. The reverse is equally impossible. This will never end. The only way to end all of the endless wrangling is either to liberally permit fair use within the confines of U.S. law or eliminate fair use entirely as the German edition Wikipedia has done. I've done research into the background of these arguments and the history as well. It's been going on for years. No one person or group of people has ever been capable enough to come up with a compromise position that (a) allows for efficient management of fair use, (b) stops the ceaseless arguments and (c) gains wide acceptance. I have zero hope...and I really mean zero...that any solution can be attained that achieves those goals while allowing limited fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A question: have we actually tried a NFC policy based on specifying numbers? (I don't believe I have seen one since I've been here, and given the recentness of the resolution, I don't think one has been tried since its introduction).  I know that if we did add numbers, editors would immediately fill that limit; I'd be stupid not to expect that.  However, maybe its a necessary olive branch to extend to those that demand, as the Torchwood monster list example shows, an image per item on list/collections/whatever.  I think it's an education process, and once you start getting them to think about reducing non-free use, it becomes easier to deal with, particularly with newer editors that tend to follow set examples.  If this has been done and failed, ok, then lets not repeat it, but if we boldly stated this and see what results, we may get farther to understanding what others are looking for in guidance than leaving as vague as it is.  --M ASEM  17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of release do state agencies need to sign to allow images?
Hello. I need a bit of assistance, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to be. I'm hoping someone here can point me in the right direction.

I'm using two images in Geography and ecology of the Everglades that I found on the State of Florida Archives Digital Photograph Collection. The images are this one and this one. I'm certain both are in public domain, but I called the Florida Archives to be sure, and they are also sure of it. However, I would like to send them a release, which they agreed to sign, much like the GNU license I have sent individuals. Can I send the same worded message to OTRS from the Florida Archives, or is there a different one for state agencies? Thank you for your assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tangential comments in WP:NFCC
Currently WP:NFCC contains this text:


 * As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.

The question "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" has nothing to do with C#1; if anything it falls under C#8. C#1 explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free images, not the removal of non-free images without replacement. Digressive comments of this sort not only make the criterion's description unnecessarily lengthy, they create confusion by blurring the scope of each criterion.

Hence I made what I expected to be an obvious and uncontroversial correction, but it was reverted. Anyway, if you think the clause in question is appropriate for inclusion under C#1, please opine here.

— xDanielx  T/C\R 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No free equivalent. covers more than just replacement images. if the subject can be covered with properly with the written word there is no need for a non-free image. thus it is replaceable with text. that is why that phrase is that way. βcommand 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with xDanielx. Policy clause #1 (No free equivalent), as he says, explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free ones. This is incontestable given the title of the clause and its entire primary content preceding the parenthetical. As a matter of logic, science, and common sense, text can never be considered as "equivalent" to an image. The question of whether a (non-free) image contributes significantly to readers' understanding beyond what is conveyed via text is properly a consideration that falls under policy clause #8 (Significance). I support restoration of xDanielx's correction.—DCGeist (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably if am image could be replaced with text it could also be replaced with a freely licensed image (of text). :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether an image can be replaced by text depends greatly on the role ("encyclopedic purpose" in NFCC#1) of the image in the article. The criterion is not that the free replacement is equivalent in every respect, only that it serves the same purpose as the non-free material, and fulfills that purpose equally well. This is distinct from criterion #8, which applies to non-free images that cannot be replaced by text serving the same purpose, but might still be inappropriate because they don't directly increase the reader's understanding of the topic (in other words, their purpose is only tangential to the article). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's actually a test that it's virtually impossible for text to pass in practice. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing someone's face and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what that person looks like nearly as well as a photograph. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing a piece of music and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of demonstrating what it sounds like nearly as well as an audio clip. Again, it defies both logic and common sense to subsume the question of textual sufficiency under the No free equivalent criterion. If we aim the criterion squarely at the issue that it logically addresses—whether free media equivalents are available or may be created to substitute for non-free media—we may find that the improved clarity and focus will actually make the criterion more effective.—DCGeist (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet there are times when it can be replaced with text. We don't need a fair use image of a baseball bat in order to complete an article. Virtually everyone knows what one looks like. Saying "baseball bat" in an article is an adequate replacement for a fair use image of a bat. Yes, I'm using an extreme case to highlight the point, but so are you. Nobody's claimed that text can replace what a particular performance sounds like. This wording is highly important. Removing it erodes the free nature of the encyclopedia. Non free material must overcome very significant hurdles to exist her. This is one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think his argument is that that hurdle is not significant. It's basically impossible for any image to not pass this criterion the way it's written. Croctotheface (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) As I see it, #1 has always been intent to mean a free equivalent media. I simply do not regard text as equivalent. #1 is now being abused a lot to have images deleted with the rationale that it could be replaced with words. Many times I aksed nominators to describe the image, which often yields in description that do not match the image at all, or simply being told "that's not my job". I support XDanielx's edit. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11 and down... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually not the best example, but I can't find any others that quickly. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult for me to evaluate those as the images are deleted and I can not view them. But, looking at least at the last two image discussions, it appears it's more to do with the images having little to do with the article, and being decorative. That's really not a NFCC #1 debate. I ran into a similar situation on Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) a while back. The that was on the article had nothing to do with it, except that the image was from the episode. Weak fair use claim at best. Now, the article has an image that directly relates to the narrative in the article. But, like I said, that's not a #1 debate, but a #8 debate. Can you cite specific #1 debates? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the point -- C#8 is the pertinent criterion in cases of that sort. But when we publish statements like (to paraphrase) "If an image can be replaced with text, it fails C#1", it becomes both a C#8 issue and a C#1 issue. (That's not to say that they're mutually exclusive, but there's certainly overlap.) I don't think such statements extend C#1 in any useful way -- C#8 is more than adequate for dealing with images that can be replaced with text, and the conditions are essentially the same (albeit expressed with different rhetoric), so the extra comments just create overlap resulting in less clarity. — xDanielx  T/C\R 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. #8 gets at all the cases, like Hammersoft's "baseball bat" example, that are genuinely "replaceable with text."  Croctotheface (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking exactly the same thing. Look, these are policy criteria--they shouldn't be grab bags for rhetoric and they shouldn't confuse matters between themselves. Addressing the problem here actually serves larger effort to bring more clarity and definition to the criteria. Each criteria is stronger the closer it gets to a bright-line test. Here, for the first criterion: Can your non-free image be replaced with a free image that serves the same encyclopedic purpose? If yes, it must be so replaced. If no, move on to the next criterion. All of these questions about whether an image really adds significantly to an article, or whether the relevant text alone does the job are--should be--really obviously matters that fall under criterion 8. Obviously, major work needs to be done to make the application of criterion 8 itself clearer and less subject to personal whims--let's make that next on the agenda. But let's clear this criterion up now.DocKino (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not gonna happen. Fair use law in the U.S. is deliberately vague. Wikipedia's policies, even though a superset of that law and not the law itself, are no different. There is and will not be a bright line test. Conventions of usage develop, and that's how we have and will continue to handle these matters. For example, there's a convention now that album covers are not permitted on discographies. But, you're not going to find that in the policy. Neither are we going to have every single possible usage under discussion on the policy. And, really, there already is a bright line test. "Is it free?" If no, it detracts from our mission here. Try desperately hard to come up with an alternative that is free. It's a simple question. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's not really the dispute here. At risk of repeating my comments from below, could you give me a single image that "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and yet could be adequately replaced by text?  Croctotheface (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already cited an example. You don't need to show a fair use image of a baseball bat to convey what a baseball bat looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But you believe that the baseball bat image you refer to would "significantly increase the reader's understanding" of whatever topic this took place at? I can't see that it would if it's just visually identifying an everyday object.  I want a case where an image passes #8 but fails the "replaceable by text" part of #1.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have setup a straw poll below to gauge the support for this language, feel free to broadcast the existence at VP. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Please indicate if you support or oppose the language: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" being in NFCC #1:

Support

 * 1) Text can be perfectly adequate without images. "So-and-so was chosen as Person of the Year by TIME Magazine for the year 2XXX" doesn't need an image of the cover to explain it.  howcheng   {chat} 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Text often isn't... but it can be. There are lots and lots of useless images of text out there, for example. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Howcheng, he sums up the way I feel about it.  Kelly  hi! 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Clearly text is a insufficient substitute for images, as any blind person will tell you. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think that this rule can only be interpreted one of two ways.  The first way is that "replaceable by text" means that all salient, discussion-worthy elements of the image can be described in the text.  If this is true, every image is replaceable by text.  How else do we have an encyclopedia article about an image other than by writing about it?  The second way would hold "replaceable by text" to mean that readers lose nothing at all by reading the text rather than seeing the image.  If this is true, no image is replaceable by text, at least unless the description is so thorough and contains the most minute detail that it would allow the reader to recreate the image perfectly.  In practice, I think that we want this rule to mean something in between the two extremes, but that's a completely subjective standard.  Furthermore, I don't think there could exist an image that "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and yet "could be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all."  The "replaceable by text" language does not get at anything that criterion 8 does not.  Could someone who favors keeping "replaceable by text" give me a case that passes "significance" but fails "replaceable by text"? Croctotheface (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Greg and others images and text can be functionally similar in certain cases, but I think that misses the point. The question is, does the text replacement clause fit better under C#1 or C#8? I don't think it's unequivically incompatable with C#1, but as others have said, the combination is a bit obscure -- referring to images and text as equivalents is ambiguous at best. On the other hand, it fits under C#8 very nicely and intuitively -- so intuitively, in fact, that editors predominantly continue to allude to C#8 when discussing this even after editors added an explicit connection to C#1 and removed it from C#8. —  xDanielx  T/C\R 09:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NFCC #1 is really the most important part of the policy (thats why it's number 1 :) ), and what it's asking us is "Is the use of a non-freely licensed thing really a last resort? Is there some other way we could address the need?" .. and, if some text really was a comparable replacement (not that it often is...), then we'd have to say no to #1. If people really find the text example confusing, I wouldn't oppose a carefully worded alternative, but it needs to be something which respects the broadness of the criteria: If you could provide the same education with something else, then you must. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you take a stab at my question above? Can you think of an image that passes criterion 8 but is still "replaceable by text"? Croctotheface (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was, apparently, being daft and misunderstanding the argument. It would be fine, preferable in fact, in #8. I'd prefer to restructure it to move #8 closer to the top.. but people refer to the numbers, so oh well. ;)--Gmaxwell (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly #1 isn't appropriate for Visual Arts images...works must be seen to be understood..Modernist (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a conditional, it only applies when it's true. Only in cases where a work need not be seen does it apply, so your point, though it's quite valid, doesn't seem relevant to where the text is placed. There are cases where an image can be replaced w/ text, and thats what the test is asking you to consider. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't misunderstand: Dragon695 just removed entire text, now arguing that it violates WP:NOR of all things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Is not germane to the "frre image available?" question. Madman (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Polls are evil

