Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 14

< Wikipedia:Non-free content review
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Toshio Yamaguchi in topic File:Warne-Muralidaran Trophy.jpg
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Non-free screenshots of Killing All the Right People

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted. --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:DWkilling.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:DWkendall.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above non-free screenshots are used in Killing All the Right People. One of them is used in the list. There are many problems with these images: 1) bad quality; 2) still images and captions differ from each other; 3) No critical commentary about these still images as if they are scenes. --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Place them up for deletion; It's obvious that they fail NFCC #8. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Cheers sam diane kiss.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Withdrawing review without prejudice to replace this image anytime. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was used as part of the Cheers#Romance section. However, the image's ability to help readers understand did not affect me. Therefore, I moved it to One for the Road (Cheers) as a mere identification of the article's topic. Nevertheless, Masem said from WP:Media copyright questions:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

In other words, I wonder if this image passes all NFCC in either Cheers#Romance or One for the Road (Cheers). --George Ho (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In this specific case, the scene itself seems to have some coverage (given that's its central theme but also the conclusion of a long-running plot) so there's possibly some allowance on the episode page. More attention should be given to focus on how critics took that scene or the conclusion of the romance to better substantiate it. But I'm not saying that its absolute. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Before reviewing, the photo is of the same scene but at different angle, co-licensed to Getty Images. Notice the head of the Asian woman? Should not be treated as the same photo. Instead, two versions of the same scene. --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:@justinbieber screenshot.JPG

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Deleted as "orphaned". --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non free snapshot of Justin Bieber's twitter page. No detailed FUR. Contains large advertisement which makes it look like spam. Not required by the article, which looks better without it in the infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate, I don't see where this would ever have use. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the objection to 1.) The advertisement on the screenshot, 2.) The short FUR, 3.) The premise that a screenshot is helpful/needed for a Twitter account page like this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The short fur is the first problem, but even if there was a proper FUR we have 1) a non-free image of a living person (yes, granted on a web site, but the web site has an otherwise standard form that doesn't need re-illustration from the main Twitter article), and to the end, the website shot is not appropriate at all, that regardless how good the FUR could be written it will always fail a combination of NFCC #1, #3a, and #8. I know that web sites often will have an image of the website's front page as an infobox image, but Beiber's Twitter page is not a web site and there's definitely no allowance for that. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the FUR. Not only do websites post screeshots, but also software applications post screenshots. This subject is somewhere between that of a website and that of software, IMO. Regarding WP:NFCC#1, the subject is not Justin Bieber, it is Justin Bieber's Twitter account and activity. A picture of him is not a substitute. Regarding WP:NFCC#3a, I am not aware of other non-free content on the page. Regarding WP:NFCC#8, we are trying to help the reader understand his activity. Many people have never seen a Twitter timeline so this enables them to understand what tweets look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, it is Bieber's twitter account. It is not a web site (which would encompass all Twitter accounts; it is a page on Twitter), and certainly not a software application. The only thing of interest on the page is the large picture of Bieber, which is a non-free image of a living person, and thus we could just use a free image of Bieber (I'm assuming such exists easily) in its place, thus why #1 and #3a (minimum use) would be met that way. The idea of what a "timeline" for a twitter account looks like is trivally easy to tell (it's a list of messages, 140 char or less, in reverse order, with icons to identify the sender and timestamps). Surprisingly, this should be something done on the main Twitter page (likely using [https://twitter.com/#!/wikipedia Wikipedia's official twitter account to minimize non-free elements), but to use Bieber's twitter on this twitter page is absolutely unacceptable given that it effectively gets around the use of non-free image of living persons. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Your response sounds as if you are not familiar with the article, which gives numerous sample tweets. I have cropped the image to remove the image that you object to and make the text more legible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And to help, I've just added a shot of @Wikipedia's page which is still non-free but minimizes all non-free elements since WP logos are in our control (only Twitter's layout can be claimed copyright). So a more non-free violating example like Bieber's is definitely not necessary, and can apply to any future celebrity twitter accounts. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In both this and the cropped version, there are (at least) two copyrighted elements belonging to different groups. The first is Twitter's layout and appearance, which belongs to them. The second is the image of Bieber, which likely isn't free, definitely isn't copyright to Twitter but instead to Bieber or his media producer. That means that one screenshot of Bieber's Twitter page is effectively two non-free images. Now, Wikipedia's account will still have the same "issue" in that the layout's Twitter, the images are WMF, but at least in this case, we know that the logo is free for use on WP, so the amount of non-free use in that image is only one, the Twitter layout. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In terms of the layout, the FUR addresses the twitter layout like it does for any other computer-based screenshot. However, you may have a point that his avatar makes the screenshot of his webpage different than the screenshots of Ashton Kutcher and Barack Obama, since their avatars are not copyrighted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, on AK's, the BG image is likely copyrighted even if the avatar isn't copyrightable. And its not that we need separate FURs for each "copyrighted" element on that page since its one image and an image we didn't assemble ourselves, but the case that we know it equates to at least 2 non-free images, compared to, say, Wikipedia's Twitter page. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I should have stated the same here. Now that I agree on the copyrightable elements, I am no longer following this discussion. If you feel strongly about the AK background ping me and I will crop it like the Bieber below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:@justinbieber screenshot cropped.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Deleted as "orphaned", but how did it become "orphaned"? Anyway, make new discussion if this resurfaces. --George Ho (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons for nominating. Rationale says:

  • This is an infobox image in Justin Bieber on Twitter, which is an article that entirely consists of analysis, commentary and criticism of Justin Bieber's Twitter activities.

Myself and another editor have removed it twice. It would be the second image in the information box. The article is not exclusively "analysis, commentary and criticism of Justin Bieber's Twitter" but talks a lot about others and their interaction with the topic of Bieber on Twitter, not SPECIFICALLY Bieber's account.

I seriously doubt that you have removed this image twice, since I only added it the first time a few minutes ago, but exaggerate as you like. The word entirely could be changed to largely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
They did. LadyofShalott 13:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I am quite sure if you try to provide diffs, you will notice that a different image was removed the first time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The image is only being used for informational purposes to depict the public interface of his Twitter activities.

The public interfact is just the front page of Bieber's account. Many people interact with Bieber's account through their own Twitter pages and do not see this page on a regular basis.

Whatever your point is, a picture of his tweets is more closely related to this article than a picture of his moptop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it exemplifies what the public sees of his Twitter persona.

The image adds little because it doesn't. What people see are specific Tweets, not his account.

The specific tweets that they see are just like the ones shown here, but interspersed with tweets from others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • it helps to visually identify his internet persona.

That is not the topic of the article.

These tweets are far closer to the topic than his moptop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The image's usefulness on the article is limited. --LauraHale (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at a version of the article history containing the image. At the thumbnail size, you can hardly get any information from the picture, making the image not very helpful. LadyofShalott 13:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess you are referring to this page. The image is at the same commonly accepted screenshot scale as the main image at Microsoft Excel, Quicken, Stata, PokerTracker or any of a number computerscreen infobox images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Useless: Just because it IS a topic, doesn't mean we have to have a picture of it. Keepers are looking at it the wrong way. We know he has a twitter account. In fact, we even have a link to it in two different places on the article. Having a screenshot of it serves no purpose other than a decorative one. Now, if THIS particular screenshot was the subject of secondary sourced commentary, then including it might make sense. Without that, it's purely decorative and adds nothing to the article. Also, as the image stands it is far, far too large. It must be shrunk down to a smaller size. When that happens, it will be so small as to be useless for reading any actual content. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How is this any more useless than the main image at Microsoft Excel, Quicken, Stata, PokerTracker or any other computer screenshot?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Having a random screenshot might be decorative, but in this case the subject of the screenshot is a timeline of his tweets, which is more representative of the subject than a picture of his moptop or a picture of him playing the guitar. Neither his hairdos nor his guitarplaying is the subject of the article, where as his tweeting activity is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Since the timeline is always changing, a static of them doesn't help. The reasons we have the other pictures is that they do explain how those programs or sites work in conjunction with the text of the article. This same reasoning would make sense for the main Twitter article to explain how the timeline works, but makes no sense for a single page on that site. Readers can go to the Twitter article to learn more. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, and the example for how the Twitter site works is on the Twitter page, appropriately. Bieber's instance of the Twitter user page does not change from that so there's no need for it here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My mind is now changed. The thread in the section above makes a point about two separate copyrightable elements only one of which can be explained by a FUR. His point distinguishes Bieber's screenshot from both Barack Obama's and Ashton Kutcher's. I don't really find any of the other reasons presented on this section to be in keeping with prevailing policy on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. since I no longer contest, I am not following. Ping me if there is something else for me to see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Armenian Revolutionary Federation logo.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Violating uses have been removed. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The uses of the file in 1896 Ottoman Bank Takeover, Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Lebanon, Armenian fedayees, February Uprising, Khanasor Expedition, List of Armenian fedayees, List of political parties in Lebanon, March Days, Military history of Armenia and Yıldız assassination attempt violate WP:NFCC Policy 10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the picture should be deleted from those article.--Yerevanci (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Hand with Reflecting Sphere.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File has been removed from 1935 in art. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 1935 in art violates NFCC#8 and 10c. Use is decorative. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:RobertBazell.PNG

