Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 54
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Non-free content review. 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 main page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
The article was speedily deleted, so no more action is needed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2014 (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 page contains lots of non-free logos. All of them violate WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8. Some of them are used multiple times. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem that they way that article is formatted is the standard for team season articles. The title is extremely incorrect as well. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've nominated the article for speedy deletion per CSD:A10. It doesn't show anything that is not already presented in 2014–15 North West Counties Football League. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Taken care of, it also doesn't seem that it is standard for articles about individual team seasons for that league either. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've nominated the article for speedy deletion per CSD:A10. It doesn't show anything that is not already presented in 2014–15 North West Counties Football League. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (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 logos in the "Distribution" section fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (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 logos in the "Logo" section fail WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (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 old logo fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (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 logo in the "Former services" section fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (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 former logos fail WP:NFG, WP:NFCC#8 and, elsewhere, WP:NFCC#9. Some of them seem to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close: No discussion in over 30 days. Can re-open discussion if necessary, or find another venue. TLSuda (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in Chhattisgarh. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article.[which?] Stefan2 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (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.
In this case, it is reasonable to use the non-free image as the image captures the character's nature. TLSuda (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2014 (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 Special:PermanentLink/613589343, this article has a freely licensed image. The editor who included the image in the article wrote in the edit summary that "NFCC claims for such things are spurious -- we have photos of the real life individual". I agree on this: the non-free image which was restored in the following edit looks very similar, so the subject of the article should be equally easy to understand using either image. Therefore, WP:NFCC#1 requires that the free one should be used. Stefan2 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- It has been argued before (even at FAC) that in the case of a notable (standalone article) fictional character that the use of a non-free of that character (the actor in character) is reasonable even if that doesn't require any makeup or special presentation. The claim is made that the poise and manner the actor presents the character is part of the character's nature, something that is not captured by a free shot of the actor alone. But this only applies to notable characters. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (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.
There is no consensus that the poster is in the public domain, so we treat it as non-free. As such, it seems to fail WP:NFCC#1 in Nazi Propaganda. TLSuda (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (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.
Requesting removal from Nazi Propaganda because:
- The claim that there is no non-free equivalent for this article means there are no free Nazi movie propaganda posters. This claim is dubious.
- Contextual significance is very low for this particular picture and low for movie posters in general for this article. The context is of propaganda posters in general, not movie posters in particular. The claim that there are no free Nazi propaganda posters available is very dubious.
Requesting removal from Fritz Hippler as movie posters are typically not used on movie-director's biographical pages and the encyclopedic purpose of the image is almost completely served by a link to the article about the film. I concede there will be a small loss of encyclopedic value but it is acceptable.
Requesting removal from Eberhard Taubert as he was "only" the script-writer and the encyclopedic purpose of this image above and beyond that of a link to the film is very low or non-existent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have WP:BOLDly removed it from Eberhard Taubert, see Talk:Eberhard Taubert for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's preferred outcome, but likely impossible to do: If this can be proven to be in the public domain, either through Commons:Template:PD-GermanGov, by virtue of having its copyrights forfeited as a result of WWII, or simply by virtue of not complying with applicable copyright formalities, it can be kept and moved to the Commons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that
{{PD-GermanGov}}only can be used for text, not images. See c:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that
- If someone can prove that Commons:Template:anonymous-EU applies, this might solve the problem. See Commons:File:Bund Deutscher Osten - nazi poster.jpg for an example. I am not optimistic regarding the ability to use that template though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should check the note about Germany: Germany has an odd definition of the word "anonymous" for works created before 1 July 1995. As far as I can tell, a German artwork created before 1 July 1995 can only be anonymous in two special cases:
- if it was first published after the death of the anonymous author, but within 70 years after his death, or
- if it satisfies
{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}.
- If it doesn't satisfy any of the special cases, then it is not anonymous even if it is impossible to identify the author. It is of course never possible to tell if a work satisfies condition 1. Note that an artwork isn't the same thing as a literary work. The definition of an anonymous literary work is different. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You should check the note about Germany: Germany has an odd definition of the word "anonymous" for works created before 1 July 1995. As far as I can tell, a German artwork created before 1 July 1995 can only be anonymous in two special cases:
- 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.