 * Polls don't help resolve disputes, and a poll certainly can not erode Foundation policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the case in many situations. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously have a substantial disagreement above, thus I thought perhaps we could get a rough idea on consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious there's no consensus to change the policy. That's your consensus, or lack thereof, not this straw poll. The poll serves no purpose. You yourself note there's substantial disagreement. You don't change policy without substantial agreement. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there even substantial disagreement or do we just have one person pushing a particular argument? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW -- DCGeist, Edokter, Croctotheface, DocKino, Dragon695, Croctotheface and I make seven, actually. — xDanielx  T/C\R 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Hello, There is a running debate in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. At issue is if the use of non-free images is appropriate for "major characters" that don't have their own page. One user maintains that doing so in this case violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. We were unable to come to a resolution on the talk page, and that user suggested I bring the issue here. I'm unsure where 3a comes into play, but my understanding of his arguments for 1 and 8 is that these images don't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I believe that most would agree that having an image (if one exists) of any given character, no matter if a game, movie or TV show, adds significant understanding by providing exactly what the character looks like. And as nearly every "good" article about a fictional or real person includes their image (if one exists) it seems this is generally accepted. I'm seeking some guidance from the community on this issue, and welcome others involved to comment... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This goes exactly to what we've been discussing in the thread above.


 * There is--there should be--absolutely no #1 question at all. As the images in question involve copyrighted video game characters, they are clearly irreplaceable by free images. No #1 issue. Move on to the next criterion.


 * Is there a #3a issue? Well yes, there might be. If there is an image that shows more than one of these major characters, #3a tells us that image must be used instead of separate images for each of the characters--the structure of the article might have to be adjusted to accommodate the requirements of #3a in this case.