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted as "replaceable". --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:RobertBazell.PNG uploaded solely for the purpose of depicting a living person, a photograph of whom is reasonably obtainable. 24.207.205.222 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion under "replacable fair use". --MASEM (t) 15:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Méret Oppenheim Object.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Poor nomination for review on my part. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in Méret Oppenheim seems unnecessary and decorative. If the image needs to be referred to in that article, a wikilink to Le Déjeuner en fourrure could serve that purpose. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It is this artist's signature work; in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art and should be viewed on her biography as the most important and wellknown example of her work...Modernist (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I could agree to that if the image did not have its own article. But since it does have an own article, it should be sufficient to refer the reader to that article instead of showing the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That's inconsistent with articles on painters or musicians. We allow non-frees of art or sound samples on these pages if and only if they have been recognized by critics of the work as their most important work, most influential, or the like; as such, a limited sampling even if the works themselves have articles are within reason for a stand-alone article. But again, I stress that the key for requirement for an artist's non-free work on their page is sourced criticism that puts the specific work on a pedestal as an exemplary aspect of the artist's work; just because one is an artist/musician does not guarantee that they should have non-free images of their work on their page if their works have never given high praise. (If the artists' work is in the PD, that's a different story...) --MASEM (t) 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There definitely is sourced commentary of the work in Méret Oppenheim. So I accept that the use of this image there is probably appropriate under current guidelines and practice. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Albacete balompie.svg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed from the article. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 1994–95 Copa del Rey violates WP:NFCC#10c and 8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Athletic club 200px.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Boldly removed the decorative image uses from the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 1994–95 Copa del Rey violates WP:NFCC#8 and 10c. Decorative use. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I admit that I do not have the patience right now to remove those obvious violations myself. I know that I could (should?) boldly removing them. Will take a look a this later, if no one has done so. I don't want to fiddle with the tables on that page right now and the danger of breaking something is simply too high for me right now. If someone wants to take care of this, he or she is more than welcome to do so. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Dwelling.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Violating use has been eliminated. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use in 1927 in art violates NFCC#10c. Also possibly violates NFCC#8, since there is no comment about how the painting is representative of the style of 1927 or anything like that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Yellow Magic Orchestra - Kimi ni Mune Kyun.ogg

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Has rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This file fails WP:NFCC#10c in the article Naughty Boys. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Yellow Magic Orchestra - Kimi ni Mune Kyun.ogg#Rationale of fair use for Kimi ni Mune Kyun sample looks like a rationale for Naughty Boys. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes. The rationale is confusing: it looks as if it is a rationale for a non-existing article called Kimi ni Mune Kyun, but then the fine print says that it is instead a rationale for the article Naughty Boys. I wish that people would make rationales more clear... --Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:P A Sangma.jpeg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 

I hve a query about this image for multiple reasons. 1. several images of him have been recently deleted. 2. this is uploaded by User talk:Bionmba who has other issues of image uploads. 3. source is a media outlet unlikely to be free.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as copyright violation. {{PD-ineligible}} means that a work is very simple, such as a single word in a standard font, for example the logo seen to the right. If something is more complex, we get into country-specific rules. However, this photo is definitely way too complex to be ineligible for copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pranab in early days.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Source found. Deleted as copyvio. --VernoWhitney (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious claim of not being previously publushed my new editor who uploaded it. No other source indicated.

Note: user has aldso done thisLihaas (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Pranab Mukharjee addresing public in a function.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On commons, not Wikipedia. Tagged as copyvio there. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No copyright info given with the claim that it was "by camera" and unpublished. Seems dubious.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an image on commons - we can't do anything about it here. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:MTSU Murphy Center, March 2012.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted as replaceable. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for use in Murphy Center is not valid. A suitable free image exists at File:Murphy-Center-MTSU-vs-UT-Nov-21-08.jpg (and I have restored that free image to the article). --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion; clear violation of NFCC#1 --MASEM (t) 03:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Amitabh Bachchan Tweeting Last Words Of Rajesh Khanna On Twitter 18 July 2012.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

This image was deleted from Commons. No prejudice to re-open this discussion or start a fresher discussion about the same file. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The flickr link it was taken from indicates "some copyrights exist." Unsure how to peursue, someone please advice.