As the same cover for two sides of one (single) album, where both singles are independently notable, it is acceptable to include the cover on both for identification purposes. TLSuda (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2014 (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 it really correct to use this in two articles? To me it seems that this should only be used in an article about the CD, but not in the articles about the songs on the CD. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's okay here. When singles were released on 45's, the B-side was usually non-notable, so the cover of the single would be in the A-side single and the B-side be overlooked. Here's a case where both sides are notable, but didn't receive separate releases. As such the cover is fine on both sides for this case. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 24 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is the image fails WP:NFC in all uses and would only be appropriate on the college's athelitc program article. TLSuda (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's used in 4 places that I see, and all 4 places are invalid. Not that this logo should be removed but the only place that seems legit is on the article about W&M's athletic program as to describe the former logo and the requirement that they had to change it due to the native indian controversy. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 25 June 2014 (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.
Consensus it image is acceptable in main series article and in first year (2009) it was used article, but in appropriate in all else. TLSuda (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fine in the series article and the 2009 race article, but inappropriate in the 2010 + 2011 versions. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (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.
Consensus it image is acceptable in main series article and in first year (2009) it was used article, but in appropriate in all else. TLSuda (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §14 in three articles. Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fine in series and 2009 race articles, improper in the 2010 + 2011 articles. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 25 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is File:TFF Suffer The Children 1985.jpg is not necessary per policy. TLSuda (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2014 (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 article doesn't need two almost identical cover images. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unneeded, a photographic negative can be described in text. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 25 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is the images are below the threshold, therefore being {{PD-simple}}. TLSuda (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (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.
There are too many non-free images here, but maybe some of them are below the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would argue both alternate covers are under the TOO, but I beg the question if they are necessary even if free, since they add little. However, that question is outside the scope of NFCR once determined free. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 27 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove the additional non-free screenshots per WP:NFCC#8 & #3. TLSuda (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (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.
We do not seem to need three non-free images here. Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- No critical discussion on the site's layouts for presentation or editing (features, yes, but not these parts) , thus only one screenshot is necessary for this. Possibly the editing one to show the availability of tools for it. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 27 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove WP:NFLISTS violations. There also seems to be a consensus that the image is not replaceable and therefore meets WP:NFCC#1. There was no further discussion on the other points of WP:NFCC in relation to this image. TLSuda (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2014 (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 seems to be used inappropriately in violation of WP:NFLISTS on multiple pages. The article Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site should probably only contain one image. No opinion on which one to keep. Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- It could meet NFC for Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site (and that alone, per NFLISTS) and the two images are sufficiently distinct in scale that both are justified: one shows the site, one shows the relevant fossil content there. The 1955 excavation image also has historical significance, as the first major excavation there. However I'm less sure about this image, as I can't see why it couldn't be re-photographed as a free image. I assume the site fossil items still look much the same today? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would suspect that the bones have been removed from the site by now but I'm only guessing on that, but the historic site photo would be irreplaceable by a free one if that is the case. I think the larger photo is a better identification of the site for the purposes of non-free, and this specific photo (the closeup) over at Clovis culture where the actual scientific discussion about the hunting of mammoths is discussed. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you can take photographs of the same bones somewhere else, for example at a museum, then I think that this would be replaceable by a photograph taken at that museum. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not really - the article is about the site and the discovery, which the photo (the wider shot) shows. Yes perhaps if the bones were on display elsewhere that tighter shot could be replaced, but that assumes they are on display. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you can take photographs of the same bones somewhere else, for example at a museum, then I think that this would be replaceable by a photograph taken at that museum. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would suspect that the bones have been removed from the site by now but I'm only guessing on that, but the historic site photo would be irreplaceable by a free one if that is the case. I think the larger photo is a better identification of the site for the purposes of non-free, and this specific photo (the closeup) over at Clovis culture where the actual scientific discussion about the hunting of mammoths is discussed. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the original excavation was backfilled, and hence the two photos are what we've got: irreplaceable historic records. First publication (in color) is (I think) at http://www.argonaut.arizona.edu/history.htm (2007) -- which has some nice details on the early excavations along the San Pedro. I really think we need both FU photos at Lehner Mammoth-Kill Site for readers to understand the significance of the site -- the second being File:Lehner bone-bed,1955.jpg, a nice overview of the excavation in progress. I suspect the excavated bones are in storage at the Arizona State Museum -- I don't think they've never been on display.