 * Finally, #8. As usual, the toughest nut. Clearly, the images you describe do "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." There's really no rational argument otherwise. If there's a dispute, it can only be about whether the topic itself or the type of article (sort of list-y) is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of non-free images. On the "topic itself", the answer seems to be clear: there are lots of video game articles, and most of them have non-free images. The community view is clearly that the topic is significant enough. (And, of course, #8 does not in fact address the significance of topics themselves.) As for the type of article, that's a closer call. This one seems to me to have a lot of textual description and so--certainly for the major characters--doesn't feel at all like the sort of list article that non-free images have been being weeded out of. All in all, the usage you describe--limited to just the major characters--does pass muster under the guideline: Non-free_content.DocKino (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Irreplaceable" doesn't mean "irreplaceable by another image", it means "irreplaceable" by anything, including not being necessary at all - remember, WP:NFCC#1 says "before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself ... Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?"
 * How do the images significantly increase the reader's understanding? What does a random image of (for example) Officer Tenpenny tell me that text couldn't?
 * "There a lots of video games articles, and most of them have non-free images". Yes you are correct - video game articles are generally amongst the worst for violation of non-free image policies.
 * Apart from failing the policy, I'd argue the article doesn't even pass the guidelines
 * "Screenshots from software products (should be) for critical commentary"
 * "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images."
 * This summed it up quite well, I think - " If a character is not significant enough to have their own article, their status within the universe of the depicted series is minor, and it becomes exceptionally hard to justify violating our core m:Mission by having a fair use image for such a minor character." Black Kite 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was certainly no consensus for that last point. I remember the discussion well. Many users including myself were opposed to that, and only a very small group of users such as yourself were in favour of such a thing compared to the larger majority who were not. Again, that point brings us to the "No images in lists" argument, notability and significance does not work that way. -- .: Alex  :.  10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it was a good summing-up, not a consensus. In the end, the point is that Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia.  That core mission is not helped by plastering copyright abuses all over articles when they're not required per WP:NFCC (which is a policy).  If it can be proved, for each image, that it passes each criterion of NFCC, then that image can be used.  This is quite easy for some images in some articles, and impossible for others.  It also depends on the article they're being used in (WP:NFCC#8 applies here).  What we can't do is say that having vast swathes of non-free images in articles such as this is improving the encylopedia, because according to the Mission Statement it's not - it's degrading it.  Yes, there are a lot of articles that are problematic - including some Good and Featured articles.  That doesn't mean that we can't chip away at the problems where we find them.  (Incidentally, if I were the regular editors of this article, I'd be worrying about the fact that it's full of original research and doesn't have a single third pary reference rather than the NF image issue). Black Kite 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if there isn't anything resembling consensus on this issue, and I intend on restoring those images unless there is significant objection from some other corner. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't; it'll save me the revert. Black Kite 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll restore the images if he/she doesn't. I tire of you and the rest of the boo-hoo brigade whining about degrading the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter is most only care about Wikipedia for this site and not for some idiot to be able to reuse the content. If they want to reuse, they are welcome to remove the fair use before doing so. Toodles! --Dragon695 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Limiting fair use is a mandate from the Foundation; we are required to follow it. This is not something that is open to consensus or the like. --M ASEM 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem said it better than I probably would. You may "tire" of Foundation policies - it doesn't mean you can ignore them.  I see you restored that image, without explaining how it passes NFCC. I have, of course, reverted. Black Kite 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I did explain how it passed NFCC #8 on the talk page, so I have reverted your revert. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It most certain is not, as WMF board member Anthere stated just two weeks ago:
 * Seems like basic fair use to me. No big deal certainly. Will I ask the board to approve such a change? I am not sure what you mean here, I see not really how such a use is non consistent with our current policies.
 * That was a response directly to a WP:POINTy anti-fairuse troll who attempted to limit fairuse by trying to use the WMF said so card. Please, take your FUD somewhere else. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are bringing up a completely unrelated case. The Wikinews debate covers a case where the photo is of a copyrighted 3D work (FIFA statue), whereas this is about using copyrighted work in its entirety. Plus, if you're quoting Anthere, you might also be reminded that she also stated that we "should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines."  howcheng  {chat} 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are missing the point. It isn't unrelated because the board has stated each project has a right to determine the level of fairuse allowed. Period. That's what she was saying and that is why the WMF said so line won't work. You can say it until you are blue in the face, but the WMF has delegated the decision to us. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the resolution says that Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. That's the statement we have to work from.  --M ASEM  20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is we craft our own EDP, the language that follows can only be a suggested application since to do otherwise would risk running afoul of Section 230 safe harbour provisions. Getting back to the point, the Wikinews example is a practical application of that EDP requirement. That project not only allows liberal fairuse, it even allows grant of license! I see no reason why we can't be more mellow and laid back about it here, too. Having headshots of video game characters to illustrate their character sketches is well within the scope of this project. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy is that fair use usage must be minimal. That's the Foundation policy, and it can not be eroded. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit of a technical clarification here: section 230 doesn't have anything to do with copyright issues. There is a similar provision for it, OCILLA. But it does not say that WMF can't set down licensing rules; it says only that we're not liable for copyright infringment by users provided the procedures for handling it are followed. We have, in fact, set down licensing rules: that non-free content must be minimal and absolutely no wider than what would be considered fair use in the US&mdash;this is a policy that a local community can't override. (Some communities have chosen their own rules that are more restrictive or ban non-free content altogether -- Wikinews shouldn't be going outside this policy either and you may have just seen some old pages, or images that should be deleted, or things actually inside policy that someone was arguing was not, such as Anthere's example.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's up to the local projects, then quoting Anthere on Wikinews is completely irrelevant.  howcheng  {chat} 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree, since it is up to the local projects, then we have every right to have debates without the WMF says so canard. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Foundation's policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the WMF establishes a baseline, as Kat Walsh explained above. Beyond that, local projects get to decide, but we cannot go beneath that starting point (thus, "WMF says so" is valid to a point).  howcheng  {chat} 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was directly quoting Foundation policy. If you believe their policy is wrong, perhaps you should take it up with them. However, my quotation of it is precisely accurate. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That many images definitely fail #3a and #8, and #1 to an extent. As VC is set in a realistic world, the characters are all human, so it is possible to simply describe the bulk of their appearance in text; one or two group shots are otherwise ok.  Remember, the "reader" is not necessary ever going to play the video game, so the question we have to ask, is it work the effort of allowing for non-free content if the material is not extending their understanding of the topic in a manner that text can do?  Clearly not the case here.  --M ASEM  12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK lots of issues here.
 * First of all, you did notice that a single image added to the article was reverted also right? Does that too violate these guidelines in your opinion.
 * Further, I believe that at most there was one for each major character (6 total?) Is that too many?  Where is the limit?
 * Your argument would seem to indicate that no video game should have non-free content for character images if those characters are human. I assume that would expand to movies and the like (the "reader" isn't necessarily ever going to see the movie either).  As most game and movie articles do have such images, that obviously isn't consensus.  So could you clarify what you mean?
 * If you can find a group image that would work for this article, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't see how 3a applies here.
 * Can you explain the difference in the use of images in Pauline Fowler (a featured article chosen more-or-less at random) and here? I'm not seeing that the images add more there than here.
 * Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no number on images - it is what is necessary and appropriate. The policy suggests zero if zero will do, though I'm not saying that; however, I would think that a picture showing at most Tony and Lance would be sufficient for the VC characters - it established the general style that's used for the characters and depicts two of the major ones.    The Pauline article does need to be checked - without looking through it's FAC comments, on the surface it has too many.  But the crux of the matter is the comment about human characters.  If you are in a modern/historical setting with no odd sci-fi elements that a reader should reasonable able to understand in their head (if not through other WP articles on that matter), a visual picture is redundant to the text.  When you start talking about elements that are not part of everyday life that may affect the appearance of human characters (say, Master Chief or Samus Aran, now it can be difficult to explain in words so pictures help, but they still need to be tied strongly to the text.  --M ASEM  13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we want to interpret the policy as allowing images of, in the Vice City case, Tommy Vercetti and Lance Vance but no other characters, I'd be on board with that. However, I think it's worth saying that "necessary" is a matter of opinion, not fact.  If we are directed to limit fair use to what is necessary but given no specific guidance about what "necessary" means in a case like this, then it's up to us to figure out how to interpret that.  I could see a perfectly valid argument "zero will do" in literally every case.  Even in a sci-fi work with non-human humanoid characters, it would not be impossible to have an encyclopedia article without a visual depiction of the characters.  Even an article about a photograph could exist without depicting the photograph.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the Pauline Fowler images fail WP:NFCC as well - this isn't unusual on popular culture articles. To use an AFD term though, it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's going to take hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to fix all the existing articles with problems, and meanwhile others pop up to take their place, partly because GA and FA scrutiny isn't stringent enough. Black Kite 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, if you really feel that these type of images are in violation, AND that Wikipedia consensus agrees, why are you going after back-water articles like this rather than a FA?  My guess is because you don't think you'd get away with it there.  Is that correct?  If so, I'm guessing that consensus doesn't agree with your interpretation. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all - see Talk:Final_Fantasy_VI or Talk:Final_Fantasy_IV - both featured articles. As for the "getting away with it" comment - the only "getting away with it" here is by editors "getting away" with driving a coach and horses through a core Foundation policy (even if most of them don't realise they're doing it - and that's the real problem). Black Kite 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is now discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents on related issues... Hobit (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a broad point here about the policy and foundation resolution and how they relate to the guideline. It's important to note that neither the foundation nor the policy make any reference at all to "list" or "characters" articles. They elucidate general principles about how to limit the amount of non-free content. The notion that all images have to go because "the foundation set the policy" or something of that nature is a serious overstatement that gives the misleading impression that the foundation said "no fair use in characters articles" when it did not. Deriving anything about specific cases requires interpretation. It's up to us to interpret and discuss policy and, hopefully, arrive at a consensus interpretation. It was my feeling that we did this back at the beginning of the year, and we got the resulting section added to the guideline. I fail to see how these articles were out of compliance with the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The guideline should get more specific