a BOT could not decipher and the n ote saiys itneeds human attentionLihaas (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this fails NFCC 5 and 8. Seeing a picture of a twitter user page does not add anything compared to quoting the relevant tweet. When we quote newspapers, do we ever illustrate with a scan of the article? The image is also obviously misdescribed as PD, but that's an issue for Commons. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Putting up a picture does no harm! Regarding your newspaper example, I can go on likewise and cite numerous instances where images have been used or put up. Definitely meets NFCC 5 and 8 criteria.Regards, theTigerKing  16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It does harm Wikipedia's free content mission. We can supply a reference link to the twitter page if that's really necessary but in absolutely no way does the reader need to see the look of the Twitter page to understand the event. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how does it harm's free mission? The image has been put up considering the fact that the twitter links become dead after a period of time. The twitter image shows up the exact content written by Amitabh. Only a part of text has been(was) quoted in the article. Moreover, he has written more about the subject under discussion on the same page.Regards, theTigerKing  16:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The screenshot of Twitter's website with the authors photos and layouts is a copyrighed image, and thus not free. As to the content of the tweets and the fact they may expire, if you feel that the content of the tweet is going to disappear and that it is necessary for the article, you can use normal inline referencing to point to that tweet and then use a service like web citations to cache the state of that tweet so that you can confirm it later. We don't use screenshots for such issues as permanency. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
comment TigerKing is the uploader.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it, without any doubt, falls under the license of {{non-free web screenshot}}.Boseritwik (talk) July 21, 2012 03:19 (UTC)
The license isn't a problem. It's the fact that it fails NFCC#1 as text and links to the website are easy and equivalent replacements for the non-free screenshot. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Western.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{resolved}} Dealt with at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The Wikipeda Non-free content criteria, include the following:

...

2. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

- there is, however, one item that can convey equivalent information - the new logo.

...

6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

- Wikipedia's specific policy on logos state that generally, only the CURRENT logo should be used. - Wikipedia's policy on logos also states that "Company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on those companies". In the current case, poster is attempting to use the previous Tower logo in the body of the article, rather than for identification purposes - the rationale for using logos is described by the logo policy to be similar to using portraits, being that "most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text." In the case of Western's "Tower" logo, it was used for 14 years out of Western's 125+ years as a school. It does not provide valuable information and is easily replaceable with the current logo.

...

8. Contextual significance. 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.

- No argument provided on how the presence of the Tower logo significantly increases readers' understanding of Western.

The Tower Logo, however, does not help identify the university in the article on Western. It's not in the infobox (where identifying logos are included) and instead is found in the body of the article for solely historical purposes. Unlike a corporate logo (such as Coca-Cola), which people use to distinguish between brands on a daily basis, the Tower Logo was only used for 14 years, and was NOT widely known by the public (how many people outside the Western community would be able to identify the Tower Logo?).

Thus, the Tower Logo can be distinguished with the logos of well-known brands. Whereas including Coca-Cola's logo may help people identify with the company (since most people know what Coke's logo looks like), the Tower Logo is much less recognizable. As such, the Tower Logo is distinguishable from well-known brands, where use of their logos adds to the SIGNIFICANT understanding of the brand. The Tower Logo in the article on Western does not add to the significant understanding of Western (which is required by Wikipedia's policies), because most people outside the Western community are unfamiliar with the Tower Logo, used for a short part of Western's history, and only on certain materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexwestern (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:P A Sangma.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wrong forum. Nominate on Commons as appropriate. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

no raationale or source with mentions of "by camera" (which many such users have uploaded recenelty to said pages. It then claims this to be free.Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The photo is from commons, meaning there's little we can do about that issue here. (Yes "by camera" is not really acceptable for a source description, but again, that should be fixed on commons.) --MASEM (t) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Dali - The Sacrament of the Last Supper - lowres.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Violating use removed. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in Last Supper in Christian art#Gallery might violate WP:NFCC#8 and I don't see why this use would be acceptable under WP:NFG. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't even appear to have a rational for the larger article. No apparent reason to use it there as no text refers to it and there's plenty of other examples given already. Remove for sure. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Miz As The Intercontinental Champion.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Deleted as replaceable. --George Ho (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd copyright of it being protected by British Crown copyright when it appears to be, according to the source credited to WWE.com. Image claims it a historical image of the moment, but the image is clearly just of a living person, which would fail our policy on the image being replaceable. Used on four articles with only one rationale. Regards, — Moe ε 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I figured, just figured I'd post here. Removed instances of the image and replaced with the free alternative that was there and tagged for deletion. Regards, — Moe ε 03:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I encourage everybody to do what I do in such cases and speedy them on sight, under WP:CSD#F7a (obviously invalid tag). No need to wait out some deletion queue with these, let alone have a discussion here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Gaudier-Brzeska.JPG

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

File has been confirmed as in the public domain - Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 1913 in art violates NFCC#10c and possibly NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This image is in the public domain in areas with 70 years after life and in the United States because it was published in 1923 (for the U.S.) and because the artist died in 1915. I have confirmed its public domain status, --George Ho (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree, it's PD...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Brasil2000.JPG