- I'm pretty sure that, at least when I uploaded File:Lehner Clovis bison-mammoth.jpg in 2009, we were regularly using FU images in, eg, list articles such as List of National Historic Landmarks in Arizona. Have the rules changed since then? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC), original uploader
- No, we've not allowed non-free in lists like this for several years now. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 28 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is second cover is not necessary therefore fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2014 (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.
We do not seem to need the extra cover image here. Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. It's unneeded to demonstrate there was a solo version. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:39, 29 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is the additional logo(s) fail WP:NFCC and should be removed, but the bottle is fine. TLSuda (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2014 (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 extra logos seem to fail WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. Also, is the bottle image really PD? It looks to have copyrighted logos and it probably wouldn't pass de minimis. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, they're fine in that bottle pic - they're off to the side and clearly the focus of the picture is on the predominately text logo, so it's okay. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 29 June 2014 (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.
Consensus is the file is copyrightable, file has been removed from all uses except the article namespace. TLSuda (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2014 (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 is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd edge on it being beyond the TOO (copyrightable) here. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is the image is below the TOO and therefore {{PD-textlogo}}. TLSuda (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (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 is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- As a note, I have moved the page from its excessive file extensions to File:SiriusDecisions logo.jpg.--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would say this is below the TOO and PD-textlogo. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 2 July 2014 (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.
Image meets the threshold of originality, and its non-article namespace use has been removed. TLSuda (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2014 (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 is used outside the article namespace. Does it meet the threshold of originality? Note that it is an SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would say it probably does meet the threshold of originality (although I am no expert), I have commented out its use at User:CorporateM/Yelp. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:27, 1 July 2014 (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.
- 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 source field, it says that "The logo may be obtained from Toho." Is this really compliant with WP:NFCC#10a? Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like a screencap from the show's title card, which would be a better source description. If someone can verify that's what it is, that should be changed. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 2 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is only the image of Heather from Poltergeist is acceptable. Other image has been previously removed. TLSuda (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (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 article should not contain two pictures of the person. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, the second one (from the first Poltergeist film) seems to be the more appropriate picture to us here since the article specifically discusses her role in that as what drew attention to her. --MASEM (t) 13:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. She's most famous for the original Poltergeist. Paul Austin (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is only one image is needed and File:Nyssaoftrakenfairyskirt.jpg is preferred. TLSuda (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#3a: only one image is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only the second photo (of her in the original costume) seems necessary. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of which image we choose to keep, the one which is kept should be placed in the infobox. The one you are talking about is currently placed elsewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I meant - her in costume should be the only one and should be in the infobox (I know the show, that's the better representative image too). --MASEM (t) 13:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of which image we choose to keep, the one which is kept should be placed in the infobox. The one you are talking about is currently placed elsewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2014 (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.
- 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 extra cover images do not seem to be needed here. Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, song cover versions not notable, no need for their covers. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 3 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove alternate cover image, which has already been done. TLSuda (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2014 (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.
We do not seem to need a picture of the alternative version here. Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, cover of non-notable cover song not needed. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove File:Dinobot-mcd.jpg & File:Evil dinobot2.jpg per WP:NFLISTS. Good job on everyone agreeing! TLSuda (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (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.
See WP:NFLISTS: several images should go away. Stefan2 (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's only two problematic images: the "cloned Dinobot" picture, and the one of the Beast Wars McDonalds Dinobot toy. The others seem fair usable of limited number of example images (3 total). --MASEM (t) 12:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Masem and I usually seem to butt heads on these issues but for once he seems absolutely correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Even rarer is that me and AussieLegend agree, however in this case it is happening. Werieth (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Masem and I usually seem to butt heads on these issues but for once he seems absolutely correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 3 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and from userspace (already done). TLSuda (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (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 only has three FURs, but it is used in four articles, so it violates WP:NFCC#10c in one of them. Also violates WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The lack-of-rationale use at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University is unneeded since the athletics program has its own article. Not seeing the NFCC#9 use from where the file use is listed. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- It had been in userspace, I commented it out. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove all but one cast image (already done) and that show's logo is {{pd-textlogo}}. TLSuda (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (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.
