![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
This violates
WP:NFCC#8,
WP:NFCC#9 and/or
WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. -- evrik ( talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Nymf ( talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please be more specific if you have issues, these uses look OK Werieth ( talk) 18:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the uses seem to violate
WP:NFCC#8. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
A.S.D. Cerea 1912. Possibly PD due to expired copyright. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ABC Family. Seems to be below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 09:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANZ Bank New Zealand. Appears to not meet
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in this article, both in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Adagio JP.jpg and
File:Sweetbox Adagio RS.jpg. I think one of those covers should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. I don't know which of the two is more appropriate to keep, though. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Addicted RS.jpg and
File:Addicted KE.jpeg. Again, I think one of the two should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Addicted SE.jpg and
File:Addicted SE.jpg. One of them should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently tagged as non-free. Probably copyright-ineligible as
WP:TOO isn't satisfied. RJaguar3 |
u |
t 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The use of this image in
2010 Pentagon shooting seems to violate
WP:NFCC#8. The image seems to merely serve an identification purpose in that section. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This image is duplicated at Commons, the item shown being of a sufficient age that it is in public domain. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The seal has a date of 1797 , Is the seal artwork contempary? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This violates
WP:NFCC#8 and
WP:NFCC#10c in
Humayun Azad bibliography and
List of converts to Nontheism. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 11:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Clear violations of
WP:NFLIST and
WP:NFTABLE
Werieth (
talk) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
In the article
AT&T, the use of this image appears to violate
WP:NFCC#8, especially as the article's text content about AT&T's sponsorship of the game is a single list item. The logo is entirely decorative. RJaguar3 |
u |
t 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo! Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Violates
WP:NFCC#10c in
Adevărul Moldova. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The use in
Adolf Hitler in popular culture violates
WP:NFCC#10c. This use and the use in
The Lonesome Mouse appear to violate
WP:NFCC#8. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the date of the image, I'm disputing if this needs to be considered Non-free. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In the commons deletion disscussion, this image was deemed not to have met TOO. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly logo artwork, and not uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that the image adds sufficient value to the article to justify fair use. It is suggested that it is used to show the "strong, interlocking vertebrae" of the animal, but another non-free image in the article does so better. ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(fasttrack) - Threshold of originality not met. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Snap of a living person, very much in news currently and likely to be present for some more time in near future. Has a very good chance that a free image will be available. Also, there is no extra-ordinary need for the image in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 13:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality not met - This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not re-open this without consensus. Go to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 27. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image being used on Jessica Alba. Discussion at Talk:Jessica Alba#Non-free image has gotten out of hand and gone way off track; outside feedback, please. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no "clear failure" of NFCC here what-so-ever. NFC#UUI 1 & 9 both support inclusion of the image.
As far as the criteria is concerned;
As for NFCC#8, Use of this image does increase the readers understanding of the issue, and furthermore of the subject. The issue is centered around the controversial use of an image, use that resulted in the image being seen around the world, both at the time (over 7 years ago) and still presently. The original image, found within the image, is one from a promotional poster, that was used publicly, that the subject freely and knowingly took part in creating, dressed scantily and posing provocatively. (Bear with me, I'm trying to describe the situation here, but... geez, this would be a lot simpler to 'enhance your understanding' of what I'm saying if I could just show you the image) The image from the poster was used to create another image for the purposes of creating a magazing cover. However, the image was then altered to have the magazine title and various content teasers displayed (again, it would be easier to just show you what I'm trying to describe). The subject objected to this use and went so far as to sue. She ultimately settled, allowing the image to remain public. The fact that this issue in centered around image, (public image), an image (picture file), and imagery (visualization, use of a visual medium) necessitates that the image file in question be used in the article, as it clearly does lead to the readers understanding of the issue and subject - (and the removal of which, by default, can only reduce that same understanding).
Furthermore, regarding this review, there is already an implied, if not established, consensus that this image is within all current wiki-policy as it has been a part of the article for 7½ years (helping readers understand), survived over 4,800 edits, an unknown number of reviews and assisted in the article achieving Good Article status. Why does NFCC suddenly apply now? Answer: It doesn't.
Also, this image has helped "increase reader's understanding of the topic" for years, in various media resources, all over the world, including (but not limited to) people.com, msn.com, The Smoking Gun, Handbag and Mediabistro, Photobucket, The U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Romania, Honduras, India and China. Why does this article have to be any different? Answer: It doesn't.
Keep - thewolfchild 14:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is this closed? Who arbitrarily decides no one else gets a say, or any more say?
Why would FFD supersede this? This was filed first, wasn't it? Shouldn't this run it's course first?
(yeah, yeah... I'm sure I done this 'wrong' somehow, but I don't really care. NFCC, NFCR, CSD, FFD, CIA, FBI, IRS... too much red tape) - thewolfchild 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to close this. I've updated the rationales to match the fact most of the images are now at Development of Windows 95, where their inclusion is a rather different prospect to the Windows 95 page itself and where there is a much stronger prima facie case for inclusion. Discussion of whether screenshots are appropriately sourced move considerably forward below, and if the issue is raised again it would make sense to start afresh. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.