The issue here is that the guideline lays out ways to reduce or limit images which are not freely licensed in list articles. Editors read this guideline in good faith and say, "OK, there's no group shot; we'll use images that are discussed in the text where possible; we'll use one representative rather than many if that comes up; we'll be sure to re-use images if they show up elsehwere; we'll, of course use a free image if possible." They're then left with the last bullet about limiting to major characters. The editors at the GTA Vice City characters article made a good faith consensus determination that they had limited the use to major characters. There's nothing in this guideline to suggest they didn't. We should reach a consensus here about how many characters are likely to be "major" in a given work. If Masem's comment above about the two main characters is something that a lot of people here agree with, we could amend the guideline so that it says something like, "Not more than two characters should be considered major." As it stands, editors can easily read this guideline in good faith and come to a different determination about how many images should go in. Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will point out that I only suggested 2 above only because, as best I can remember the game, a shot of two, maybe three, characters at any time is doable without messing about in third-party software, and that was for a montage. Mind you, I don't think there's a problem with showing two individual shots of two main characters, but I dont know if we can nail down 2 as a hard number. --M ASEM  21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for a single number for every case, just guidelines about numbers that could be within the range. I think it's fair to say that most everyone here would agree that one hundred separate characters images are very likely too many.  Is there a similar consensus that two such images for two major characters is not too many?  Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that is that trying to make more specific or qualitative uses means that you are going to have people start to play games to get more images in place. Say it said "only major characters can have images", then you'd have been classifying minor characters as major to get an image of them.  Or "Only 5 images per page" - you'd have people splitting these lists to get more images.  Really, this is a case of "I know it when I see it."; 5 pics of a page with 6 characters is probably excessive; 5 pics of a page with 100 characters is not - but it's just not that cut or dried.
 * The only statement I feel that could be made is that such list sections (whether standalone or in a larger article) can have 0, 1, or 2 non-free images without setting off any alarms (assuming FUR'd and copyright licensing on the images are correct). That's any non-free image, not just character head shot, which is why cast shots are better if at all possible.  This doesn't mean 3 or more can't be allowed, but were I to be reviewing the page, I would need to consider if the third and beyond image helps the reader understand the work.  --M ASEM  13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with "I know it when I see it" is that it doesn't help editors all that much. Do you disagree that the editors at the Vice City characters article were operating in good faith when they reached the consensus that there were seven major characters and that those seven should get images?  (If it were up to me, I'd probably identify more like two to four major characters, but reasonable people can disagree.)  As far as they were concerned, the page passed their "I know it when I see it" test, but your test might be different.  I'm asking for some change to the guideline that says something like, "Images of two major characters are likely acceptable.  More than five images will likely raise concerns."  We could then list factors that might be a legitimate reason to deviate from these numbers.  As it stands, I don't think an editor who reads this guideline and operates in good faith is all that likely to reach a conclusion that everyone here would agree is acceptable.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the "I know it when I see it" is a really bad metric, but I think we're going to have to be aware that fair use assessment is that through both US copyright law and the Foundation's resolution. I think the biggest issue with putting any number is that people will use up to exactly that number regardless of the page, and because this page now says so, they may have in their mind there's no fair use issues anymore.  Any non-free image can potentially be questions; no policy or guideline can say that one use is always acceptable.  That said, I think that if the preamble is there to explain this issue, setting a number as, say, 2 images being reasonable, 4-5 may be acceptable, but any more images need strong justification.  However, we always need to encourage such users to review why they need that many; for lists of characters, I would hope that editors do consider some of the points brought up in these discussions (verbal descriptions can replace images in some cases, for example).  --M ASEM  20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think the guideline needs to provide more guidance. I think your concerns are valid; if we say "two," some people will wrongly assume that two images are automatically acceptable regardless of whether they pose other problems.  However, as it stands, I don't think the guideline provides enough guidance for those editors I spoke of.  A group of editors read what it says in good faith and conclude that some number of images can go in.  Then another comes along and removes them because "the foundation mandated it."  Who is right?  We need to provide more help here.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) So, in the section about list articles (following the given points), the following may help? ''While there is no maximum number of allowable non-free images for list articles, editors are urged to keep the number to as few as necessary (including zero). In general, lists with zero, one, or two non-free images is generally acceptable, while having more than five images requires strong justification for the use of each image. However, editors are cautioned to only use images when they will significant enhance the reader's understanding of the topic; a list with a single image used for decorative purposes or to provide a visual image of an element of the list that can be easily replaced with a text description may still be challenged as to the need for the image.'' --M ASEM 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with anything you have there, but I think we could say it a little more briefly. Do we basically agree that the issue about limiting fair use to one or two major characters is mostly about criteria 3a and 8?  The reason we don't allow images for all characters, assuming they pass every other standard, is that we want to limit non-free use (per 3a) and we want to ensure that each element adds significantly to the reader's understanding (8)?  Here's my shot at wording for bullet 6 in the "list" section: Images that are used primarily to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.  In general, zero, one, or two images of major characters is likely acceptable, while more more than five is likely unacceptable.  Editors must also recall that every image must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria and no images that fail any of these criteria should be used. Croctotheface (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me - I think it accurately captures some baseline to prevent problems. But let's see what others say before adding it to avoid edit warring over it :-) --M ASEM 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that language. Very helpful actually. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At last, something that I can understand 100% without having to re-read it again. Fine by me. -- .: Alex  :.  10:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My only objection is this: why does it matter if it is one or ten? I think limiting us to specific numbers is arbitrary and makes no sense. I would support one image per character, if the character has a biographical sketch entry and plays a role in the story. The issue I have is that for most series, like Naruto, you have the primary characters with their own seperate biographical pages. The rest, even if they are notable but not primary characters, usually get pushed on to these "lists" by the "mergists" editors. They still are notable enough and have enough of a biographical sketch to warrant an image. That is my point. The numbers game is just not relevant, each situation is different and we should not limit ourselves by arbitrary "boundries" or similar. I guess what annoys me is that many people here are too overly concerned about being rules lawyers and have lost the ability to make common sense decisions. Of course if the character is an "extra" they shouldn't get an image. This is common sense and is not antithetical to our principles since "free" images will never exist for these series until such time they enter the public domain which is decades from now. It also does not prevent a well written biographical sketch, either. So what's the point other then ideological principles? I argue there is none.
 * Why not compromise, we could create a notice template for pages that use such fairuse but where no reasonable attempt has been made to get permission to create free versions? That way, there is still a sufficient motivational factor to get free images, but without the drawback of having to wait until then. It still keeps in the spirit of the community in that the ultimate goal is to contribute free images for these articles. How does that sound? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mission is the point. If said character is not notable enough for their own article they are not notable enough for a non-free image. If some thing is truly notable and not just in-universe important it will have third party notability. there are reasons that the policy is not specific, if the policy says 1 image per character, users would say that they MUST have one image of every character irregardless of how non-notable they are. when in reality the character probably shouldnt even be brought up. in the List of... pages the current compromise is to allow one or two group shots. but other than that we dont need 500 pictures of worthless non-notable characters. βcommand 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no standard that I have seen anywhere that says the subject of all images must pass notability guidelines. If there is consensus behind that, could you show me where that consensus developed?  The current compromise is also not to allow one or two group shots; based on my understanding of this discussion and the previous one back in December and January, the current consensus is that free images are best, group shots come next, and if group shots don't exist, use of non-free images should not exceed a small number of images of major characters.  Some people advocated a more restrictive standard, but it was not adopted, as the language that's in the guideline (about major characters) indicates.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see this consensus, as well, considering Betacommand's recent sweep of mass-removing images from list articles. Black Kite leaves, BetaCommand comes back and picks up right where he left off. SashaNein (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been WP:BOLD and added the wording above (one small grammar fix) as a replacement for #6 so that there is a number to shoot for - I don't think there's any major objections to it. Yes, I realize Beta's going all-or-none, but at least this way, we can point people to say that there are practical limits here.  --M ASEM  14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not helpful. Beta is just using the numbers as justification for deleting all fair use images if an article has more than 5 images (not just fair use images), rather than applying a rationality test.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * its the same practice that has been going on for a year. ask Durin or BlackKite. those who have been harassed off the project. I have been targeting pages that abuse NFC (10-20+ images) with little or no critical analysis. βcommand 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need to develop a cleanup tag for pages with too many images? This would certainly be a better first-pass solution than removing all pictures without discussion (which should only happen if the page has been tagged for a while (7 days per other NFC guidelines) and no attempt to cut down the number of images has been addressed.) --M ASEM 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There already is one - non-free. Kelly  hi! 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We could certainly agree on different numbers, but the guideline needs to say something about something that editors can go on. Otherwise, there will be those like Black Kite who say that there can't be any images at all for any reason.  It is NOT appropriate to delete ALL images because there are more than five, especially without giving the editors who actually work on the page notice that you believe there are too many.  Reducing the use to five images may be appropriate; editors can reach the consensus that there are more than five major characters that deserve images, but that would need to be a very compelling case.  Most of the time, there really are too many images in these articles, but removing all of them is not the best faith practice to solve it.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary, etc.

