Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24

< February 23	February 25 >

February 24[edit]

File:Jodeci - ThePastThePresentTheFuture.jpg[edit]

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: keep in The Past, The Present, The Future (Jodeci album), remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used in two articles alongside the album page. Such use is excessive per NFCC. I don't think I need to explain further, do I? George Ho (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only show on the album article, and we're good. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Syria FA.png[edit]

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: keep in Syrian Arab Federation for Football, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo being used in Syrian Arab Federation for Football, Syria women's national football team and Syrian Premier League. For reference, the file was also being used in Syria national football team, but I removed it per WP:NFCCE. It looks like an attempt was made to combine multiple uses into the rationales for "‎Syria women's national football team" and "Syrian Premier League", but I don't feel this is sufficient to satisfy WP:NFCC#10c for this particular usage. File does have non-free use rationales for "Syrian Arab Federation for Football", "Syria women's national football team" and "Syrian Premier League", but only the usage in "Syrian Arab Federation for Football" seems WP:NFCC compliant. Usage in the women's national team article seems to not be allowed per number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI based upon the closes of prior NFCR/FfD discussions. Usage in "Syrian Premier League" seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 since the federation's logo shown here does not seem to be the logo used by the league itself, which may actually be the one shown this FIFA webpage or the one shown on the official website of Al-Jazeera SC Hasakah, one of the teams in the league. Suggest keep in "Syrian Arab Federation for Football", and remove from the individual team and premier league articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Soetermans.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very old picture of myself that I just stumbled upon. I'd rather see it deleted. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Urbeach-heart-of-the-city588 closecrop300pixels antialiased.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry/unfocused, un-encyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY 09:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Nokia lumia 610.png[edit]

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fails WP:FREER. We probably don't need a non-free picture at all; a picture of a phone which is switched off should be fine. Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:KCBS Radio Logo.png[edit]

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: convert to {{PD-logo}}. — ξ ^xplicit 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication that the logo is the correct one. The source link provided by the uploader is dead, and the links to the radio stations' websites in the infobox contain a slightly different logo. If we can somehow show that the radio stations use this logo (or previously used the logo), then the logo can be retagged as PD-textlogo. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was uploaded six years ago and indeed seems to have changed to make it less 'noisy'. I will get the current version up when I get a chance with an updated rationale. Nate • (chatter) 14:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find some evidence that this logo was used? Since it is a PD-textlogo, it would be permissible to include both logos in the articles, but I'm not sure that we would want to include the image in the article if we can't prove that the logo was ever used. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably use the Wayback to find that it was used in the past but for the sake of clutter I prefer to use as few images as possible in radio station articles; the current version is pretty much this one but with less visual clutter so the past one has superfluous elements that add nothing to the 'logo history'. Nate • (chatter) 15:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Current logo has now been uploaded over the old version with updated rationale using station's Radio.com webpage (the CBS Radio streaming portal), and the old image can be removed. A convert to PD-textlogo would be supported as no unique elements exist outside of lettering. Nate • (chatter) 20:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as PD-textlogo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Chaos2.jpg[edit]

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chaos 2.jpg is listed as freely licensed. If this is correct, then this file seems to violate WP:NFCC#1. Additionally, the file currently fails WP:NFCC#10c on Robot Wars (TV series) and WP:NFCC#9 on User:Stevo1000/Sandbox 2. Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could have nominated it for speedy deletion by Template:Di-replaceable fair use. Since it's under discussion now: Delete per WP:NFCC#1 as free equivalent File:Chaos 2.jpg already exists. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Norglide-Logo-lg.jpg[edit]

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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Below c:COM:TOO and convertible to a public domain tag? I previously tagged this for size reduction based on its current fair use claim. Stefan2 reverted, claiming it's a textlogo, but didn't follow through with converting the licensing. Seems borderline to me, but textlogo is a reasonable conclusion. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 15:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a clear textlogo to me. I'm not sure what the source country is, so the file may need to be tagged with PD-ineligible-USonly. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg[edit]