How many unfree cast images are needed? I think 3 is a little excessive. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only the S4 cast pic is needed as it has all but one of the characters in the table, which for us is sufficient. The other two pictures are unnecessary (Additionally, I believe the show's title logo is free as it is only a regular font and qualitifies as PD-Text.) --MASEM (t) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (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 is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. TLSuda (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2014 (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.
company logo used indiscriminately in multiple articles about local daughter branches, contrary to WP:NFC#UUI #17 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - this is a logo that would be copyrightable in the UK, and as such we need to treat as non-free and thus those extra uses are invalid; this is also lacking NFCC#10c rationals for each use.--MASEM (t) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The logo is {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and can therefore be used in any number of articles. I don't know if copyright exists in the vectorisation of the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (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.
Animated image violates WP:NFCC#3b. I've reduced to one frame. TLSuda (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2014 (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 13 frames of nonfree content in this file indicate a likely violation of WP:NFCC#3b, since one would be more than sufficient to demonstrate the early interface of Microsoft Flight Simulator. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see that the uploader believes in the rationale that it was important to show the slow redrawing speed by the speed of the gif animation, but I really don't think this is something that needs to be shown (1 fps is clearly a very slow response. (I also see a potential problem with the # of images at History of Microsoft Flight Simulator, each only showing small graphical improvements, but that's a separate issue). --MASEM (t) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (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.
Image fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Picture book. TLSuda (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Picture book. Stefan2 (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reading the article with some benefit of doubt (eg: hoping to expect to see the significance of the Cat in the Hat to picture books), I found nothing that goes into any serious detail of that book's impact, only its relative place in the history applying to Dr. Suess, and as such, the image is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 7 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is the side view of the box adds "depth" and is more representative of the dvds. TLSuda (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2014 (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 side of the box is not needed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is an argument that the side image of the box is the more representative view of that product given that it is not a thin volume but actually has depth where more than just the DVD title is printed. That box shot should be the infobox image to represent the product more appropriately. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Masem. However, even at 35KB it is still more detailed than is needed for our purposes. Interestingly, the Amazon.com web page that allegedly hosts (or hosted) this image now hosts the 2-d PD-ineligible version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't check the from-side image size, but yea, that probably could have a non-free-reduce tagged. Enough that one can see the basics of the various show characters (space ghost was obvious, there were a few others). --MASEM (t) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Masem. However, even at 35KB it is still more detailed than is needed for our purposes. Interestingly, the Amazon.com web page that allegedly hosts (or hosted) this image now hosts the 2-d PD-ineligible version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
If this advertisement is from 1917, then why is it listed as unfree? Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Probably a user unaware of how to determine copyright. It should be free. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (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.
While this is proper reasoning, single images with single uses should be taken to WP:FFD for deletion instead of here. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 15 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCCP #1, "No other free licensed photo of the tank is currently available." is not a valid reason to use a non-free image. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2014 (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.
Tagged di-replaceable. I'm not sure if the commons image is "good" for replacement, but as the two are still an active group, a free replacement is possible, so NFCC#1 still applies. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 16 July 2014 (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.
- Does not meet NFCC Criteria #1: No free equivalent.
- Photograph of group has been uploaded to Creative Commons: [1]
- Does not meet NFCC Criteria #8: Contextual significance.
- Using the existing EPMD.jpg on Creative Commons instead of the non-free upload would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article.
- Image currently used in EPMD article
Djrun (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove the disk quota and the Windows server 2000 images. TLSuda (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2014 (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 article cannot justify 6 non-free files Werieth (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Logo and screenshot are fine. No need for the Disk Quotas (a mostly-text interface) screen to show this feature. There's no demonstrated need of the Windows 2000 Server screen either (it's not showing anything unique). The integrated player screen and the computer management screen seem fine otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi.
- I had a look at the images and here is what I think:
- ✓ File:Windows 2000 logo.png: Logo. A must have.
- ✗ File:Windows 2000.png: Primary screenshot. Actually, we can replace it with File:Windows 2000 Server.png. It's like two birds and one stone.