 * To Dragon695's point, the difference between 1 and 10 images is the Foundation's statement that we must keep non-free use minimal. Free images of contemporary characters will pretty much never occur due to copyright extensions (though it is possible to have the copyright company to grant WP request for use, but they have to that through OTRS).  In most cases, the use of character images falls into the same bucket as images on discographies and episode lists: they are there for identification of works, but do not serve to aid in assisting the reader to gain understanding from critical commentary in the body of the text.  However, because editors can't let these go, its understandable to allow for minimal use, and two seems like a reasonable number for most contemporary works.  Remember, we can explain characters' appearances in text. --M ASEM  23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, what is "critical commentary"? I still don't know what that is.  Should Wikipedia articles criticize things?  Should I post my personal commentary?  I don't think the reason we include some images is that "editors can't let go."  I think that the reason to include such images is that it's not possible to have a full understanding of the characters in a visual storytelling medium without knowing what they look like.  We shouldn't have images for every single character because once you get past the major ones, diminishing returns start setting in fast.  By the end, adding an image for the most minor of minor characters helps the reader in a negligible way, if at all, so our general principle of limiting fair use tells us not to put the image in.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're stuck with a non-definition of "critical commentary" from US copyright law; it's given in the allowance for fair use, but does not expand what it is looking for, so we're going on what generally is considered fair use. Just giving an image without tying the text to the image and/or vice versa is not critical commentary; the more the image helps to support the text in a way the text cannot to, the better.  But again, it's not well defined, which is why getting rid of all images on characters pages is hard to justify, but certainly some limits are in order.  Which again, I see nothing wrong in a couple images to establish a visual style as then text descriptions can extend to the rest. --M ASEM  04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's exactly so. My understanding is that commentary and criticism are distinct from each other, and either is considered transformative.  I don't think the notion of "criticism" applies to what we do here at all, so if it were up to me, I'd strike that word from the policy altogether.  After having given it a lot of thought, I think that "commentary" likely does apply in the sense of a "discourse on a subject," which would mean that basically all our articles are commentaries.  So long as the subject of the image is covered ("commented on") within the article, I don't think "lack of commentary" is a problem for any of the images that we're talking about.  The "image as image" standard is not, I think, what the term commentary gets at. Consider, for example, a science lecturer who quotes from a copyrighted magazine article on some new technology. It's not necessary for her to comment on the specific words or syntax the article's author used, in the sense of some "text as text" standard.  Rather, the point of quoting is to enhance her commentary on the technology described by those words.  Likewise, the images of major characters enhance our commentary about the character depicted by the image.  The article is enhanced in several ways: as you've said, it gives a sense of the artistic style of the character models.  I'd also argue that in a visual medium such as a video game, appearance is a major way that characters are characterized, and there are many elements of a character's appearance that, taken together, serve to give the viewer a certain impression.  It would take OR to extract those impressions and put them into the text, but by including an image, we let the reader make that decision.  Croctotheface (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why there's some much confusion in applying fair use concerns overall - the existing law and case law have results so broad that its impossible to define exactly what the law means with respect to fair use. However, I will note that in the Foundation's resolution, we do have this to go by: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. (emphasis mine).  I can see a character image or two complementing a list of character articles, even if its purely decoration (though, again, I hope more can be said), but beyond two, that's pushing the within narrow limits aspect of the resolution.  That still gives leeway to using more images if needed, but there should be good reason to do so.  But again, we shouldn't be saying "absolutely no images" on such lists, but we should engage them to get  "as few as possible, including zero"..  Thus, a soft limit of 2 gives us at least some number for editors to aim for instead of the vagueness it is now. --M ASEM  12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I disagree about the notion that the images are used "purely for decoration" in the scenario you're alluding to. If the argument for including the images were just that "the page looks better with pretty pictures," I would not support including any.  The reader's understanding is significantly enhanced by such images in the ways you and I have described: they show the general visual style of the game, appearance is a major way that characters are characterized in visual media, and the images convey all the subjective visual elements that can't adequately be rendered in text without resorting to OR.  There are likely other good reasons, too.  Croctotheface (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your point, but there is another issue that is coming into play right now, and that is presently related to fictional works and notability (no, I'm not trying to say that pictures can only be for notable topics). The question that is being debated heavily at WP:NOTE is exactly how deep do we cover fictional universes.  Or a larger question is basically, can WP write to the casual fan of the show in addition to the non-informed reader?   I don't know what the answer is (there's too much bickering on either side with no attempt to compromise), but the point related to NFC is that if the above question is yes, that we are serving causal fans of the show, then I agree that more images may be helpful, still keeping in mind the Resolution. However, if it is true that we aren't serving those fans, then it makes little sense to provide pictures for characters beyond one or two to establish the art style.  Again, right now, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, but the safer answer is to encourage the use of fewer images; if the answer does turn out we are writing towards the causal fan, then maybe we can allow more but it is more appropriate to assume that this will not be the case as to satisfy the Resolution in the interim. --M ASEM  05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of what you've said, but WP:N is just a guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That guideline doesn't really get at anything we're talking about here, unless, of course, it turns out that all "characters" articles get deleted as non-notable, in which case the question of what kind of images we should have for them would disappear entirely.  In general, my argument is that seeing images of characters in a visual medium provides readers with important information about the characters that can't really come from just describing their appearance in text.  Plenty of subjective information that the author/artist/designer is impossible to describe, at least without resorting to OR interpretations.  That's not to say that we should not limit the number of images used, but there is more at work here than just showing the style of art. Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're misunderstanding but I understand why. I again am not trying to connect, on specific use of images, that things have to be notable.  As you say, NFC and NOTE are two different areas.  I'm looking at the more overall picture which, being involved in the discussions at NOTE, know things are still very much in flux, but in general we are trying to figure out exactly what is WP's role in handling fictional works;  there's a level of detail inclusionists want, and there's a level of detail deletionists want.  We have no idea which has consensus, but the key point is that in the case of the latter, this level of detail is meant to be very high level and aimed at the reader that has and may never read/watch the work of fiction.  In this case, the goal is to serve the need of that general reader, which means starting from the point that they will have no interest in identifying specific characters but only will want to see art style; those that want more detail would have to turn to a alternative wiki which is not under WP's NFC.  That is, if ultimately we approach the coverage of fictional works at a very high level with minimal discourse on the fictional aspects themselves, nearly any character picture used within lists is going to have to be used towards this very high level understanding - pictures used for art styling or overall cast montages are fine, but more than a few pictures would be hard to justify by this rationale.  If we aren't covering fictional works in extreme detail, then having pictures outside a few extreme cases is inappropriate; alternate wikis of course can provide the more detailed approach.   In the other case, if we ultimately decide that we cover works of fiction to the level of detail for a casual reader, then having more pictures (but not one for one) becomes more reasonable.  --M ASEM  13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't think that it's within the power of WP:N to set guidelines about that. WP:N just deals with what subjects can and can't go in the encyclopedia, not what we can do once we put them in. We would not somehow be obligated to, if that guideline were changed with respect to what kind of articles on fiction could and couldn't go in, change this one. However, setting all that aside and assuming for the sake of argument that they could do that, I'm not sure that the two scenarios you describe are very different. I don't think that "more than a few" images are necessary in either case, and I don't think that the only interest that someone unfamiliar with the fiction could have is "art style." If someone wants to educate themselves about a topic, detailed coverage will help them do that. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as there's agreement to that, then I think it satisfies the suggested language change. I think the case I'm talking about is too far off to tell if it will impact.  Back to the point, we can set "2" as a generally unquestionable limit, but any more really should be well-reasoned in rationale or when brought for debate, and using fewer should be encouraged if at all possible. --M ASEM  20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we read the text in question a little bit differently. It's my view that two or fewer images for major characters are fine all the time, provided that they satisfy the NFCC criteria and the situation doesn't fit into the other numbered points in the "list" section here (that is, no group shot exists, etc.)  I think that three, four, or five images can be fine, provided they are genuinely for major characters and, again, that they satisfy all the other criteria.  More than five raises concerns and is likely excessive use.  The main concern there is with spurious determinations that certain characters are "major," which is why it's prudent to say that five is a somewhat hard limit.  It's unlikely that there are more than five major characters in most works of fiction. (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, for instance, does not have more than five major characters.)  Would I be right to say that our point of disagreement is over the notion of "decorative" or "identification" use?  Did you bring up the notion of "writing for the casual fan" because you think that the main way that these photos help readers is by "identifying" characters they've seen already?  That is certainly a benefit to readers, but I contend that there are others, the most important of which is that in a visual medium, artists seek to convey information about characters with visual cues.  Photos allow readers to form a subjective impression based on these, while any attempt to replicate such subjective information in the text would require OR.  Croctotheface (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the subtle issues I'm talking about are not to be worried about at the present; only if this approach becomes abused (every char list gets 5 images, or people do massive list splitting to create lists of only 5 characters so they can get every character pictured) should we need to reconsider it.   I completely agree with your assessment: we prefer no more than 2, a very hard max of 5 barring any extreme circumstances, and should be group/montages and other points identified already for selecting pictures.  In like of the problems people are having with Beta's actions today, I think let's make sure there's no problems with this and set it on the page so that there's at least something for editors to aim for. --M ASEM  03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My dispute with Masem is what does limited use mean? Limited to me means a soft limit of 5 and a hard limit of 10. Again, we are arguing over use of fair use in articles where there is little to no chance of getting a free alternative. If that is the case, what difference does it make other then satisfying some purist ideology? Again, downstream redistributors can remove the fair use if they want to. This is not about the law, since the law does not stipulate a numerical fair use count. The real question is what impact does 5 or 10 fair use images do? Does it discourage the contribution of free images? Does it make the project worse? Or does it actually improve the quality of the article? Remember, our first priority is to write high-quality encyclopedia articles. The free comes second, since I believe that reader experience trumps redistribution experience. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The mission is both a high-quality and free (as in speech) encyclopedia. Non-free images burden this, so we need to limit their use to, as the guideline currently says, the reader's understanding of the topic is sufficiently advanced by its inclusion.  The Foundation resolution also spells this out in particular for contemporary published works and asks we minimize their use.  Yes, there are no numbers, and yes, most of these can never be replaced by free works, but we have to do what we can.  For most contemporary works, it is possible to cut down the number of images on these types of lists by finding ones that group characters, that use text when that sufficiently gets the image across (particularly for live actors appearing without makeup) and so forth.  I am quite confident if, given a work and having full assess to the media for that work, a list that uses 10 images could be cut down to less than 5 without losing content for the reader.  Again, basically, we need to get out of this mentality that "one image per character" is appropriate for the same reasoning we don't have images in discographies and episodes lists.  --M ASEM  19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it does not limit or burden the project at all. Fair use is a right and a freedom enjoyed by many citizens around the world that should not be denied because of limited ideology. Also, as was pointed out above, technically we aren't allowed to describe things in images using text replacements since that is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. I don't think the mentality is not going away, if anything it is growing. Why not worry about actual threats to the project like blatant copyright violation as opposed to questionable fair use? One is a legal issue that is a definite threat to the project while the latter is just wankery over ideological purism. I think that is my point. For the record I do not disagree with the foundation's purpose in providing free content, but I do believe that Wikipedia and Commons have different goals and needs. I feel that some are coming from commons with the notion that we must take their hard-line on content freedom, which is just not the case. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair use is a right, but remember, what the Foundation has stated is stricter than the real law. Technically, most of the uses of images on WP probably don't need licensing info or fair use rationales - clearly their use is grounded in standard copyright law for being used as part of education principles. However, the Foundation requires us to include this information, thus nullifying the normal methods of fair use.  Are there any legal threats against WP for image overuse?  I'm sure Mike Godwin would have said something, but again, this policy is not written based on US/Florida law, but on the Foundation's mandate.  However, they also realize that to write an encyclopedia of this scope without any fair use is a nearly impossible task, and thus have allowed it, but requested that we track its use and keep its use to a minimum.  That is what we have to achieve via this policy.  And given they have specifically called out minimizing non-free images in coverage of contemporary culture via the Resolution, we need to enforce that more - not to zero, but certain not at the level that some articles show today.
 * I also disagree that images cannot be replaced by text. Not all images can and thus that's why its reasonable for sci-fi and other genres where this crops up a lot, but most descriptions of human-like characters can be written in a non-OR fashion because, well, by default, we assume that the reader knows what a human looks like (maybe if there's sentient life on Alpha Centuri, we'll find out when they start adding fact tags in 2012 or something like that...) There's a certain level of intelligence and knowledge we expect readers to bring to WP, and knowing the difference between tall and short, thin and fat, light- and dark-haired, and the like should be completely reasonable to assume.  Thus, we should be avoiding any pictures of human characters that lack significant makeup/prosthesis that would make a regular (free, per WP:BLP) photo of them sufficient to understand the appearance of the character in the work itself, because we have a free replacement: either the free photo, or the free non-OR description.  Does this mean all non-free images can be replaced by text?  Of course not, but there is a good sized subset that can be.  --M ASEM  05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that "replaceable by text" is really a relevant standard when we already have criterion 8, which is more restrictive. I don't think that there can exist an image that "significantly enhances the reader's understanding" and yet could be "replaced by text."  Could you help me out by giving me an example? Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The NFC criteria are not mutually exclusive; all 10 points have to be met, so saying #8 is more restrictive really isn't true; even if you can go to ends to explain why an image meets #8 but a free version exists, it fails from #1. As to an example, while it is not a list element, it is possible to describe Gregory House as a character played by Hugh Laurie, with a brief discussion of his physical traits. The reader can picture what Laurie looks like (there's a free image on his page) to a point where the reader can then watch the show and identify the character by looks only, and thus there's no need for a non-free image of the character.  --M ASEM  11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in your view, the image would significantly enhance the reader's understanding and yet could be replaced by a few lines of text? I don't see how it could be both.  For what it's worth, I don't agree with you about the notion of "he looks basically like Hugh Laurie" being sufficient to replace an image.  To give a different example, compare this image of Dan Conner with this one of Glen Allen Walken.  I see so much communicated in both these images, much of it is too subjective to describe in text without resorting to OR, that goes beyond what John Goodman looks like.  I can't see how we could say that an image of John Goodman would suffice for both of them.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, the point of providing some visual appearance of a character (whether through words or pictures) is always going to help someone gain understanding. "John is a doctor that does blah blah blah" without additional text or image to give an idea of what John looks like makes the reader try to figure this out in his head; whether to do it visually or textually is where the issue of non-free use comes into play.   As to your particular examples, (and I may be wrong on the West Wing character, I don't watch the show) but if you showed me a picture of John Goodman, and then had "Dan Conner is played by John Goodman on 'Rosanne'; he is the happy working-class father of the family..." and  "Glen Allen Walken is played by John Goodman on 'The West Wing', and is a somber, stoic Representative...", then I can reasonably recreate (at least to me) what those pictures show.  Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, though I think we still agree on the middle point of somewhere in the range of 0 to 5 images seems about appropriate. --M ASEM  19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If your first sentence there is correct, why do we have #8 at all? To the latter part, I don't think we could describe characters with those kinds of adjectives and not run afoul of WP:NOR.  That also doesn't allow for any other subjective impression ("mean" instead of "somber," for instance) that different people will draw from those images.  Agreeing to disagree is fine; I don't object to the current guideline.  Even though I don't like "use a free picture of the actor," it doesn't bother me much because it's so easy to argue that such a photo is not equivalent.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are subjective terms here, yes, but it's up to us to reach a consensus about how they should be defined. I'd be willing to move the numbers a bit to set the bar higher than five, but I basically hold the opinion that the reader's understanding is enhanced significantly by seeing images of major characters and not by seeing images of non-major ones.  In general, I think it's unlikely that a work has more than five major characters, which is why I picked that number.  However, I can think of several that do, and those would be cases where more than five would be OK.    Croctotheface (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that one or two sentences is enough for a picture. I expect robust paragraphs or concise infoboxes. The point is, if it gets shunted to a list because there isn't enough to write a separate article, I don't think that should disqualify it from being displayed. As mentioned above, text replacement for images is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. --Dragon695 (talk)