Set 1:
Set 2:
Set 3:
Stefan2 ( talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Removed Care Bears example, which despite the protestations of the rationale was trivial (given Wikipedia's strict reading). "Box of American McGee's Alice" kept, given that it differs substantially in presentation from free images in the article (unlike the care bears one) and carries critical commentary. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I know this is going to be fairly controversial, so I think it's best I explain fully why at present the NFCC require removal of the image from the article on Waterboarding. The image could be used for two separate purposes, and understanding the difference is important.
The first is to illustrate what waterboarding looks like and how it works. That, as Masem identifies below, is a purpose the could be equally well done with a non-free image. I do not accept that 'Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim.' any more than the image under question here. The fact that the artist suffered this treatment has no impact on this purpose.
The second (which has a few variants) is to illustrate a point about the image itself, the use of waterboarding by the Khymer Rouge, or cultural depictions of waterboarding.
The image is currently used at the top of the article and defended both on the file page and below under the first of these two purposes, where it fails. There has been a more productive discussion of critical commentary aimed at purpose number two. This would involve a different rationale and a different placement in the appropriate section of the article. I make no comment as to whether this new rationale would be justifiable, but it would be very different to the rationale currently provided. I will therefore remove the image from its current location. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This images is below TOO according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed from University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science per discussion. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c in University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed from Modern sculpture and Sculpture, which are very well illustrated and where the image in question was not mentioned or referred to in prose and whose sculptor only received a passing mention. No comment on Alberto Giacometti, Stefan2 if you have suggestions I suggest looking at the issues in a new thread. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 in Modern sculpture and Sculpture as it is exclusively used in galleries with zero discussion about the artwork. The article Alberto Giacometti contains too many non-free images, but it's not necessarily this one which should be deleted from that article. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(fast-track) This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(Fast-track) Too simple - Text logo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
This violates
WP:NFCC#8,
WP:NFCC#9 and/or
WP:NFCC#10c in a lot of articles. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this discussion is over and it should be closed as is. -- evrik ( talk) 19:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Nymf ( talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please be more specific if you have issues, these uses look OK Werieth ( talk) 18:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the uses seem to violate
WP:NFCC#8. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
A.S.D. Cerea 1912. Possibly PD due to expired copyright. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 09:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ABC Family. Seems to be below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 09:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 10:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANT1 Cyprus. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged as non-free and violating
WP:NFCC#10c in
ANZ Bank New Zealand. Appears to not meet
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 11:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in this article, both in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Adagio JP.jpg and
File:Sweetbox Adagio RS.jpg. I think one of those covers should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. I don't know which of the two is more appropriate to keep, though. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Addicted RS.jpg and
File:Addicted KE.jpeg. Again, I think one of the two should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-free covers used in the infobox, namely
File:Sweetbox Addicted SE.jpg and
File:Addicted SE.jpg. One of them should be removed per
WP:NFCC#3a. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently tagged as non-free. Probably copyright-ineligible as
WP:TOO isn't satisfied. RJaguar3 |
u |
t 05:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The use of this image in
2010 Pentagon shooting seems to violate
WP:NFCC#8. The image seems to merely serve an identification purpose in that section. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 15:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This image is duplicated at Commons, the item shown being of a sufficient age that it is in public domain. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The seal has a date of 1797 , Is the seal artwork contempary? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This violates
WP:NFCC#8 and
WP:NFCC#10c in
Humayun Azad bibliography and
List of converts to Nontheism. --
Stefan2 (
talk) 11:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Clear violations of
WP:NFLIST and
WP:NFTABLE
Werieth (
talk) 13:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
In the article
AT&T, the use of this image appears to violate
WP:NFCC#8, especially as the article's text content about AT&T's sponsorship of the game is a single list item. The logo is entirely decorative. RJaguar3 |
u |
t 02:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality not met, This is a textlogo! Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Violates
WP:NFCC#10c in
Adevărul Moldova. Possibly below
WP:TOO. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The use in
Adolf Hitler in popular culture violates
WP:NFCC#10c. This use and the use in
The Lonesome Mouse appear to violate
WP:NFCC#8. --
Toshio
Yamaguchi 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the date of the image, I'm disputing if this needs to be considered Non-free. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In the commons deletion disscussion, this image was deemed not to have met TOO. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly logo artwork, and not uploaders own work. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that the image adds sufficient value to the article to justify fair use. It is suggested that it is used to show the "strong, interlocking vertebrae" of the animal, but another non-free image in the article does so better. ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(fasttrack) - Threshold of originality not met. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Snap of a living person, very much in news currently and likely to be present for some more time in near future. Has a very good chance that a free image will be available. Also, there is no extra-ordinary need for the image in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 13:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality not met - This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not re-open this without consensus. Go to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 27. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Non-free image being used on Jessica Alba. Discussion at Talk:Jessica Alba#Non-free image has gotten out of hand and gone way off track; outside feedback, please. rʨanaɢ ( talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no "clear failure" of NFCC here what-so-ever. NFC#UUI 1 & 9 both support inclusion of the image.