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Violating use has been removed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 2000 FIFA Club World Championship Final violates WP:NFCC#10c. Furthermore I think it violates NFCC#8, since it is already present in 2000 FIFA Club World Championship. (Edit) Fails all points at WP:NFC#UUI. Actually strike that. None of those points apply here. Sorry, clearly a mistake on my part. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this speaks more to the fact that the "Final" article is unnecessary to start and can be merged into the main "Championship" article (as there's no size issues there). Ignoring that, yes, the use is not appropriate on the "Final" article since its only about one match, not the entire champsionship (where it is okay for that in the Championship article as a logo for the event). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The final article is not unnecessary, there are articles for all finals of FIFA competitions (see 2010 FIFA World Cup Final and 2011 FIFA Club World Cup Final). As you say, however, the image should not be on the final page as it does not relate specifically to the match itself. – PeeJay 15:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Just because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that we should have that 2000 final article, as presently it is just a bunch of stats. Of course I can see how the other examples you give are much more fleshed out and valid as articles, its just that at present, the same can't be said of the 2000 final. But w.r.t the image aspect even those fleshed out finales don't reuse the championship logo, so yes, no question of the problem on the 2000 final use being inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:INSAS rifle (Browngirl06).jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved and wihdrawn by nom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Didgy sourcing here, it lists WP as the source of the work. (though i cant imagine its not free, probs the source needs to change)Lihaas (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The original image was uploaded with a {{PD-self}} tag, which is completely possible in this scenario. The uploader hasn't been active for several years so its likely impossible to check, but the fact that that original image was moved to commons probably means its ok. Irregardless, because the image is at commons, it's not under en.wiki's NFC issues to deal with. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
{{resolved}} Okey, seems sorted.Lihaas (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events‎‎

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

All images have been removed from the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

None of the images has a vaild FUR, nor do I think one can be made, can someone else have a look please. Mtking (edits) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite already removed them, but that's absolutely right; the use of NFC within each infobox is unacceptable there. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
File:Ufc-145-poster-jones-vs-evans.png is still used in 2012 in UFC events#UFC 145 which seems unnecessary given that the main article containing the image is wikilinked at the top of the section. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed the image from 2012 in UFC events (April to June)#UFC 145 per the reason given in the edit summary. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:USA Basketball.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Looks fine now. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This file fails WP:NFCC#10c in the articles United States men's national basketball team and United States women's national basketball team. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguably the logo could be used on those pages, but it needs rationales for both. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I too think the image just needs a proper FUR. Have the original uploader and the proper projects been contacted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am sort of a member of WP:BASKETBALL, so I just copied the extant FUR for the two additional uses. This was just a stopgap. I did not examine the FUR contents really.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Rebecca Howe.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned by a replacement. --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This image is currently used in Rebecca Howe. Unfortunately, the article describes the transition of this character from a relevant, ruthless, strong, independent, and ambitious woman to an irrelevant, clumsy, weak, lazy, and pathetic woman. This image does not indicate any implications or any shred of characterization based on the article... or the character herself and has no hints of significance. File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg is currently used as part of the Rebecca Howe#Creation and casting section and proves itself to be a replacement of this non-free image as an idea of visual identification. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his answer. --George Ho (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:University of Cambridge Crest.svg

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The file has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This fails WP:NFCC#10c in two articles:

Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Replace all uses with File:Cambridge University Crest.svg, a free alternative. A handful were switched over because of a minor complaint about the lion display; even as a heraldist myself the free version is not incorrect (merely suboptimal) and should nto have been replaced with a non-ftree verison. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged the unfree version as replaceable, then. Doesn't Commons:COM:COA#Public domain definition (blason) basically say that all unfree coats of arms should be tagged with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free screenshot of Hill Street Station

Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments3 people in discussion

withdrawing review. One image was deleted, and I have requested deletion on another based on this review. Two images may be kept. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
File:19810115 Daniel Travanti in Hill Street Station episode of Hill Street Blues.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Hill Street Station two men gunned down.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

{{multiple image}}

Masem said from WP:MCQ:

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work.