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: remove from TV-am, no consensus about usage at Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) The discussion is pretty split evenly but the keep votes aren't seemingly distinguishing (or responding to) the fact that the discussion is about two different usages. There's no consensus regarding the usage at the programme page with equal votes on both sides but the arguments for removal at TV-am (with editors particularly focused on that) seems to have greater policy points than the ones who are arguing keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshot which has non-free use rationales for Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) and TV-am, but does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 for either usage. The nfur for the "Good Morning Britain" states that the screenshot is needed to "To show both the style (including set and clock) and presenters of the Good Morning Britain television programme at that time. Note that this displays a different aspect to the logo image File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg, and thus use of two shots is believed justified.", but this is something that is can be more than sufficiently done using text: The reader does not need to see the image to understand that the main set consisted of a sofa and other furniture or that a "famous" analog clock was displayed at the bottom right of the sceen. The nfur for"TV-am" states "This was both TV-am's flagship show and the one for which they are best known, so it was core to their success and thus warrants inclusion here", but that information is not obtained from the screenshot at all. Doesn't a screenshot of four people sitting on a sofa smiling simply show four people sitting on a sofa and smiling?

Usage in both cases seems to be, at least in my opinion, purely decorative and not warranted at all. - Marchjuly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 2015-10-11T12:22:25

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion relisted from Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both the sofa, lack of the usual desk, and the permanently on-screen clock were innovations in UK TV at this time and for this channel, as was the whole idea of breakfast TV. This channel also made a particular and novel feature of its visual design, even their studio building of Eggcup House, something that was widely covered in design magazines of the period. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer; I'm the uploader). I deliberately chose a frame which conveyed as much as possible about the show in a single, concise image- the appearance of the set, several of the presenters and the general style and aesthetic. In truth, if one could only choose one image to sum up the show, or even TV-am as a whole, this should be it- I don't think it's "purely decorative" at all. Equally seriously, your argument that it could (in theory) be replaced by a textual description could probably apply to the vast majority of Wikipedia images... yet it doesn't, because text *isn't* always a satisfactory substitute for a visual representation. And, as Andy Dingley said, it might seem formulaic and boring nowadays, but that aesthetic and "sofa" format was new at the time. Ubcule (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no sourced discussion in either article which discusses the set or it's visual design. Visual representation is only needed when it the contextual significance of the image is such that omitting it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. If the program's set was indeed novel and did receive significant coverage from reliable sources (i.e., design magazines, etc.) at the time, then that information should somehow be added to Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) (since that seems to be the primary article about the programme) and the sources cited in support (otherwise it's just WP:OR). A sentence such as "The show displayed a famous analogue-style clock on the bottom-right of the screen." (which is not supported by a reliable source saying it was "famous" by the way) is not enough to satisfy NFCC#8 for the screenshot. In addition, the only mention in TV-am about the set design is in the image's caption itself and it's also unsourced. Without more critical discussion (supported by reliable sources) of the set's design and how it was novel at the time, the image is pretty much only decorative (in terms of NFCC#8) and does not significantly increase the reader's understanding to the degree that removing the image would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Television is a primarily visual medium, and thus the appearance of the programme is notable aspect of that, which- I believe I already said in different words- it *isn't* possible to truly convey sufficiently via text alone.

You're intentionally focusing on one point regarding the visual design to set a higher bar for inclusion than I believe was required, as if this were the original rationale, when it wasn't. (Andy Dingley was- I believe- simply making the case that it *wasn't* virtually identical in appearance to countless other shows at the time). The image conveys the visual appearance and aesthetic of a television programme that had a clear "look" in a medium where the look is something most people would consider important.

Further, "understanding" in "the reader's understanding" is a vague term in certain contexts- can one "understand" a subject relating to a primarily visual medium as effectively from a textual description alone? In this case, I follow what I consider the established standards and practice. And let me put it this way- we have a fair use picture in the article for Alistair MacLean- someone whose notability is as an author of written works, and whose personal appearance is- strictly speaking- of no relevance to understanding that. Yet while we have a fair use photo of him, you're arguing against having a single, representative image of a primarily visual subject (i.e. "Good Morning Britain")?

Personally, I *don't* disagree with the MacLean example- I'm using it to show that (a) my usage of the image is well within the established-by-convention-and-practice meaning of the rule you quote, and (b) if we accept that your very strict interpretation of that wording excludes the "Good Morning Britain" image, then it arguably excludes the vast majority of "fair use" images which- in theory- could almost all be described using text. (I already made that point, which you didn't really address).