 * I'm not sure why you mentioned "replacement by text" in response to anything I said, as that has never been my argument. My argument is that we have a principle of limiting non-free image use.  Having images for each character at a "characters" article, in my view, is not sufficiently limited use.  Also, we have a principle of using non-free images only when they significantly help the reader.  Images for minor characters do not, in my view, significantly help the reader, especially if you already have images of the major ones.  I don't think the standard of "one image per infobox or 'robust paragraph'" is a good one.  It would invite too much use. Croctotheface (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, we have to be careful. As I understand it, BC's push for this clause was driven by a desire to apply it to List of Torchwood monsters and aliens.  But that is not a list of characters; and arguably, it is a list where showing the individual visual characteristics of monsters is particularly helpful to understanding.  That's why I'm reluctant to see normative limits written into the guideline, because I think there are articles like this, and I imagine others, which quite probably do justify more than 5-10 non-free images.  Jheald (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you make the case that that example is different from the general cases the guideline is meant to address. If enough people agree, you have a consensus and should be fine. Croctotheface (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time understanding how List of Torchwood monsters and aliens, which is categorized in Category:Torchwood characters, Category:Torchwood lists and Category:Lists of television characters isn't a list of characters. The article authors themselves identify it as such! Even the intro text says "This is a list of monsters and aliens ..." It's a list of 41 different characters (whether you want to call them monsters or aliens, they are still characters), not an article in abstract with certain examples regarding the monsters and aliens of Torchwood. I fail to see how this article is any different than innumerable other lists such as we find Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. Why is this article so different that we should be swayed into thinking that 41 fair use images on this article alone is justifiable use? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, the notion that "if someone calls something a list, it is one" is flawed. By that logic, all I would need to do is remove "list" from the title and lead and it stops being one.  I've explained elsewhere about the differences between a real list and an article that has an entry on multiple elements that have something in common.  Think about a shopping list, for instance: it should just list every item a person intends to buy.  If it had several paragraphs about each of them, it would serve a different function than listing items to purchase at the store.  Regarding the specific case, I never said that Jheald was correct that the article needs every image he's talking about, just that we don't need to change the guideline if he comes across an article that he thinks merits an exception from it.  Rather, he should make his case that the guideline isn't meant to get at that article for whatever reason, and if his view is the consensus, there's no problem.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(&larr;) What I'm getting it is the authors of that article themselves call it a list and have categorized it as a list. Waving a wand and calling it a non-list because it's a collection of small articles changes nothing. Use that argument, and people can call anything that's a list a non-list by just saying "Hey, it's a collection of super stubs!" It's a silly argument on the face of it. We've had similar debates about this before in discographies, with the result that discographies (no matter how detailed, no matter whether they are a collection of small articles) do not have album covers. The same applies to this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My argument is neither "silly" nor mistaken. Articles with significant prose content are more than lists according to any definition of "list" you want to use.  That was the consensus we reached here back in January.  Discographies are different cases because they tend to exist alongside standaline articles on the individual albums.  It makes sense that the album cover should go in the individual article, and there's no need to repeat the non-free use elsewhere. Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If there was a conclusion that lists aren't actually lists, then by all means please show me where in the guidelines this is supported. The very authors of this article feel it's a list. It's not *me* saying it's a list. It's the people who actually edit the dang thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can look the discussion up for yourself. You participated in it.  The guideline was changed from saying "no non-free images in lists" to what we have now, which acknowledges that there is a difference between something like List of dog breeds and lists with significant prose content.  Again, "what the authors say" is not a good test to use; they can't be wrong?  A list can't start off looking like a list and be expanded into something more?  That said, I'd advocate removing "list" from the titles of these articles to avoid confusion. Croctotheface (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was involved in it. The outcome? Non-free_content, which provides little guidance on how to tell the difference between what you call a list and a non-list. How come you get to be the final arbiter on List of Torchwood monsters and aliens not actually being a list? So we're to use the Croctotheface litmus test on whether something is a list or not? I certainly hope you're infallible. Of course, you wouldn't be human if you were. So, that won't work, will it? Since the guideline doesn't describe the line in the sand, would you please describe the Croctotheface litmus test for the difference between a list and a non-list are since we're going to be using this litmus test from now on? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the Torchwood article is exactly the sort of article that Non-free_content was written for, and exactly the sort of article where it justifies more than five non-free images. Jheald (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll ask the same question of you, since Croctotheface seems unwilling to answer. If we are to use the Jheald litmus test of what is and what is not a list, what are the criteria in that test? You say List of Torchwood monsters and aliens isn't a list. How does the Jheald litmus test identify that? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You misread me. I said that IMO that Torchwood article is exactly the sort of article that Non-free_content was written to apply to.  And I think it is exactly the sort of article where, per the logic of that guideline, more than 5-10 images are justified.  Jheald (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which to me reads highly contradictory. The guideline is written to limit fair use, and you say it's written to permit more than 5-10 images for this article. The guideline says "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible." How in heck can we justify 41 images on the the Torchwood article, one for each character? Answer: We can't. But, according to you and Croctotheface, we can. We're at an impasse, with no middle ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But read on to the following sentence in the guideline: Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.  I am not suggesting that all 41 items need an image.  But I am suggesting that this is a case where the number of major elements that cannot be described easily in text is perhaps particularly likely to be more than 5-10.  Jheald (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And just how do you determine that? There's 41 items. Which ones are major? Which ones are minor? Which ones are more central and less central? There's no possible way to draw a line in the sand that people could agree to. I think a montage image, per the guideline, would work fine. You probably don't. Why do we need more than one image to even convey the style of the artistry in the work? If you're doing more than style of artistry, you're doing identification. If you do identification, there's no stopping until you identify all of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The people who edit the page, and know the subject, are the ones who can fully come to consensus which ones they think are more major, and which ones they think are more minor; and know full well that "all of them" would be too many. We're encouraging people to show restraint.  If they do, but nevertheless there are more than five images, and those are "significantly increasing understanding", does it matter?  After all, the Foundation's Vision is about people being able to share in knowledge.  Jheald (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're using the Foundation's vision to support increased non-free content? I'm absolutely astonished. You do see the part where it says "freely share", yes? Non-free content is just that; non-free. How can you possibly conclude that the Foundation's vision supports more non-free content? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge
 * So your taking access to some of that knowledge away gets us closer to the Foundation vision precisely... how? Jheald (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With due respect, and I mean that, are we even talking the same language? Non-free content isn't free. It can not be freely shared. It's tightly restricted. You can just willy-nilly go and use and use and use copyrighted images whenever and however you feel. Every bit of non-free content in this project detracts from our mission and vision. It does not enhance it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question. Taking access to particular knowledge away from people gets us closer to the Foundation vision precisely... how?  Jheald (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? We're not speaking the same language. I don't think we can intelligently discuss this anymore. You seem to be advocating a position whereby all knowledge is freely available. This is patently false. I can't mentally understand your position, because it's illegal in almost all jurisdictions in the world. If you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding what "free" means in this context, we have nothing further to discuss. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can have understood my position, which certainly doesn't involve illegality.
 * It seems to me we get closest to the Foundation's vision by creating as much good new material as we can, and making it available no-strings-attached. Other irreplaceable non-free material, that is permitted under fair use, we make available as we can, without in any way testing the legal envelope, even though we cannot make it available no-strings-attached.
 * Anyone can publish material and incorporate fair-use content to the extent allowed by law. But what makes Wikipedia special is our commitment that what we contribute ourselves we make available free to reuse.  That is our distinctiveness, our Mission.
 * The non-free content is orthogonal to that distinctiveness, that Mission; it's not our priority, but it doesn't take away from what we do. WP has never been a free-content-only encyclopedia; nor have I yet seen a Foundation statement that such a thing would be in any way desirable.
 * In short: I have yet to see any evidence that the Foundation's view of its position and motivations in any way resembles your view of the Foundation's position and motivations.  Meanwhile, any crusade against non-free-replaceable perfectly legal fair-use content simply hurts the project and impoverishes our readers. Jheald (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (&larr;) That's the most well articulated stance I've seen you express Jheald. In many ways, it's accurate. In some ways, it's inaccurate. You seem to claim that fair use, so long as it is within the confines of law, is acceptable on Wikipedia. This is false. Please read the rationale at the top of WP:NFCC "using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law". Also, you seem to maintain that fair use usage does not take away from our mission. This too is false. The more non-free content we allow, the less free we are. The less free we are, the further away from our mission we are. Mission clearly establishes that our purpose is to develop content under a free content license. It doesn't say develop content under a free content license and liberally allow non-free content so long as it's legal. We must strive to produce a product that has as little non-free content as possible. If we're not focused on that, there's no reason for us being here. Our distinctiveness isn't just being collaborative. It's also being free. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment just shows your limitless capacity to be rude and make false statements about what I said. Where did I say that I get to decide about anything?  Editor consensus would determine whether something should or shouldn't get images, text, or anything else.  There will be close cases and gray areas, sure, and the community will arrive at a consensus about them as they occur.  Croctotheface (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not know I had such a limitless capacity for being rude. I underestimated myself! As to your point, I noted that the authors of the article feel it is a list. You say it's not, and appear to conclude it therefore isn't. I thought you would be happy; I'm acceding to your wish to declare it to be a non-list. Why doesn't this make you happy? I'm quite confused. I assert that it a list, and note various things showing it to be so, including the authors themselves noting it as such. You say it's not a list, apparently (correcting me if I'm wrong) asserting that it's a collection of small articles. I fold, and declare you to be correct and ask for an explanation for the Croctotheface litmus test so we can apply this test moving forward. Yet this makes you unhappy. I concede I no longer know what will make you happy in this debate. Still, I'm left wondering what the criteria are for your litmus test. So, I'll ask again. Would you please provide the criteria for the Croctotheface litmus test to allow us to determine what is and is not a list? You seem to have this clearly worked out. I'm sure you have the answer; I'd just like to hear it (and I'm sure many others would as well). --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to object to your rude and snide dismissal of me. You did not ask for my test, you mocked me and made false statements about what I said.  However, if you actually want it, what I'm articulating is something like: Lists don't get non-free images.  An article is not a list if it has significant prose content.  Editors (not me, as you wrongly suggested earlier) would then arrive at a consensus about what is significant or not.  Croctotheface (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I object to you calling me limitlessly rude. Ok, so which one of us is worse? You're every bit as insulting as you claim I have been. Back off. Once again, as to the point you raise, what counts as significant prose under the Croctotheface litmus test? I'm still not seeing an answer to this. It isn't so just because it is. What is the criteria? Do you have an answer or not? What is so different about List of Torchwood monsters and aliens that sets it apart from Blame! characters and structures, List of BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad characters or List of Baki the Grappler characters? So far, everybody's answer basically that it is because it is, or it is because it has significant prose, but no definition of what significant prose is. Is there an answer or isn't there? If you're going to postulate a position, then defend it. Else, your position has no merit. To date, the only defense is "significant prose" without any definition. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd use the "more than trivial" definition that WP:N uses for "significant." I don't need to weigh in on specific cases because that's not the job of the guideline; the job of the guideline is to articulate a general principle that editors can follow. Editor consensus should determine whether characters are major or not, whether the prose content is significant or not, and so on.  If we find that editors are misinterpreting the guideline or that we're not happy with the results, we can then clarify or modify it.  Croctotheface (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is so different about List of Torchwood monsters and aliens that sets it apart from Blame! characters and structures, List of BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad characters or List of Baki the Grappler characters? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They all seem like "more than lists" to me as far as having prose content. Some entries on some of the lists don't have significant prose content, but there are some that have enough that they could merit images if all the other criteria, both of the policy and guideline, are met.  How is it that List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is just the same as List of dog breeds?  They both have "list" in the title?  Croctotheface (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't the question. To you, these all seem to be non-lists. To me, they're all lists. We disagree. Not surprising, since there is nothing we agree about. But, what I keep asking for and I keep getting a non-answer for, is where the line in the sand is. What are the criteria, such that any random person can go "Ah ha! That's not a list, but this is!" --Hammersoft (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're more than lists because they have significant prose content. We had this same disagreement last time; you insist that I articulate some rule that will clearly delineate every single case and leave no gray areas.  That's a pipe dream; any test that involves any degree of interpretation will have gray areas.  You seem to believe that any article with an entry on multiple characters in a work of fiction is a "list," even if it has pages and pages of encyclopedic content about all of them.  I am proposing a framework to help differentiate.  The only standard you've advocated is asking whether the title of the article says list, which seems to presume that no non-list can ever be called a list and no list could ever not be called one.  We could retitle the George Washington article List of pertinent information about George Washington, too.  Are you really insisting that List of dog breeds is identical to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?  One is clearly a list, and I think most everyone else here would agree that the other is not.  In general, I'm not sure that there's a purpose to our going back and forth like this; nobody else seems especially disposed to address the issue right now, and neither of us is going to come around to agree with the other one.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do insist that that whatever list you care to compare are essentially the same. I also maintain that it doesn't matter if they're the same or not. What I've always maintained is that "collections" or "lists" or "verbiage vaults" or "prose packs" should not have anything more than a bare minimum of fair use, if that at all. I call them lists, and I will not deviate from that because it devolves into semantics and ridiculous corner cases. They're lists. Anything else is trying to dance around the issue.
 * The core issue is keeping fair use to an absolute minimum. If a character/monster/whatever is significant and notable enough to be worthy of their own article, and no free license imagery could be made available, then it is entirely appropriate for a fair use image to appear on that article. Yes, there's constant pressure to merge such articles into singular list articles. But, that's the balance to it, and what helps us limit fair use. It's a beautiful system, and would work (and has worked) brilliantly well.
 * Your system is apparently saying XYZ is a list, and TUV isn't a list, and saying that the criteria is "significant prose" without identifying what significant prose is. You claim, correct me if I'm wrong, that we can't clearly delineate that. The problem there is that you end up with an extremely haphazard approach. What the 'rules' are in one neck of the woods at Wikipedia aren't going to be the 'rules' elsewhere. People editing primarily in the Simpson's universe could come up with a different set of rules for List of fictional characters within The Simpsons than the people editing the Kinnikuman universe will come up with for List of Kinnikuman characters.
 * That status quo, as it stands, is NFC. I don't agree with a number of points in that. Neither do you. One definition of compromise; nobody is happy with it. But, that guideline does significantly limit fair use usage, and having one image per character in ANY article, no matter what you want to call it, would never be acceptable under that guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree (mostly) with the current version of the guideline. The changes I'd make are more technical than anything else. My issue is that there are editors who ignore the current version of the guideline and refuse to accept the consensus that major characters can get non-free images.  In fact, if you are not looking to change the guideline, then the change I advocate would actually make the language more restrictive.  I would have the guideline say that articles that list elements without significant prose content should get NO non-free images, except perhaps a group shot.  For articles that have significant prose content, we prefer group shots and so forth, but they can also have a limited number of images of major characters.  That language is, again, more restrictive of fair use than the current language, and it has the benefit of making the distinction clear so that the old "no fair use in lists" language doesn't get applied to the articles that I consider non-lists.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I noted, whether or not you or anyone else thinks something is a list is meaningless. The core issue is fair use minimization. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your issue is minimization of fair use; mine is building the best encyclopedia we can under our operating parameters. That does not mean that fair use should be eliminated completely, which would be the case if we really wanted to "minimize" as much as possible.  The issue is that the current guideline is not well-understood.  Considering that the impetus for changing it back in January was that most editors agree that all articles called "lists" are not the same, there's no reason that the guideline shouldn't say that. Croctotheface (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is clear concensus amongst a large number of editors for fair use images to be used in "List of" articles, on the condition that only a small number of fair use images are used. In some cases it is important to keep a small number of fair use images in an article as there is no other way of replacing the image with any other form of free media (including text, as you can not adequately represent an individual's indentity using text). In my opinion the images currently used in the "List of" articles should be kept. JayJ47 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true, Jay. The consensus among WP editors (and not just posters here) is most definitely that a description of a character cannot replace an image of that character.  Madman (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8:Significance???
WP:NFCC#8 states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Could someone point me to any interpretation of what the heck this means? It seems so subjective as to render it meaningless. I.e., the image uploader will (undoubtedly) believe and state that the image's presence in an article (or articles) will significantly increase reader's understanding, and improve the usefulness of the article. (I can't tell if the NFU rationale template covers "significance" - I see "purpose" in it, but that may or may not really cover "significance.") Someone else may disagree, thinking that the image doesn't increase a reader's understanding, or at least not significantly increase a reader's understanding, and tag the image with a disputed fair use rationale. "Significance" is open to interpretation. There's no objective way to determine who's right and who's wrong, is there? BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised how many people believe and state that something significantly increases the readers understanding until you ask them to articulate why. In any case, the policy sets the direction.. if you'd like mechanical instructions, read the guidelines which reflect the standard application of the policy in many specific instances. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What NFCC#8 is supposed to say is, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", but the second clause was removed despite the absence of any consensus to do so. Since it was removed without consensus, though, we can continue to apply it to our decision-making. —Angr 10:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was removed without consensus, it should be added back in. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, rule pounding aside, it still comes across as entirely too subjective. Leaves it wide open to the crazy people on both sides of the argument. I'm not entirely sure how, but it needs fixed. People are visually oriented creatures, images are useful. Wiggy! (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * then why not use a simple question why does this article require this exact image? if you cant answer that question with a unique answer you dont need that image. βcommand 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's too strict, though. There are many purposes (such as identification) for which any one of a class of non-free images would suffice. For example, if a character appears in a movie, any frame with that character in it could be used to show the user how the character was depicted. By your standard, we could include none of them, even though having any one of them would increase the user's understanding. — PyTom (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But (hypothetically and to Beta's point) why do you need to show a picture of that character? --M ASEM  19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * let me show you how NFCC#8 works take a look at Virgin Killer and Image:Virgin Killer.jpg that is a crystal clear case of significance. if you say otherwise your lying to yourself. Image:Virgin Killer.jpg has a very clear place in that article and the article would not be complete without it. that is significance, yeah you'll have a hard time defending non-free usage that is not significant. but that is a clear example of proper NFC usage. βcommand 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Replying to Masem) Knowing what a character looks like "significantly increases reader's understanding" of that character. I believe an article on, say, Homer Simpson would be less understandable if the character was not depicted there. The second image in that article is a good example of what I'm talking about here... it's a screenshot from the first short, but screenshots taken a frame earlier or a frame later would have served just as well. So I don't think there should be a test as to if a _specific_ image increases understanding, only over if an image increases understanding as compared to the article without the image at all. — PyTom (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