I wonder if this image passes NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, one image is acceptable of a TV episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
As I'm reading along the article, which is totally well-written, I see that the pilot has many plots in one episode. The central is the police work, yet police plots come and go, as I'm reading it. This image, as far as I'm concerned, would be from the episode, but the image caption helps me identify both characters from this episode, which could have gone for other articles rather than the episode article. I wonder if this image helps readers overall understand the episode. To me, it doesn't, even with the help of the caption. I see one man holding a phone with frustration and anger, while I see another man with blank expression. True, the caption tells the situation, but that's actual implication. It's nothing compared to title cards or other episode images. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The central element of the plot is a hostage situation and negotiation. This is one that depicts that theme. I don't know what else you need to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing special about that image that can't be described in words (it doesn't even look like a hostage scene), so NFCC#1 may not be met. The only way that the image could be used if the scene is critically commented on by secondary or third-party sources. If neither of these are met, the image is inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have captured a screenshot of hostages and robbers. I'm going to upload it if Masem and Tony approve. I might capture more that helps the readers understand the central plot. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I have created File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg as a replacement of other image; moreover, this section's title has changed. --George Ho (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The most talked about scene involves Daniel Travanti's liaisons with Hamel. That might be the best scene for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Motion scenes are different from still images. "Scenes" is a vague word to use. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • We're talking "scenes" as parts of a play or dramatic work. If such a scene is discussed in depth in sources, it may be helpful to illustrate it. Right now, there's nothing particularly interesting or novel about the second image (a group of hostages is very easy to describe in words, and while its the central theme of the episode, that doesn't itself make it appropriate to have an image for it.) --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither image is appropiate then? --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think either would qualify; the images are not difficult to envision from a text description (two men arguing; a row of bound and gagged hostages in a liquor store) so they would technically fail on NFCC#1. Again, if either of those dramatic scenes - or any other scene in the show - was critically commented on, that may be a better image (for example, as the article is written, they describe the shooting of two officers at the (apparent) end of the episode that was highlighted by critics. There may be smething there.) --MASEM (t) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've captured the moment of gunned-down men. However, I'm reading the article and found out that only two critics mentioned the scene. What about the sex scene between some officer and the female lawyer? Sex scene would count as "romance", which is discussed more than gunned-down. Either sex or gunned-down scene is not suitable for infobox because it is part of a subplot, but I'll remove the infobox image and go for body-paragraph image. --George Ho (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Subplot, plot, it does not matter. All you need is a scene that is critically reviewed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
For myself, for an image of an episode to qualify as an infobox picture, it needs to be anything that has been critically commented on by at least a couple of sources, and ideally more than just talking heads or the like. The more technically complex the scene, as well, the better, since that gets difficult to put into text. Two examples that I know are fine: Worlds Apart (Fringe) has a scene that was praised by several critics not only as part of the show's drama, but technically stunning (the same actor talking to a parallel world version of the character (played by himself), with nearly perfectly seamless cuts in how it was presented; it was also happened to be considered a highlight of the show, thus at least assuring that it is some unique measure of the show, but that's a happenstance from all other aspects. The second example is The Doctor's Wife, where we have two elements of interest: the guest actress whose role was commented on, and the specific prop that was part of a contest for kids, also discussed in detail; as well, it also serves as a unique episode identifier by happenstance and not its primary goal.)
Thus, in considering episode infobox, look at what the sources drive you towards. Even if it is a subplot, the fact that a scene got highlighted by critics makes it rather important. Sometimes, these subplots are more memorable than the actual episode. But, if you feel they aren't a good representation/unique identifier for the show, using them in the body is completely fine. To get better ideas I recommend reading the FAC discussions for any WP:FA episode article post-2008/2009 (in which image standards were "heightened" to be more demanding of their need at FAC) to get an idea of when and where and what type of episode screenshots can be used. The only thing that I have found to be true for sure is that the more a specific dramatic scene is discussed by secondary sources, the more likely the image of said scene will not come under fire. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What if I can simultaneously provide two scenes of gunned-down and illicit affair, as I will be doing right now? --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss with this nomination. There is extensive commentary on the hostage situation, the negotiations and the illicit affair. Anyone of them qualifies as a scene for an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
What is "extensive commentary", and what counts as "extensive commentary"? What are qualifications of that kind? As for the infobox image, I can't think of any scene or plot that is truly central other than the hostage one. I've watched the pilot, and suddenly, none of subplots to me qualify as part of infobox, even when they were part of the episode. Recently, I've uploaded a cheek-kissing scene in The Boys in the Bar as part of body rather than infobox because it's not totally central but the ending of the central. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Basically for TV episodes: review sources that critically comment (read: more than just recapping) a specific scene, or a bit of production information that states how a scene was filmed that would otherwise not be obvious by a viewer (eg: The Doctor's Wife image, it is impossible for the viewer to know that the prop console was designed by a child, but this is explained in sources).
As for whether body or infobox, that's totally personable. I think the preference is if you have an image that works (follows NFCC), then it goes to the infobox, even if it is not the defining moment of the show. If you have a choice of images, the more unique one should be used, but if you only have one and its not very unique, it can be used there. You can prefer to have it in the body, but be aware: there is no free allowance for an infobox image for TV episodes like there is for other copyrighted works; this means that if you opt to have an acceptable NFCC image in the body, any infobox image must adhere strongly to NFCC and be just as required per NFCC#8). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
One question: how unique is the cheek-kissing image in The Boys in the Bar to be an infobox image? If most unique, then maybe infobox? --George Ho (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a Cheers watcher (much) but the question to ask is: were one a devote Cheers fan, would that one picture tell you what episode it came from? It sounds like it is, based on the surrounding/supporting text, in which case an infobox is fine. Even if the image is a means of unique identification, it doesn't have to go in the infobox if one feels that the discussion of the scene is too far away (in terms of page layout) from the picture itself; it just often is done more that way. --MASEM (t)
I hate to point out , but we are not allowed to use NFC on talk pages even for discussions like this. I've left the captions in the source though. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you state your opinion on the best choice from our current menu of possible lead images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, here you go: Sandbox --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Removed from article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The issue at hand is if the use of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg on Ender's Game (short story) violates NFCC rules.