Also, you haven't responded to the point made that it showed four of the main presenters, in context, and as they appeared at the time the programme was made.

In short, I believe that:-

- My use of the image is well, *well* within the limits of the "fair use" policy if one assumes that existing practice to date (and the precedent it sets) represents the widely-accepted understanding of how it applies

- If you wish to argue that your stricter interpretation says otherwise, then- to be fair and consistent- your case should be made against the majority of "fair use" images I believe it would prohibit, not just this single image.

Ubcule (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion of this particular file and how it is being used in these two articles. Broader discussion about how the NFCC apply (or should apply) to all articles should be done at WT:NFC or WP:VPP. Moreover, trying to argue WP:OSE is not always a good argument to try and make with non-free content because each usage is supposed to be evaluated separately and independently per WP:NFCCE

This file is not currrently being used as the single representative image of "Good Morning Britain" in either article. File:TV-am Good Morning Britain logo.jpg is doing that in "Good Morning Britain" and File:TV-am logo.svg is doing that in "TV-am". In addition, the fact the image is showing the four together is not really essential to understanding that they were the four main presentors on the show. That's clearly stated in the infobox of "Good Morning Britain" and how they appeared at the time is not really relevant to an article about the show, unless their appearances or the way they appeared on set was something covered in reliable sources. The context for using the image is something established by reliable sources; It's not established by the image itself. This iamge should only be added to support what is written in the article as verified by reliable sources; What is written should not simply be added just to include the image. As I said above, if there was more in the article about about the set's design (i.e., its "clear" look) and how it was novel at the time as well as how the presentors appeared, etc. and this reflected what reliable sources said, then the contextual significance required by NFCC#8 would be more apparent.

All 10 of the NFCC, not 9 out of 10, have to be satisfied for each usage of non-free content. One point is all that needs to be focused on if that one point helps determine whether the usage of the image satisfies the NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" This iamge should only be added to support what is written in the article as verified by reliable sources; "

No - the image should be added to support what is relevant, and the article should be improved to also support this. Your entire argument is based on arguing for the existing limitations of its current state and their preservation. If it does not cover a relevant topic at present, it cannot be expanded to cover that relevant topic, simply because it doesn't do so already. That is obvious nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify what I meant in my previous post. I was trying to say that content added to the article should not simply be added if the sole purpose of doing so is to include the (non-free) image. I was not trying to say that the article cannot or shouldn't be expanded to reflect what reliable sources say (said) about the set and its design, etc. and to cite such sources in support. If that's done, then the image could (possibly) be added in support of that sourced commentary. I think I've been pretty consistent on this point throughout this thread. If, however, the information is not supported by reliable sources, then it could be considered original research and possibly removed. If it's removed, then the reason for using the image is also removed. I don't think the image should be added in the hope that someday the article might be expanded to add the relevant context because such usage is mainly decorative and is something not really allowed by the NFCC. NFCCE says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." This discussion is to determine whether the usage of the image satisfies the NFCC for either article. The consensus may be that non-free usage is acceptable in both articles, only acceptable for one article, or not acceptable for either article. If you, Ubcule or another editor feel that the image should stay, then feel free to add more content about the set and it's design, etc. to the relevant articles so there is no question that NFCC#8 has been met. If you feel that nothing further needs to be done, then leave things as they are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a discussion of this particular file and how it is being used in these two articles [..] Broader discussion about [the NFCC] should be done at"

"Moreover, trying to argue WP:OSE is not always a good argument [because] each usage is supposed to be evaluated separately and independently"

You've got it the wrong way round. Personally, I *am* arguing the case for this specific image- I simply expect it to be judged against the same consistent standards as other any other fair use image!

I pointed out that while the section of policy you quoted might (arguably) be open to interpretation, the community's *accepted* interpretation- and where the line was drawn- is strongly indicated by the type of fair use material *consistently* accepted in the past for use in other articles.

No, OSE isn't in itself a valid argument, but my point is that when the arguments and interpretation of the rules *you* are using against this particular image appear to be stricter than the standards applied in almost all other cases, and where- if these standards and interpretations were applied fairly and consistently- would likely result in the deletion of the majority of currently-accepted fair use images... then *that* suggests a contradiction or inconsistency with the widely-accepted interpretation of existing policy (rather than an issue with a specific image) and should be discussed as such.