- ✓ File:Windows 2000 Explorer.png: Despite its bad caption, it shows quite a lot of things discussed in the article. We can crop away the desktop portion and keep the Explorer.
- ✗ File:NT Quota Management.png: I don't see the point. Recently, Commons has started accepting such images as free. I think it is just a fad there and it is a matter of time before it is deleted there. So, we might as well just dispose of it.
- ✓ File:Win2kDefrag.png: It definitely improves user's understand of the subject. Instead, delete File:Microsoft Management Console (Windows 2000).png.
File:Windows 2000 Recovery Console.png: It is free.- ✓ File:Windows 2000 Server.png: Keep instead of the primary screenshot. See above.
- I am looking Masem's analysis and it seems our only difference in this matter is the main screenshot. Well, I am ready to have a compromise on that.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EPMD.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- 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.
Consensus is File:Rickrollerz.png is unnecessary and therefore fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2014 (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 extra cover image looks unnecessary. Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Non-notable cover version, unnecessary image. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 8 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove one of the two images per WP:NFCC#3. The Pokemon image is discussed more, thereby meeting WP:NFCC#8 better. As such, the other image will be removed. TLSuda (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2014 (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 nomination concerns the following files:
I don't see the need for two separate nonfree browser skins under WP:NFCC#3. At least one should be removed. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Only one is required to demonstrate the branding of the browser for a given game. Neither one stands out over the other, but one has to go. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 8 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is that two extra images are unnecessary and therefore a violation of WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2014 (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.
Don't think the two other files outside of the lead are needed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Arguably none of the images are necessary: "Spoo is shown as a light blue, putty-like substance." But agree the last two images are unneeded. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
There is no FUR for the article about the song, so the song violates WP:NFCC#10c there.
There is a FUR for the article about the singer, but the file should arguably not be there per WP:NFC#UUI §6.
The file is also used outside the article namespace in violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The song use needs the FUR. But as for the use on Dylan's page, it is reasonable to repeat some audio samples of a notable musican in discussing their musical style backed by sources, as this appears to be on Dylan's page. (We'd do this for artists and their notable works) So the two uses are fine, but we do need the second rationale. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 9 July 2014 (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.
- 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 has three FURs but is used in four articles, so it violates WP:NFCC#10c in at least one of the articles. Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- If I am reading references right, [2] the seal was made in 1854. Pretty sure this is PD old. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 9 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is image is not needed in the article about the shooting. TLSuda (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#10c in the article about the person. Not necessarily needed in the article about the shooting since the person has an article. Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Would have to agree that the use on the shooting page is not really needed. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 9 July 2014 (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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#1 especially since the building is still standing. There is also another free photo of another building in the complex and consensus shows here that the two images are necessary. TLSuda (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFLISTS in two articles. The article about the building doesn't necessarily need two pictures of the building. Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's still standing building, so technically a free image can be created. I do see the rationale notes "Building is located in the middle of a 296-acre (118 ha) parcel currently off-limits to the public as it awaits redevelopment.", but I assume that after redevelopment it would be possible to get a photo. Thus I would consider this replaceable, unless there is more that the rational is not explainable about building access. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (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.
Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in 2014 Northern Iraq offensive and has been removed. TLSuda (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, only appropriate in the other article (Hamas in Iraq). --MASEM (t) 01:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe changing the permission type would be better. Iraq isn't a signatory to the Berne convention etc. I don't think Iraqi intellectual property has protection under US law, so the file may be public domain in the US. Maybe someone else can further clarify? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is correct, however Jimmy Wales has asked us to respect copyrights even of these non-Berne convention countries (eg we will consider images non-free for all purposes). --MASEM (t) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- KK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe changing the permission type would be better. Iraq isn't a signatory to the Berne convention etc. I don't think Iraqi intellectual property has protection under US law, so the file may be public domain in the US. Maybe someone else can further clarify? MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2014 (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.