regarding "fair use" for games
When explaining reasoning for fair use, why must "The screenshot is not intended to hinder the copyright owner's ability to sell the game." be used?

Espically on such major things as GTA, Metal Gear Solid etc...

How can a picture stop Rockstar or Konami from selling a game?

If these images are released to the public by the companies, surely copyright infringement only happens if you sell the image on? Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Video games often sell posters, T-shirts and the like emblazoned with imagery relevent to their games. We don't want screenshots for which it is practical to compete with these. Wily D  20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining :) 77.99.186.110 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Added language to list images
I have boldly added a line in the images in list section about such images should support comprehension of the list's grouping and broad generalizations as the counter to having an image per element. "Should" is operative, and not suggested to prevent individual pictures, but this advice is a good summary of the additional points in that section. --M ASEM 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's consensus and I disagree, so I've reverted. Requiring images to support the article as a whole is a big change, and it is not necessarily the opposite of having one image per element.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, images of the major characters/elements DO support the article as a whole. Knowing what the major characters look like does lend understanding to the overall concept of characters in a given work of fiction. Croctotheface (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (hypothetical) WP is not supposed to be a replacement for watching a show or other visual work (which is why we limit plot summaries and want fiction to be about the impact of that work on the real world).  If character images are only being used to identify characters that can otherwise be describe by text, why do we need them?   (This is not to prevent character images being used as double duty to identify many characters or to associate an art style to the work).  --M ASEM  13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, characters articles are almost never about the impact of the work on the real world, but that's more of a deletion argument than anything else. I think that you and I will never agree about the notion of "purely for identification" or "replaceable by text."  While I argue that identification does increase the reader's understanding, I also maintain that there is much more at work with these images than "now I know what the character looks like," and I've described the reasons before. A little while ago, I laid out my view on the "replaceable by text" issue.  I think that "replaceable by text" functions more as a subset of "significance" than "free equivalent."  Text, by definition, is never equivalent to any image if that image "significantly increases the readers' understanding." Croctotheface (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me....
why you need to put one of those

"I believe this is fair use under us law etc..."

Copyright is to prevent people copying for profit or otherwise isnt it? So why do you need to prove it?

For years ive seen websites/forums use images of games from companies like EA and other companies without saying "I believe this is fair use because..."

It might be down to the indivual country laws.

Obviously with some things, people like to keep them private, but is this just a wikipedia policy?

Cheers for anyone that can enlighten me 77.99.186.110 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have to do it as to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy, which requires that all non-free content must explain why they are exempt under the Exemption Doctrine Policy of the site (here, WP:NFCC). If it does not explain why its covered under our policies and fair use, it must be deleted. ViperSnake151 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot 77.99.186.110 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free Wikimedia logo
Okay, we need to seriously make a definitive policy for these images. Many images on the Commons have been by me because I feel that they are technically non-free and shouldn't belong there. I find it quite hard to believe that we have screenshots of free software (even non-free at times) depicting logos with Wikimedia copyrights that are non-free, yet EXEMPT from WP:NFCC. We should come up with a rule for those images. I'm proposing a similar rule for up at Commons, but I think CopyrightByWikimedia images should only be used to illustrate articles and guides about Wikimedia sites, AND NEVER on articles where the Wikipedia site depicted is not the subject of the entire picture. Non-free is non-free no matter how you slice it.

For instance, we should find other freely licensed pictures to use for these purposes, cause especially on free images, it makes them non-free in reality, which is NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Also, in accordance with WP:ASR, we shouldn't be using Wikimedia sites for these demonstrative purposes. ViperSnake151 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Concern
A few days ago, someone added the following to Images #12:


 * However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable

While I concur with the basic premise (that people clearly change over time and an exception need to be made where, say, Shirley Temple isn't recognizable as an adult when her actions are far more recognizable as a child), I am concerned that there is no restriction on the number of images. This could quickly lead to "hey, she changed her hair color again this week, so I can add another image" This isn't what we mean, so...


 * 1) Was there consensus to make this change? If so, where?
 * 2) Can someone suggest better phrasing to eliminate this loophole?