Regarding the "single representative image", if (emphasis on if) this was an issue, I would consider the sofa shot better for that purpose than the logo. Ubcule (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above was written before I saw MarchJuly's reply (at 00:14) to Andy Dingley above. Ubcule (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the community's accepted interpretation is as clear cut as you think it is. There are quite a few examples in the archives of Wikipedia:Non-free content review as well as in Wikipedia:Files for discussion (For reference, NFCR used to be the place to discuss non-free content matters, but it was recently merged into FFD whose name was then changed from "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion") where usage of a non-free image in an article has been deemed unacceptable solely because of NFCC#8 for reasons similar to what I given above. So, the fact that a non-free usage rationale has been provided for an image does not automatically mean it's valid and that all of the NFCC have been met. I am not saying that this image's usage is unacceptable just be the usage of those images was determined to be unacceptable. This discussion is, once again, simply to determine if NFCC#8 is met for this image in these two particular articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure that the community's accepted interpretation is as clear cut as you think it is"

I don't think I was claiming it was. What I *was* arguing is that the case for this image is stronger with respect to NFCC#8 than many- if not most- currently-accepted fair use images (not merely a few hand-picked OSEs). This strongly indicates that this particular image is within the accepted interpretation.

"The fact that a non-free usage rationale has been provided for an image does not automatically mean it's valid and that all of the NFCC have been met"

Again, I wasn't claiming that it was. However, we're not talking about a few OSE's.

The interpretation of NFCC#8 you are using against this specific image would- if applied fairly and consistently to all other fair use images- probably result in the deletion of the majority of them. *That* strongly suggests a significantly different or stricter interpretation of the policy than is generally accepted elsewhere at present.

Unfortunately, we're going round in circles here- I'd already made both these points twice before(!), and (IMHO) they still haven't been properly addressed. I believe that the rationale given and usage for this image is within the currently accepted interpretation of NFCC#8. If you disagree, can you let me know how you intend to proceed? Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the non-free usage of this particular image currently satisfies NFCC#8 for either usage (article) for the reasons I've given above. You and Andy Dingley disagree with me and have given your reasons. Others reading this thread are free to comment and the admin who eventually closes the discussion it will take all of what is written into account. I haven't removed the file from either article; I simply started a discussion about it at NFCR, which has be moved to and continued here at FFD because of the merge, because it involved evaluating the nfurs for each usage and not specifically the deletion of the file itself. If the closing admin feels that usage in both articles is NFCC compliant, then they will leave the images in both articles. If the close is that it should be removed from one or both articles for NFCC reasons, then the closing admin will do that. That's typically how discussions work on pages like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete. in TV-am the image is not even mentioned nor is any element of it. To me as a casual reader of the article I see a corner couch with 4 people on it, nothing special at all. I leave having gained nothing and do not know what understanding I am supposed to have gained by seeing this image. For the other article, Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) I am left in the same position. If there were any sourced commentary at all I expect that the image could and would be replaced by text and so fail NFCC#1. AS it stands the images looks to fail NFCC#8 in that it adds virtually nothing at all to reader's understanding let alone something significant. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for reference to Peripitus or any other editors reading this thread, this file has been mentioned in the an ongoing discussion at WT:NFC#Clarification regarding general legitimacy of video game screenshots and its possible that the outcome of WT:NFC#RfC: Guidelines regarding fair-use images within videogame articles may affect how the NFCC is applied to screenshots such as this. Therefore, it might best for any admin who wants to close this to wait until that discussion has been resolved. --Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. This is an instance where text alone can describe the content in the image, which is as adequate as the image itself because its removal would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. — ξ ^xplicit 02:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecesaary/supplemental nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from TV-am There is no need for images of any programmes in TV-am. That article can refer to articles about individual programmes instead – that's what WP:NFC#UUI §6 suggests.