I believe this image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short story. It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.

Per NFCC it would seem appropriate.

  1. No free equivalent.-  Y - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available.
  2. Respect for commercial opportunities.-  Y - Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  3. Previous publication.' Passed-  Y -Image was published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
  4. Content.-  Y - Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
  5. Media-specific policy.-  Y - The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
  6. One-article minimum.-  Y - Is on two pages (or one if not on Ender's Game (short Story).
  7. Contextual significance.-  Y - I believe it will significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence.
  8. Restrictions on location.-  Y - It located in an article.
  9. Image description page.-  Y Image has a description page contains the following

--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely a failure of NFCC#8. The reader gains no context of the story based on the cover of the anthology that the work was published in, particularly when the cover have zero reference to the work at hand. There might be some allowance if the artwork was based on the short story, but that's not even the case here. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The reader "gains" a lot from the image. This image is the "First" publication of a short story that went on to create eleven novels, twelve short stories, and 45 comic issues. The location of first publication is so important it is listed in the second sentence. To someone who is interested in Ender's Game it is equivalent to saying that an image of the bible isn't "significant" to Jesus Christ since he only appears in the last half.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia actually adhered to its NFCC principles, both this image and the second image on the article would be a failure of those principles, and would need to be removed from the article. But, Wikipedia doesn't enforce NFCC anymore. So, I fail to see any objection to including this image and/or several other images of publications which included the story. There appear to be at least 10 such publications. Perhaps a gallery of the covers of all the publications that included the story? If we can justify two such images as significantly adding to reader's understanding of the subject (even though both covers fail to mention the story, but those are pedantic details), we can easily justify all ten. We can't let reader's understanding suffer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying that it violated NFCC principles, but you fail to cite any NFCC principle it violates. Which one? I went threw each Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria above and it meets all of them.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
And I would not object to taking the other image off, if this one is keeped, since this image is the First publication. The reader doesn't need all 10, but the reader needs at least one.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Be aware, Hammersoft's reply is rather sarcastic. He's poking holes at the logic you offered for the reason to keep it.
In general, per WP:NFCI#1 we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it. As a short story, there is no single published work for it, so to justify the cover, it has to be essential for understanding the article, it cannot rely on the WP:NFCI allowance. As the cover has absolutely nothing to do visually or textually with the short story, it is impossible to assert that it meets WP:NFCC#8, contextual significance, for NFCC. The reader's understanding is not enhanced by having the cover, nor is their understanding harmed by omitting the cover image. Ergo, this image is very much inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As I have said to Hammersoft, I have yet to see any NFCC rule that agrees with what you just said. Where dose it say that "we allow the cover art only on articles of published works as a means of showing the branding/marketing of it". NFCC says we have to have a reasonable rational. I argue that it is historically significant to the reader. While it may not be an image of the short story directly, it is Historically significant to the history of the entire Ender's series. I argue that the reader's understanding is enhanced just as much as an image of a book cover.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I will thank you for pointing out WP:NFCI, that is as close to a justification I have yet gotten, rather then just saying it is against the rules and not explaining why. I still believe it passes WP:NFCI#1, but I will admit, I'm not a 100% sure what it mean, so I will admit that I may be off. If you will explain it better to me, I may see where you coming from.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs)
@ARTEST4ECHO: Please refer to the last bullet point on the bottom of WP:NFCC. It isn't anyone's burden to prove this image doesn't belong. It's your burden to prove the image DOES belong. The simple fact is the cover doesn't mention the short story at all. There's no connection between the cover and the story. I could just as well include on the Coca-Cola article the cover of a TIME magazine because Coca-Cola had an advertisement in that edition. The covers on this article are not visually connected to the subject of the article. A casual fly by reader might even think the top image is there in error as they would be expecting to see something that at least said "Ender" on it. How about we use a picture of the Empire State Building as the primary picture for the Airship article? That doesn't make sense you say? Of course it does! See Empire_State_Building#Dirigible_.28airship.29_terminal. Well, at least as much sense as including a cover that doesn't mention the story in question. If ANYthing were to be included from this first publication, it would have to be the first page in the publication that has the story on it.

