The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media articles
Are photos of LIVING people allowed to be uploaded as non-free files? What are the conditions for this? What can be done when it is impossible to find free equivalent photos of several government officials? Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is nearly never allowed to use a non-free image for a living person. The criterion is not "an existing image cannot be found" but rather "a sufficient image cannot plausibly be created". Especially for government officials or other public persons, it generally would not be hard for someone to take a photo and release it under a free license. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question about the tool referenced in WP:IMAGERES recently was asked here at the Wikipedia Teahouse and a good-faith attempt to address the problem seems to have been made here; however, I've temporarily hidden the tool because its inclusion and any correponding note probably should be discussed a bit more here on this talk page.
Given that the tool now appears now link to Chinese webpage, perhaps it should either be removed outright and replaced (if possible) by an equivalent linking to an English website. Moreover, while I personally don't think it's correct to be using the syntax for a citations in this case since this isn't a reference per se (perhaps using {{efn}} would be better), the addition of the note pushed down all of the subsequent notes by one number so that WP:NFC#cite_note-3 was linking to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and so on. Since some of those notes are regularly cited in discussions, changing the corresponding links might impact those discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Di-missing article links and Template:Di-missing some article links seem somewhat redundant. Are both of these necessary or can they be combined in some way. The "missing some article links" template seems to be intended to work with bots, but I don't think bots use it anymore. Most of the WP:NFCCE enforcement going on these days is done by JJMC89's JJMC89 bot. I have used both of these templates before in the past, but perhaps they're actually no longer needed because of JJMC89 bot. Anyway, if there's any value to keeping one or both, perhaps their documentation can be improved to better explain how they work and how they're to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I removed File:Oyster dress original.jpg from the Irere (Alexander McQueen collection) on the grounds that the image has its own article at Oyster dress. If someone wishes to see the dress, they can go to the article about the dress. To me, that's the essence of WP:NFC#UUI #6. I was reverted by @Premeditated Chaos: (no judgment here PC, just noting who reverted) on the grounds that UUI #6 did not apply because the article Oyster dress is about the dress, and not about the image. To me, that seems to be dancing on a very thin fence. The point of UUI #6 is to reduce the overuse of non-free images. Saying we can use that image elsewhere because the main article about it isn't about the image but the subject of the image seems rather off base. I welcome other opinions. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we have an article about a specific item X where a non-free image of X absolutely is appropriate there, it does not allow for reuses of that image of X elsewhere without extremely strong rational beyond just re-illustrating X. Masem (t) 02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I think the intent on UUI#6 is pretty clear from the way it was written way back in 2007ish: "If a non free image has its own article, commentary about the image and its history should be placed in the article about the image". At the time, people were having an argument about whether Bombing of Guernica should include an image of the Pablo Picasso painting Guernica, and this example was revised out of that. The wording was revised later for "clarity" in a way which I think made the point less clear - it's about when an image itself has an article.
There is nothing that prohibits the re-use of an NFCC image where it is appropriate. In this instance, the oyster dress is the single most significant item from Irere. It defines the entire collection visually. The main article should not be visually stripped of its most important item just because there happened to be enough content to create a split article on the dress. Both the oyster dress and Irere articles passed FAC with the images in place, so I think there is consensus to allow it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one person commented about the Oyster dress image in the Irere FAC. That's not much basis of a consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to add that an article passing a FAC doesn't necessarily mean that any non-free images being used in it are NFCC compliant as explained in WP:ITSFA. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to discuss this particular use at WP:FFD to see whether a consensus can be established in favor of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
