August 26
File:Washington Redskins uniforms.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Washington Redskins uniforms.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader wants to have a image that is much oversize for normal non-free content. He claims that the non-free content is only a small part. To my knowledge, we have always treated non-free images as a "whole". The image is correctly licenced with a non-free license, so it's therefore a non-free image. WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", and in the article, the image is only 300 pixels wide, so making a big image in File space unnecessary. Reducing to the standard guideline will make the logo smaller (but not in the article - it will appear just the same), and in any case we already have a bigger version of the logo in the article File:Washington Redskins logo.svg, so the need for a higher definition of the logo on the uniform is not justified. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader. The bigger image is useful, the uniforms (licensed as Creative Commons CC-BY-SA, only the Indian is copyrighted) are shown with more detail in the Media Viewer when clicked. The logo in Washington Redskins ( File:Washington Redskins logo.svg) is many times bigger than the logo on the uniforms, and that is considered fair use.
- Side note: I have uploaded a version of the image that uses the scaled-down version for the Indian but keeps the rest (which is Creative Commons) the same.
Alexis Jazz (
talk) 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As per
WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", not the media viewer.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an odd misunderstanding of NFCC#9. The consistent interpretation from the start has been that it means NFC can only be transcluded as an image in article-space, not user-space, templates, etc, etc. Equally, from the start it has been accepted that part of what reading an article includes is that users may (and with luck will) click through on thumbnails to see images at full size. The key question, per NFCC #8, is whether what they see adds something valuable to their understanding of the topic of the article. If a the image being slightly larger (than 300 x 300) means that the image will better convey something that is relevant and valuable to that topic, that would/could not be conveyed otherwise, then the larger size may be allowable. If it doesn't, then it won't be. NFCC #9 doesn't come in to it.
Jheald (
talk) 15:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- So any user (even those who are not logged in, media viewer is default) who accidentally clicks a fair use image is in violation of Wikipedia policy. That's.. interesting. Jheald is right: "only in articles" means "only in article (main) space".
- Would it help if I just upload the color, white and alternate uniforms as separate files? Seems rather Kafkaesque to me, but if this somehow makes people happy, who am I to deny happiness? I could take it one step further: crop the top part of the image (with helmets and shoulders) that includes the Indian logos, upload it as nonfree sports uniform, upload the bottom part of the image to Commons and stitch the two together somehow on Wikipedia. This will cause all kinds of technical problems, but it'll be in full compliance with the policy! Alexis Jazz ( talk) 01:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an odd misunderstanding of NFCC#9. The consistent interpretation from the start has been that it means NFC can only be transcluded as an image in article-space, not user-space, templates, etc, etc. Equally, from the start it has been accepted that part of what reading an article includes is that users may (and with luck will) click through on thumbnails to see images at full size. The key question, per NFCC #8, is whether what they see adds something valuable to their understanding of the topic of the article. If a the image being slightly larger (than 300 x 300) means that the image will better convey something that is relevant and valuable to that topic, that would/could not be conveyed otherwise, then the larger size may be allowable. If it doesn't, then it won't be. NFCC #9 doesn't come in to it.