- 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 page fails WP:NFCC#9. I don't know how the syntax works, so I can't figure out how to remove File:Polonium.jpg from the page. Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- The solution is to modify Template:Infobox polonium and Template:Infobox polonium/sandbox, replacing
- <includeonly>|image name=Polonium.jpg</includeonly>
- with code that will only display the image if it is included AND if the namespace is the article space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- A better solution would be to get rid of the "includeonly" statement altogether and have it coded so if the page name is :Polonium it displays correctly otherwise it displays some kind of error message or picture placeholder. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed with rather ugly coding. Feel free to improve it. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is non-free images in the people and poster sections should only include one non-free file, unless there is a free image that could be used. TLSuda (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (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 non-free images violate WP:NFCC#10c and there are way too many of them. Note that several of the so-called "free" ones have been nominated for deletion as presumably unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- All those used in the poster and people lists section appear to be non-free; one example each would be reasonable but that's about it. If there are free images, then those should be used instead. (The first half of the article does appear to do this well). --MASEM (t) 19:58, 10 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is the image is not compatible with WP:NFLISTS and could be replaced with one single image of a cast shot to better suit WP:NFC. TLSuda (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2014 (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 doesn't look compatible with WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. There are plenty of "cast" shots of the main birds and piggies that one can be used as a reasonable header for the whole list. Not all the characters will be in that but that's not a requirement to meet NFC. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
It seems to be redundant to both have a flag and an almost identical logo. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- If there is nominally a flag and a logo for these geopolitical entities, and other cases generally can use 2 non-frees here, then while there is near duplication here between these for the Commonwealth, it would reasonable to have the two different images. But that's assuming this is the nominal case that we have flags and logos for both. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Uninvolved Admin Question: @Masem: Could you clarify whether you believe, in this case, that having both the flag and logo is reasonable per policy? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- The template infobox for nations typically includes both the flag and country seal. Normally these are sufficiently different but in this single case they are nearly the same but both do exist. Thus it seems wrong to not including it for completion sake - that is, to not include it just because it is duplicate would make it look like there is no seal for the Commonwealth, which is factually wrong. There is a seal, it just happens to look like the flag. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Uninvolved Admin Question: @Masem: Could you clarify whether you believe, in this case, that having both the flag and logo is reasonable per policy? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is there are too many images per WP:NFLISTS and per WP:NFCC#3. TLSuda (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2014 (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.
Per WP:NFLISTS: we don't need to see pictures of all of the plugins. Stefan2 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreeds, one or two examples are sufficient here. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 10 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
There are too many covers here, see WP:NFCC#3a. The image in the lead section violates WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- As they are all tight closeups of Ayu's face, only one cover image is needed of the four given; the concept is the same through the rest. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 10 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is the images are not appropriate with respect to WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2014 (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 non-free images violate WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, they are not appropriate at all. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (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.
Consensus to remove File:Kingkongposter2.jpg as a WP:NFCC/WP:NFG violation. TLSuda (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2014 (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 non-free images fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The 1930's King Kong poster is unnecessary, but the Vogue cover with LeBron is discussed and compared to the the first poster there, and thus reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 11 July 2014 (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.
.svg){kind=link}
Consensus to remove from Social democracy article per WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Social democracy. Stefan2 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Agreed - it's an organization's logo, only valid on the page about the organization. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 12 July 2014 (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.
In the tradition of only keeping one deletion-related discussion open at a time, this discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 20. TLSuda (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2014 (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 file necessary, we now have File:Noel Clarke2.jpg, with Clarke dressed in character, on the set of Doctor Who. Would this be considered "replaceable" as free now? kelapstick(bainuu) 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- No to first question. Yes to second question. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ta, I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 20.--kelapstick(bainuu) 12:41, 20 July 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2014 (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 article is not an article about an organisation, so there should not be any logos in the article. See WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFC#UUI §17, except in Cornerstone Television. Stefan2 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (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.
We don't need two images here. Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (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 logo should not be used more than once in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (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 article should only contain one logo and the logo should only be used once. See WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8, except in John Steuart Curry. Also fails WP:NFG and/or WP:NFCC#1 in some of the articles in which it fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2014 (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.
Procedural close as No Consensus. There has been no further discussion after 30 days. No prejudice to re-opening if discussion is necessary. If file deletion is the desired outcome, WP:FFD may be a better solution. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in 1920 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans. No information about the publication history, so the copyright status is unknown. Stefan2 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (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.