I'm not sure that we need a picture in Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme) which shows a bunch of people sitting on a sofa. What understanding is that supposed to add? That people used sofas in the United Kingdom in 1986? I assume that the room had importance for the TV programme, but there does not seem to be any discussion about the room, so I'm not sure that a picture of the room increases the understanding of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"That people used sofas in the United Kingdom in 1986"

Yes, we need to show that. People on UK TV didn't sit on sofas until TV-AM. They represented a major and innovative turn-around in UK TV presentation: the informality of sofas was just part of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst it may seem surprising to our cousins across the pond, the UK didn't have 24 hr TV till well into the '80s. Programmes started mid-morning and shut down at midnight. Good Morning Britain was very much a different style of TV, previously you'd have seen the presenters behind a desk or in a very small studio with a couple of chairs. The set used for Good Morning Britain set a trend, a picture is very useful for conveying that. I am surprised the article didn't comment on the set as it was a trendsetter. W C M_email 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for reference, the file's non-free usage in two articles is being discussed: TV-AM and Good Morning Britain (1983 TV programme). If would be helpful when adding a !vote to clarify whether this refers to both articles or only one of the two, particularly for "keep" !votes. FWIW, a "remove" !vote from one of the two articles does necessarily equate to a "delete" !vote. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both Nothing is conveyed outside this image outside the fact that people sat on a couch during the show and a clock chyron appeared in the bottom right hand corner (which every morning show outside North Korea and those oddball chain morning shows with standing sets probably is formatted with); this might have been a "FRESH! and EXCITING!" format in 1986, but that "FRESH! and EXCITING!" feel is also easily conveyed by text just as well. This is just a decorative image for our uses which is non-critical to the article's understanding. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A description is not adequate to describe the set. The image is much more concise and clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file's non-free usage in two articles is being discussed. Would you mind clarifying whether you feel the image should be "kept" in only one or both? Please note that removing the image from only one article is not the same as deleting the image altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ubcule's reasoning. --Gimubrc (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Frank Auerbach[edit]

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: Remove File:Auerbach, Head of Julia.jpg from History of painting, and Western painting. The image also has a non-free rationale for 20th century Western painting which is a redirect and not in use at the moment. Consensus is for removal of one of the images from Frank Auerbach. In term of policy arguments, repeating that a person is important doesn't actually have any policy rationale. The delete votes here both expressly state policy reasons, including an detailed reason about the lack of discussion on the other pages. There is further no discussion on why, regardless of the importance of Auerbach, why both images should be kept on that page and why its usage should be on the remaining pages (being "Britain"'s most important painter doesn't cover the overall history of painting nor Western painting nor the (non-used but listed) 20th-century Western painting. Since there is no discussion here on which image should be used on the page, I will prepare an RFC at the article talk page about which one, if any, are appropriate for that page. I will ping all the editors who commented here. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains two images, but they both display the same art style, so per WP:NFCC#3a, one of the images should be deleted. One of the images is also used in a bunch of other articles, but it isn't subject to sourced critical discussion in any of them and violates WP:NFCC#8 in both of the articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are needed...Modernist (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's most important living painter. The Tate review LEAVE HIS WORK ALONE. Visual art needs to be seen not heard...Modernist (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither image is not the subject of critical, sourced commentary in the article Frank Auerbach (violates WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion). Being the "most important living painter" gives no privileges in NFCC; all 10 criteria need to be met regardless. You need to prove that these particular pictures are 'needed to be seen in this article' by making the case that they are the subject of critical, sourced commentary (currently they are not). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's your opinion; he is an important visual artist and those images demonstrate and illustrate the work he is notable for. They do not require words - they are visually self explanatory and of educational value to our readers. As the wikimedia foundation has said - works of visual art are exception to those rules...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernist: where exactly has WMF stated this and what particular rules are you referring to? For all I know, the WMF has stated this: wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which basically says we had to come up with this WP:NFCC, which in turn says all 10 criteria must be met for all non-free images. WP:NFCI explains that "Paintings and other works of visual art [are acceptable f]or critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school". Critical commentary does require words. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: I've been having these discussions since 2006, bear with me and I'll locate the links...Modernist (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Important link - [1]...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the Wikimedia Foundation is saying basically is use common sense, and stop blindly following rules that do not apply to every case...Modernist (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: The letter you are referring to (from February 2007) is talking about a then forthcoming Resolution (linked above, from March 2007). Yes, it outlines the reasons behind that Resolution, but it does not contain anything to the effect that the Resolution should be circumvented. Unfortunately, NFC issues are the likes that have not much leeway for Common sense, though that is not to say there is none. It's crystal clear what the relevant policies according to WMF and the community are, and how they should be implemented. There are no exceptions to having to meet NFCC, and uses like this fail NFCC#8. I've dealt with similar cases before and have been here since the inception of FFD and worked previously with its predecessor, WP:NFR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Auerbach is arguably as important as Bacon or Freud. Its very disappointing and discouraging to seem him lumped into a deletion spree. Is there any concept of reasonable doubt or measure here, or just rules are rules and blind "no exceptions", a mentality that seems to me would choke the project. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: This is what is stated regarding significant modern artworks: Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a

doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works, primarily historically important photographs and significant modern artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including the media itself. Because the inability to include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions without having license or permission. Some works that are under licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose. ...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernist: No one disagrees that this is being pursued under a fair use doctrine. It's a given. But our non-free content policy sets "purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law". In sum: "Non-free content can be used in articles only if: usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria" (WP:NFC, emphasis mine). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? This discussion is about whether the images need words of explanation; and common sense and the wikimedia foundation says they do not need further explanation because visual art speaks for itself and satisfies WP:NFCC#8; and yes Fair use is required as well...Modernist (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, I notice, provided. WP:NFC seems applicable to trivial rubbish like the nom below this, but a major 20th c painter like Auerbach? At some point wiki has to decide on how it treats knowledgeable contributors like Modernist, and weigh the letter of the law vs editor retention, rather than frustrating them at every turn. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content may only be used in accordance with an EDP, and the EDP must be minimal. This image seems to be used maximally instead of minimally, which is not compliant with a valid EDP as defined by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is also not compliant with English Wikipedia's EDP.

Additionally, the pages History of painting and Western painting currently violate WP:TOOLONG: there are too many images, it takes forever to load the pages and it is virtually impossible to scroll through all of the images on a mobile phone. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan - you know and I know that you cannot be objective or unbiased in dealing with these issues. We need neutral and objective opinions here; see WP:UCS which should essentially prevail...Modernist (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia drew a distinction and an exception regarding visual art which needs to be seen to be understood...Modernist (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikimedia Foundation wrote that visual art may be displayed provided that the use is minimal. Also, WP:UCS in this case means that we should not use excessively many images. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the two images per the nominator's logic. The issue is not whether "visual art needs to be seen", but whether we may blithely display nonfree content without critical discussion in artist biographies. "Music needs to be heard" has never been accepted as a rationale for deploying commentary-free sound samples in musician biographies. If these works are so important that they "need to be seen", then the onus is on those insisting on their inclusion to create appropriate articles on the individual works, including sourced commentary attesting to their particular importance, and including the images in those articles. The consensus practice of including a single example of the artist's work to illustrate their style, absent genuinely substantive commentary (not merely coatrack text to hang an illustration on) whould be enforced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per .Modernist who has demonstrated there is enough flexibility in the WMF position on Fair Use to accommodate a proportionate use of IAR and UCS with respect to images depicting visual artworks. This nomination, I'm afraid, is just another example of nit picking and policy wonking (there's a term from the distant past) in extremis. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where has User:Modernist demonstrated that there is such flexibility? From what I can see, the user has only demonstrated that the user has no understanding at all about the WP:NFCC policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who are you kidding? It's you Stefan with an extremely limited understanding of wikipedia, policy, and visual art...Modernist (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one and restrict the use of the other to use in Frank Auerbach only. Its current usage violates WP:NFCC#3a and goes against the project's goal of using non-free content to the utmost minimal extent. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 19#File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and its subsequent DRV establishes that cases like this blatantly violate NFCC, which local consensus can not override. — ξ^xplicit 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree with the above example as a precedent for the Auerbach painting. Firstly it is only used in 4 articles, his biography and 3 historical articles. This is not an excessive use but in fact a minimal use; the images are used educationally, they are unique and cannot be substituted by words. The Foundation is aware that exceptions must be and can be made for contemporary visual art. If this encyclopedia is to maintain it's credibility those exceptions must be honored. A blind adherence to rules and regulations is not the correct way to build this project; those suggested guidelines are just that - in fact they are vague, and open to interpretation; they are not basic policy...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.