All that said, I still think this is pretty moot. We really don't enforce WP:NFCC anymore, and anyone is free to pretty much abuse it as they like. This article only uses two images. That's not enough to even make the report of articles using lots of non-free images. Heck, if we included all ten covers in a gallery as I suggested, it wouldn't even break the top 100. A quick scan of Google images shows they are all available. Since we don't enforce NFCC anymore, why not include them? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Goldenboy toiletfetish.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Image removed from Golden Boy (manga), since no further input to discussion for more than 4 weeks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The use of this file in Golden Boy (manga) appears to be in violation of NFCC#8. No reference to the image is made in the article. The only mention of his fetish is the statement "Recurring gags include Kintaro's fetish for toilets (especially those recently used by beautiful women), ...." at Golden Boy (manga)#Summary, which I believe can also be described without using the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 12:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Goodraise 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe it should be removed. However some fans might claim it to be iconic. Not that it actually is.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If there are secondary sources to affirm that that scene is iconic, that may make it an allowance (And having seen the anime, I would agree that if there was any scene that was iconic, that would be it, but again, what we as Wikipedia editors say have no weight). --MASEM (t) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:1954 Kalamazoo Lassies.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed from article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use in 1954 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season violates NFCC#10c. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Warne-Muralidaran Trophy.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Deleted WP:CSD#F7 as this particular image is © Getty Images and was not the subject of sourced discussion, only the subject of the image was. This supersedes any further non-free content concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this really valid fair use? Can't anyone take his own photo of the trophy instead of using someone else's photo? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid fair use. The only problem was its resolution. I have uploaded a low resolution version. Sumanch (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think that it is valid fair use? Isn't the trophy permanently installed somewhere? The source mentions Australia so I guess that the trophy is in Australia and commons:COM:FOP#Australia suggests that Australian law is similar to British law which applies freedom of panorama indoors. Looks replaceable to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Aussie law can't make it replaceable with a free photo of the trophy; Wikipedia's servers are (predominantly) in Florida... OTOH, it's (c)Getty, and that isn't properly noted, oui? Fix! As far as fair use WRT the IP rights connected to the underlying statue, it's a TROPHY - its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use.--Elvey (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not how commons:COM:FOP is applied on Wikimedia projects. If freedom of panorama applies in the country of photography, the picture is allowed here as free use. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what its image is supposed to be seen as widely as possible, which goes to it being fair use means. Seems to fail WP:NFCC#1, and clearly fails WP:NFCC#2. --Mosmof (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that it matters whether the photo is published under a free license; given that it is a derivative work of the trophy nevertheless, the copyright belongs to the sculpture creator, not the photo, so any possible representation will be derivative from the trophy and thus available only under fair use. But then, I am not a lawyer. Diego (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question whether a free equivalent could be made depends on whether the copyright law of the country where the trophy is located contains a Freedom of panorama provision or not? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the source link of the image the photo was taken in Australia. According to Freedom of panorama#Australia "The copyright in a work ... that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work". Thus the important question is whether the trophy was permanently exhibited at the place where the photo was taken at the time the photo was taken. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would be important to know, whether the trophy is still there. If it is at a place where an image can be taken that would not infringe the copyright in the trophy, then the use of this image fails NFCC#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also it seems the upcoming matches listed at Warne–Muralidaran Trophy#List of Warne–Muralidaran Trophy series might represent future opportunities to take a free image of the trophy. Whether that makes this image a violation of NFCC#1 I am not sure. From the formulation of NFCC#1 it is not apparent to me whether a future upcoming event that represents an opportunity to take a free image of the trophy satisfies the definition of "no free equivalent could be created". The December, 2012/January 2013 match seems to be such a future opportunity. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Rocket Start (Mario Kart Wii).jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Images removed (and re-removed) from article where it clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the article HUD (video gaming). The image is replaceable by a free image (NFCC #1), as demonstrated in this revision, and it contains no NFUR for use in HUD (video gaming) (NFCC #10), nor could one be created in good faith. The reason why I'm bringing it here rather than reverting is that this has been the subject of a slow motion edit war ever since I introduced the SuperTuxKart image. See [1], [2] (initial introduction of STK image); [3] (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Double Dash!); [4] (replaced with image from Mario Kart: Super Circuit); [5] (replaced by me with STK image from before); [6] (replaced with this image in question). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, Koopa Troopa uses this image with no NFUR (NFCC #10). In that article, it also appears to be duplicative of other non-free content (NFCC #3). RJaguar3 | u | t 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_14&oldid=1090451255"