Jheald (
talk) 15:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As per
WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", not the media viewer.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- My position hasn't changed. Please ping me if I should upload the three uniforms as three separate files. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 00:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've also seen (just now, didn't know before this happened) someone constructing a uniform from parts, so that would certainly be a possible route as well. But I hope the policy will be interpreted for its spirit and not its letter so I won't have to jump through any such hoops. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 02:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above is still valid. Please ping me if you respond here because I don't check my enwiki watchlist every day. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Alexis Jazz, I was actually asking for other people to comment as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - we have always held that images used under a claim of fair use should be web-resolution. It doesn't need to be bigger than how it is used in the article. Also, I don't see a reason at all that the logos are required for our understanding of the topic ( WP:NFCC#8). Wouldn't a placeholder for the logo serve the same encyclopedic purpose while allowing us to further our goal of promoting free content? -- B ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ B: (what, is that a valid username?) I'll be happy to replace the logo and upload to Commons, but what kind of placeholder do you suggest? Making up my own logo is obviously wrong. Removing it in clean way means the representation won't be accurate anymore. Blurring.. is possible, but the result may be confusing in this case. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 00:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobiastan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
In this edit, Tobiastan said both that the image is "copyrighted by Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore", and also that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses...". This obviously implies that Tobiastan personally is in a position to legally act as the Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore, which would in turn imply a WP:COI. However, Tobiastan has made no COI disclosure, as far as I can tell. (I have requested clarity about this.) In the absence of such disclosure, and in the absence of any evidence that the copyright holder has indeed published the image under the claimed licenses, the image should be deleted from WMF websites. Zazpot ( talk) 23:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tobiastan replied to my query as follows:
I know of Mr. Roll through the INSEAD eco-system, but I have not been asked by him or his company to create this page, I am not taking instructions from him and I am not compensated in any way and I have never ever received or asked for compensation when creating WikiPedia articles. I try, to the best of my abilities, to create neutral, encyclopaedic entries but I am by no means a professional editor. I reached out to Mr. Roll and asked if he had a picture, and since he does not know how to upload a picture, I offered to do it for him.
- From this, it sounds to me as though, on
File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg:
- the copyright statement is plausible ("Image copyrighted by Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore"); and
- the license block (
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}) is erroneous as it stands, on at least one count: it says, "self" but it should not, because Tobiastan is, according to the testimony above, not a representative of the Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd; and - the image is missing evidence of permission, and should therefore probably be tagged
{{subst:npd}}.
- I'll do my best to edit the image's page accordingly, shortly. Zazpot ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
August 26
File:Washington Redskins uniforms.png
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Washington Redskins uniforms.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexis Jazz ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader wants to have a image that is much oversize for normal non-free content. He claims that the non-free content is only a small part. To my knowledge, we have always treated non-free images as a "whole". The image is correctly licenced with a non-free license, so it's therefore a non-free image. WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", and in the article, the image is only 300 pixels wide, so making a big image in File space unnecessary. Reducing to the standard guideline will make the logo smaller (but not in the article - it will appear just the same), and in any case we already have a bigger version of the logo in the article File:Washington Redskins logo.svg, so the need for a higher definition of the logo on the uniform is not justified. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader. The bigger image is useful, the uniforms (licensed as Creative Commons CC-BY-SA, only the Indian is copyrighted) are shown with more detail in the Media Viewer when clicked. The logo in Washington Redskins ( File:Washington Redskins logo.svg) is many times bigger than the logo on the uniforms, and that is considered fair use.
- Side note: I have uploaded a version of the image that uses the scaled-down version for the Indian but keeps the rest (which is Creative Commons) the same.
Alexis Jazz (
talk) 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As per
WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", not the media viewer.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an odd misunderstanding of NFCC#9. The consistent interpretation from the start has been that it means NFC can only be transcluded as an image in article-space, not user-space, templates, etc, etc. Equally, from the start it has been accepted that part of what reading an article includes is that users may (and with luck will) click through on thumbnails to see images at full size. The key question, per NFCC #8, is whether what they see adds something valuable to their understanding of the topic of the article. If a the image being slightly larger (than 300 x 300) means that the image will better convey something that is relevant and valuable to that topic, that would/could not be conveyed otherwise, then the larger size may be allowable. If it doesn't, then it won't be. NFCC #9 doesn't come in to it.
Jheald (
talk) 15:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- So any user (even those who are not logged in, media viewer is default) who accidentally clicks a fair use image is in violation of Wikipedia policy. That's.. interesting. Jheald is right: "only in articles" means "only in article (main) space".