- 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 probably PD-ineligible. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't know. Or at least when we consider that the point of the page is to show what a file dialog looks like, this can be better done using a free Linux-like OS system (which has similar appearance but clearly in the free image for all aspects). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove from articles except PRR T1 per WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2014 (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.
Seems to fail WP:NFCC#8, except in PRR T1. Stefan2 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed as the other 2 articles where it is also being used have free imagergy that show other examples that the article topic is about. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove one screenshot per WP:NFCC#3a. TLSuda (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2014 (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 don't think we need two screenshots here. See WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, "pretty scenery" screenshots are not helpful. A screenshot is appropriate for this page to show the HUD/interface to the user (the game has one, I know) but neither of these are it. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 12 July 2014 (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.
Source updated. Original source was precreated by the File Upload Wizard/the FUR template. TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2014 (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 the wording "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor" compliant with WP:NFCC#10a? Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ideally we should have the name of the production company in there. As well as a link to a IMDB-like cite where the image is available (there's plenty of uses of the image, just not sure the right site). Can be fixed up though, no need to delete. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is image is below the threshold and have been updated. TLSuda (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2014 (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 "Logos" section doesn't pass WP:NFG, and one logo even lacks a FUR for this article. Do all logos meet the threshold of originality? Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Spain is a civil law country and while Commons doesn't list cases for it, we can presume a US-like level of originality is required. So the main logo (used in the infobox) should be PD-textlogo; the second rounded logo is not (3D effects), and is inappropriate per normal logo use. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep that Wikipedia doesn't care about the copyright status in Spain but only about the copyright status in the United States. Therefore, the threshold of originality of Spain is irrelevant. Also, whether the country uses civil law or not is irrelevant, as the threshold of originality depends on other things. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it does matter to a degree if it was, say, UK, as if something was too simple in the UK, it would definitely be too simple for the US, and as such it would likely be able to be moved to Commons. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep that Wikipedia doesn't care about the copyright status in Spain but only about the copyright status in the United States. Therefore, the threshold of originality of Spain is irrelevant. Also, whether the country uses civil law or not is irrelevant, as the threshold of originality depends on other things. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
There doesn't seem to be any need for two screenshots. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, not seeing any discussion that necessitates two screenshots (eg nothing about different feature sets, etc.) --MASEM (t) 15:26, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove non-free mascot images per WP:NFLISTS. TLSuda (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2014 (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.
Violation of WP:NFLISTS. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed - each of the Cups have their own marketing article it appears, so that's where these images are appropriate, but not in this list. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is to remove from Iraqi–Kurdish conflict article per WP:NFCC#8. TLSuda (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2014 (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.
Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. The FUR is also blatantly wrong. For example, this is not a logo for an entity called "Iraqi–Kurdish conflict". Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, not appropriate at all on the conflict page as a logo for a organization. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is that all logos are below the threshold of originality except File:Violette AC.gif which fails WP:NFCC. TLSuda (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2014 (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.
Per WP:NFCC#3a: too many logos. Some do not necessarily meet the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The tree/cannon one is copyrighted and definitely not appropriate on this page. The others appear to be PD-logo. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 12 July 2014 (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.
- 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.
Fails WP:NFCC#9. Is it copyrightable? Note that it is an SVG file. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- PD-logo in US but not worldwide. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 12 July 2014 (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.
Consensus is that a collage of free photos, in this case, would render this image replaceable, and therefore a violation of WP:NFCC#1. TLSuda (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2014 (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.
Just because we do not have a photo of the three members of Busted together does not mean that non-free media is justified. A collage would be perfectly acceptable (not that we have free images of all three members AFAIK, but that is not relevant). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with you, a collage of the three using free images (if we have them or not is irrelevant) would be suitable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- We do make exceptions for non-free of disbanded groups where the members otherwise are all still alive, particularly if the band had a certain image that they promoted as a group. (and 99% sure I've seen this image come up here before and where it was kept). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- IS there a way you could expand the text of the article so the image was specifically illustrating something directly in the text? If it's just "here's what they all look like"; that's replacable. To make the image more useful, it should be more than decorative, and should do more than merely illustrate the subjects. If there was something in the text itself which no other more free image could illustrate that would make this better. --Jayron32 03:32, 17 July 2014 (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.