As far as the criteria is concerned;
As for NFCC#8, Use of this image does increase the readers understanding of the issue, and furthermore of the subject. The issue is centered around the controversial use of an image, use that resulted in the image being seen around the world, both at the time (over 7 years ago) and still presently. The original image, found within the image, is one from a promotional poster, that was used publicly, that the subject freely and knowingly took part in creating, dressed scantily and posing provocatively. (Bear with me, I'm trying to describe the situation here, but... geez, this would be a lot simpler to 'enhance your understanding' of what I'm saying if I could just show you the image) The image from the poster was used to create another image for the purposes of creating a magazing cover. However, the image was then altered to have the magazine title and various content teasers displayed (again, it would be easier to just show you what I'm trying to describe). The subject objected to this use and went so far as to sue. She ultimately settled, allowing the image to remain public. The fact that this issue in centered around image, (public image), an image (picture file), and imagery (visualization, use of a visual medium) necessitates that the image file in question be used in the article, as it clearly does lead to the readers understanding of the issue and subject - (and the removal of which, by default, can only reduce that same understanding).
Furthermore, regarding this review, there is already an implied, if not established, consensus that this image is within all current wiki-policy as it has been a part of the article for 7½ years (helping readers understand), survived over 4,800 edits, an unknown number of reviews and assisted in the article achieving Good Article status. Why does NFCC suddenly apply now? Answer: It doesn't.
Also, this image has helped "increase reader's understanding of the topic" for years, in various media resources, all over the world, including (but not limited to) people.com, msn.com, The Smoking Gun, Handbag and Mediabistro, Photobucket, The U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Romania, Honduras, India and China. Why does this article have to be any different? Answer: It doesn't.
Keep - thewolfchild 14:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is this closed? Who arbitrarily decides no one else gets a say, or any more say?
Why would FFD supersede this? This was filed first, wasn't it? Shouldn't this run it's course first?
(yeah, yeah... I'm sure I done this 'wrong' somehow, but I don't really care. NFCC, NFCR, CSD, FFD, CIA, FBI, IRS... too much red tape) - thewolfchild 21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to close this. I've updated the rationales to match the fact most of the images are now at Development of Windows 95, where their inclusion is a rather different prospect to the Windows 95 page itself and where there is a much stronger prima facie case for inclusion. Discussion of whether screenshots are appropriately sourced move considerably forward below, and if the issue is raised again it would make sense to start afresh. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This article violates WP:NFCC#3a. There are a couple of sets of substantially similar images, and it would be enough to have at most one image from each set as the differences between the images within the set easily are replaceable by text.
Set 1:
Set 2:
Set 3:
Stefan2 ( talk) 13:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Removed Care Bears example, which despite the protestations of the rationale was trivial (given Wikipedia's strict reading). "Box of American McGee's Alice" kept, given that it differs substantially in presentation from free images in the article (unlike the care bears one) and carries critical commentary. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't need so many unfree pictures of the character. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I know this is going to be fairly controversial, so I think it's best I explain fully why at present the NFCC require removal of the image from the article on Waterboarding. The image could be used for two separate purposes, and understanding the difference is important.
The first is to illustrate what waterboarding looks like and how it works. That, as Masem identifies below, is a purpose the could be equally well done with a non-free image. I do not accept that 'Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim.' any more than the image under question here. The fact that the artist suffered this treatment has no impact on this purpose.
The second (which has a few variants) is to illustrate a point about the image itself, the use of waterboarding by the Khymer Rouge, or cultural depictions of waterboarding.
The image is currently used at the top of the article and defended both on the file page and below under the first of these two purposes, where it fails. There has been a more productive discussion of critical commentary aimed at purpose number two. This would involve a different rationale and a different placement in the appropriate section of the article. I make no comment as to whether this new rationale would be justifiable, but it would be very different to the rationale currently provided. I will therefore remove the image from its current location. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I am requesting review only for the article Waterboarding. The rationale says that "[t]here is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Waterboarding is carried out in secret. Videos of the procedure were destroyed by the CIA dispute court order. Images of public demonstrations have a festive air that does not covey the serious nature of what is happening to the victim." In fact, the waterboarding article already has several free images, and additionally, Wikipedians could stage a mock-up of waterboarding that could be photographed. Thus, the use of the image in waterboarding appears to violate WP:NFCC#1. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This images is below TOO according to Commons. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Removed from University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science per discussion. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#10c in University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed from Modern sculpture and Sculpture, which are very well illustrated and where the image in question was not mentioned or referred to in prose and whose sculptor only received a passing mention. No comment on Alberto Giacometti, Stefan2 if you have suggestions I suggest looking at the issues in a new thread. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This violates WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 in Modern sculpture and Sculpture as it is exclusively used in galleries with zero discussion about the artwork. The article Alberto Giacometti contains too many non-free images, but it's not necessarily this one which should be deleted from that article. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(fast-track) This is a text logo Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 09:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
(Fast-track) Too simple - Text logo. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)