- Would it help if I just upload the color, white and alternate uniforms as separate files? Seems rather Kafkaesque to me, but if this somehow makes people happy, who am I to deny happiness? I could take it one step further: crop the top part of the image (with helmets and shoulders) that includes the Indian logos, upload it as nonfree sports uniform, upload the bottom part of the image to Commons and stitch the two together somehow on Wikipedia. This will cause all kinds of technical problems, but it'll be in full compliance with the policy! Alexis Jazz ( talk) 01:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's an odd misunderstanding of NFCC#9. The consistent interpretation from the start has been that it means NFC can only be transcluded as an image in article-space, not user-space, templates, etc, etc. Equally, from the start it has been accepted that part of what reading an article includes is that users may (and with luck will) click through on thumbnails to see images at full size. The key question, per NFCC #8, is whether what they see adds something valuable to their understanding of the topic of the article. If a the image being slightly larger (than 300 x 300) means that the image will better convey something that is relevant and valuable to that topic, that would/could not be conveyed otherwise, then the larger size may be allowable. If it doesn't, then it won't be. NFCC #9 doesn't come in to it.
Jheald (
talk) 15:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- As per
WP:NFCCP#9 states "Non-free content is allowed only in articles", not the media viewer.
Ronhjones
(Talk) 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- My position hasn't changed. Please ping me if I should upload the three uniforms as three separate files. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 00:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've also seen (just now, didn't know before this happened) someone constructing a uniform from parts, so that would certainly be a possible route as well. But I hope the policy will be interpreted for its spirit and not its letter so I won't have to jump through any such hoops. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 02:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above is still valid. Please ping me if you respond here because I don't check my enwiki watchlist every day. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Alexis Jazz, I was actually asking for other people to comment as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - we have always held that images used under a claim of fair use should be web-resolution. It doesn't need to be bigger than how it is used in the article. Also, I don't see a reason at all that the logos are required for our understanding of the topic ( WP:NFCC#8). Wouldn't a placeholder for the logo serve the same encyclopedic purpose while allowing us to further our goal of promoting free content? -- B ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ B: (what, is that a valid username?) I'll be happy to replace the logo and upload to Commons, but what kind of placeholder do you suggest? Making up my own logo is obviously wrong. Removing it in clean way means the representation won't be accurate anymore. Blurring.. is possible, but the result may be confusing in this case. Alexis Jazz ( talk) 00:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Tag as "no evidence of permission". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobiastan ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
In this edit, Tobiastan said both that the image is "copyrighted by Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore", and also that "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses...". This obviously implies that Tobiastan personally is in a position to legally act as the Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore, which would in turn imply a WP:COI. However, Tobiastan has made no COI disclosure, as far as I can tell. (I have requested clarity about this.) In the absence of such disclosure, and in the absence of any evidence that the copyright holder has indeed published the image under the claimed licenses, the image should be deleted from WMF websites. Zazpot ( talk) 23:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tobiastan replied to my query as follows:
I know of Mr. Roll through the INSEAD eco-system, but I have not been asked by him or his company to create this page, I am not taking instructions from him and I am not compensated in any way and I have never ever received or asked for compensation when creating WikiPedia articles. I try, to the best of my abilities, to create neutral, encyclopaedic entries but I am by no means a professional editor. I reached out to Mr. Roll and asked if he had a picture, and since he does not know how to upload a picture, I offered to do it for him.
- From this, it sounds to me as though, on
File:Martin Roll - Senior Advisor.jpg:
- the copyright statement is plausible ("Image copyrighted by Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd in Singapore"); and
- the license block (
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL|migration=redundant}}) is erroneous as it stands, on at least one count: it says, "self" but it should not, because Tobiastan is, according to the testimony above, not a representative of the Martin Roll Company Pte Ltd; and - the image is missing evidence of permission, and should therefore probably be tagged
{{subst:npd}}.
- I'll do my best to edit the image's page accordingly, shortly. Zazpot ( talk) 18:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.