— BQZip01 — talk 04:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That statement was already part of #12, the editor just moved it into its own paragraph, italicised it, and added "in which case the use would be acceptable."
 * I agree about the loophole. Maybe adding "an", eg, "in which case the use of an image would be acceptable" would make clear that just one image is acceptable? Bláthnaid  11:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see now. Missed that earlier. I rephrased and made the exception stand out more clearly. Is this acceptable for everyone? If not, feel free to revert and we can discuss it further here. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What it says now is a radical change without whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, additionally it is plausible multiple images might be necessary for someone whose image undergoes dramatic shifts. Wily D 02:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the loophole. My rationale is as follows: By having this loophole, we leave a gaping hole of a battleground. Just because it might be difficult to obtain free licensed imagery of a living person or group does not mean we should give up and include fair use under the guise of "well, they look different now!" The images of a living person from an earlier time in their life have to also have significant historical relevance reported in secondary sources regarding their appearance at that time in their lives in order to pass muster. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The Foundation has made an explicit statement with regards to living individuals at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". The swing point on this is "for the same purpose". Read on.
 * 2) The visual appearance of a person at a particular time in their life is almost always not relevant to the article in which the image appears. The vast majority of the time, an image is used from X period in a person's life because that's what our editors usually find; images from their "famous" period. Case in point; I recently removed Image:Mikeschmidt.png from Mike Schmidt noting it as replaceable fair use. That image has since been deleted, but as I recall it was simply a picture of him in a baseball uniform. There was nothing of historic importance about the image that was reported in secondary sources. The article now contains Image:Mike Schmidt.jpg which is a freely licensed image.
 * 3) Just depicting a person isn't enough to pass fair use requirements for a living person/group. Even a retired person can make public appearances and be photographed. Case in point Image:Johnwooden.jpg at John Wooden. John Wooden has been retired for 33 years. His physical appearance during his coaching years is not historically important. The image we now have is freely licensed and serves the same purpose; depiction. As a case point where fair use DOES work for living individuals; Image:Vishnu-1.jpg at Lakshmi Tatma. The person who uploaded the image originally noted in the rationale with regards to replaceability "those limbs aren't going to grow back" Lakshmi's had surgery to remove the extra limbs, so getting an image of her with the limbs is impossible and therefore it is not replaceable by free use imagery, even though she is alive.
 * 4) Even a music group that has broken up, but whose members are still alive, may come back together for a reunion concert. This happens all the time. Until one or more members of the group are dead, it's possible. To say that an image from the early career of a given rock band is of more value than a later image of the same band is an invalid argument. Until it is impossible for that group to get back together (say for example The Who) then a free use image can be created that serves the same purpose; depiction.
 * 5) As currently worded, the exception allows a fair use image if a person's visual appearance changes from the time when they were famous. Look, EVERYbody's visual appearance drastically changes over time. This exception effectively allows fair use images of living people because living people age. Let's say John Lennon were still alive. If Image:John and Cynthia on car.JPG were used for depiction, should we allow it just because he aged and came to look like Image:Lennon69.jpg just ten years later?


 * As another example of where we do accept such an image, consider the 1960s image of Twiggy in the article Twiggy, where you proposed deletion, but your proposal did not achieve consensus, in the same way that it had also failed the previous year, since it was argued that the understanding of Twiggy's 1960s appearance and "look", that propelled her to becoming an instant icon in the 1960s, would not be conveyed by a current photograph. Jheald (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a particularly good example. The Lakshmi example is considerably better. I still disagree with the Twiggy stance you have. Anyone can don clothes equating the appearance in the image and serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Nobody can grow extra limbs to equate Lakshmi's appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a recent Twiggy modelling photograph. Even if a recent photo of her had the same clothes & makeup as in this 1960s photo, she would not look like she does in the early photo. She would not have become iconic in the 1960s if back then she looked like she does today. My opinion is that there shouldn't be non-free images of a person at, say, ages 21, 22, and 23 in an article. But one early photo of a person in her late fifties who became famous for her teenage looks is OK, I think. The non-free photo in Twiggy isn't a great one though. A better image would be one showing how thin she was or a close up of her face showing her makeup. Bláthnaid  20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An exception like this will encourage a revote of practically all images of living people at IFD. The image that compelled this discussion, Image:PaulKeatingPEO.jpg is a good example, since it illustrates a guy whose appearance was not a significant aspect of his life and whose image is now being retained under a rewrite of the guideline. If the changed policy stands, we'll have a whole army of editors lobbying for exceptions under the questionable, wholly subjective and poorly written policy that stands now. It should be reverted to its previous version and this debate should be closed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am really trying not to be snippy here, but you aren't the end-all of discussions who just declares things closed and over. You miss the point entirely. His image isn't being justified for retention under the rewrite, but under the original criteria. My attempt was to clarify the current policy. The exception already exists; I was trying to clarify and limit its scope and application to a single image. Surely images of Shirley Temple as a child actress shouldn't be deleted because she's still alive? It wouldn't serve the same purpose and can't possibly be useful in identifying her. As for the specific image you brought up, a leader of a country indeed is extremely identifiable by his image and is the crux of the matter. Where do we draw the line? Blathnaid hit it right on the head. It is all a matter of usage. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the guideline is allowed to stand as it is (and it shouldn't be; the exception should be removed), we'll have lots of arguments like the one you're having now over Paul Keating's picture about whether or not such an image illustrates something unique about his age. The man was a politician and his image had nothing to do with his career. Once he's dead, it will be impossible to get a free living image of him and only then can fair use images be employed. That way we don't have to waste any time bickering about what's a true representation and what's not. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it obviously needs to be addressed. (see below) — BQZip01 —  talk 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarity
We can simplify this in stating there must be a significant change in their appearance in which a current photo would be inadequate. This should also be annotated in the fair use rationale with an example of both the current photo and the past photo (uh...links, not uploads). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of an orginized review location considered harmful
In further consideration of the recent discussions I believe we should begin using Non-free content review for discussing outcomes in clearly disputed cases.

I had expected this issues to be brought to IFD, but it's clearly not happening in most cases.

Right now disputes over the application the non-free content policy tend to be handled by argument-ad-exhaustion and argument-ad-blocking by Sole Defenders of the Wiki. Regardless of the quality of the outcomes of this process the disruption it sometimes creates is harmful to the project. As such, we need a way of making these disputes be something other than a one man crusade, and a good review page can accomplish that. This may hopefully have the side effect of reducing occurrences of edit warring over the policy, since there will be some other avenue of potentially getting a favorable interpretation other than by directly editing the policy.

Deciding when disputes are of sufficient merit to be brought up for review (rather than speedy kept or speedy deleted) will be an ongoing challenge but I would hope that, at a minimum, disputes between established editors would be brought under review even if one side believes the other to be a copyright-idiot. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Shunting discussion to a centralized location encourages walled gardens and other undesirable phenomenon. Editors who are not regulars to these discussions often feel intimidated or disenfranchised. It is much better to make disputed discussions happen on the the talkpages of the articles, so all can contribute without byzantine policy nonsense like closing against consensus. Remember, this is not deletion of entire articles or images, just some content removal. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to look at this the opposite way, in that discussion on the talk page tends to have "walled garden" responses from owners, while a central discussion area ensures that most of those who respond to the matter aren't involved with the article in question. This tends to lead to a much more neutral outcome, where those heavily invested in the article aren't also those deciding if the decisions they made were right, and rather others are reviewing. As to closing against consensus, that would be a possible and in this case sometimes desirable outcome, as the Foundation mandate and our very mission would override any consensus, so material violating it must be removed regardless of consensus. Any discussion should be focused on whether use is critical and necessary, not on a head count. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth a shot, at least. If nothing else, keeping a centralized forum may add some semblance of consistency and normalcy to this area. – Luna Santin  (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is an outstanding idea! It would allow wider participation by the community, and consensus could coalesce around a broader or narrower interpretation of NFCC. And, even if it did become a "walled garden", at least it would be a bigger garden than the one where ideas are currently being planted. I strongly support Gmaxwell's proposal. S. Dean Jameson 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that, traditionally, discussion on the FUR page (now the NFR page) had no concrete outcomes. It was only a place for people to discuss images, but there was no "closing" in the way that IFD discussions are closed. So in order to advance the proposal above, it would be necessary to change the NFR page so that discussions are closed in a concrete manner. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think such a change is even possible? Because it seems apparent that something needs to be done to make the policy more concrete, and less open to individual interpretation. I'm on the fence with which way it should lean (more or less lenient), but clearly something needs to be done. S. Dean Jameson 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that much can be done to make it "more concrete" which wouldn't make it produce a worse outcome overall. We have brains for a reason, they're useful for making good decisions in hard cases. What I think we mostly need to do is figure out how to reduce the emotions and drama when people disagree. ... Take the situations out of being one person vs the world. --Gmaxwell (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some form of noticeboard or listing could help that immensely, by enabling those editors interested and knowledgeable in this area to better find and comment in ongoing discussions. Could do wonders for our consistency, which hopefully in turn would lead to calm. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What's fair use in a given context needs to be decided by people actually familiar with our fair use policies, rather than mobs on article talk pages.  WP:FUR would be suitable, but I would sugest that we change the focus to evaluting uses in articles, rather than the images themselves.  Articles under review could be templated for the duration.  I am tired of adminstrators blocking those enforcing our non-free content policies, and pages winding up protected over this nonsense.  It needs to end, and this seems a good way to do it.  Hi DrNick ! 19:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that a NFC review page would be an excellent idea.


 * For those concerned about "another page", consider that technically all XfD pages could be united into a single page. Things are separated due to ease of use, and in particular policy application.


 * And IfD really looks like it's doing more things than it needs to: Applicability of license, as well as, whether such an image is wanted/needed for the encyclopedia. So having a page which determines applicability of license (it looks like that's what WP:PUI may be for) and one which determines whether the encyclopedia "needs" such a piece of media (WP:IfD) and one slightly inbetween which reviews NFC claims of "fair use", and necessity for such fair use. Sounds like a nicely organised set of pages to me.


 * The only negative I see is the statement that "this adds another page for discussion". If that's the only negative, then let's make the page. If it turns out to not work, it shouldn't be much effort to remerge to IfD. - jc37 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A real problem that I see is that we already have had such a page at Non-free content review. It had no teeth. Discussions languished, many times issues never resolved, etc. Basically, it was a dead end. A front. If you're going to have a system, it's got to have teeth. It's got to be a real XfD type page. I personally would like to see the default outcome of such be to delete the content, unless consensus exists to keep the content, rather then the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and my read is that that's essentially what's being stated here. Turning WP:PUI and WP:FUR into WP:XFD pages, forming a trio of media-related XfD discussions with WP:IfD. The key to this being to give the discussions the same "format" as other XfD discussions. (open discussion, time limit, then closure), with appeals sent to DRV. - jc37 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Perhaps then we will finally get more clear consensus and guidelines for when we non-free images are appropriate. Somewhat like how AfDs have led to much better notability guidelines. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)