Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content review/Archive 72

4820:

discussions such as these and try and make their case either way. Masem makes some good points above regarding using images in such a way which seem consistent with the current NFCCP. Tacking on former logos to the end of articles like this just seems purely decorative: the image is just sitting there and not being discussed. If the former logo is needed because it will significantly increase the reader's understanding in such a way that removing it would hurt that understanding, then the image should be incorporated into the article in such a way that makes this more evident. There is already an image in the infobox representing the station's current branding so another non-free image is not really needed for identification purposes. I think that once we get outside of the infobox more developed and specific commentary is needed to satisfy NFCC#8. Simply writing one or two lines (or adding a caption) describing what the logo represents and why it is contextually significant is likely to be considered to be OR, unless it's supported by a reliable source. WP:LOGO#Copyright concerns says that it's the responsibiltiy (i.e., the burden) of the person wanting to include a non-free logo to prove that its use complies with WP:NFCC. I don't see how this is all that different from an editor adding unsourced statements to an article being asked to WP:PROVEIT. -

4859:

of them still readily particpate in the discussions taking place on this page or at WP:MCQ. Wouldn't the respective wording of those policy/guideline pages have been revised accordingly if the majority of those involved in the process felt it was "unnecessary limiting"? These pages do seem to currently say/imply that using a non-free logo/image in such a way (i.e., a purely decorative way) is not acceptable. Is there anything specifically written on any of the community-wide pages which leads you to believe this type of usage is OK? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of your position. FWIW, I am not interested in imposing "my will" upon the community and will happily defer to any consensus it reaches or has reached regarding this. -

357:

possibly be written for current version for use in the infoboxes of the individual season articles, etc.? Is there no wiggle room? I've been down this road before only to have those wanting to keep the image say No. 17 of NFC#UUI and NFCC#8 are not applicable or are already satisfied. I am thinking about adding a post to each article's talk page suggesting the crown element be removed and want to base this suggestion on accepted policy as much as possible, so any suggestions that anyone has on how to best do this would be most appreciated. -

1182:#4, promotional material for critical commentary. The text says they used full page ads without screenshots of the game, explaining how this fueled speculation by the specialized gaming press; and the image shows how those full page ads looked like. Without the image you would not have an idea of what the press saw and how it prompted them to pump anticipation up. To what degree this improves understanding of the topic is a matter of personal taste to be agreed upon here, but the contextual significance is there. 4777:. I believe I got all of the pertinent ones, but a couple may have slipped through the cracks so I'll check again later on. At least in this way, any clean up will be minimized and images will not be incorrectly deleted if it turns out the edits were wrong. On the other hand, if it turns out the images should not be used, then they can always be removed again. Hopefully, this is acceptable to all involved in this discussion and this issue can be resolved in an amicable way. - 1993:, but admittedly not much discussion. A historical image might be appropriate if the image has any historical significance, but this logo is almost identical to the current logo. The sole difference, the inclusion of the words New York, can easily be explained in the text without showing an image. This logo is in no way necessary for the article, and that's why it should be removed. If the old logo was significantly different, I'd be okay with it staying, but it's not. 280:

contextual significant), and the first season that uses that new titlecard. Here, because it appears all seasons use the same logo, none of the season articles should have this titlecard. For the two special series (the LA and NYC ones) as the NYC did not appear to adapt a special titlecard for that, and likely the LA one will not, it is also inappropriate on those two (they aren't a different show for all purposes). So the only valid use is on the main show page. --

31: 4542:. Maybe it's harder to do this for old radio/TV station logos, but I just don't see how a reader needs to see this particular former logo to understand the sentence "WLFV changed their format from country (as 'The Wolf', which moved to sister station WWLB 98.9 FM) to classic country, branded as '93.1 Hank FM'". Would the understanding of that sentence be affected in anyway if there was no former logo used in the article?- 661:. The same album was released with different titles. This image is the album cover for the album (subject of the article) when it was released in the US. You mention that it only receives a passing mention, but it's actually the cover for the article subject. I don't think there's any need to repeatedly mention that the album had a different name/cover when released in the US, since it's just a start class article. 3115:

unusual for genre fiction magazines that stopped publishing in the 1950s; the publishers are defunct, their assets, if any, are not being actively managed, and whatever rights they held in the magazine contents aren't plausibly monetizable. The authors, in contrast, typically retained book rights, and could monetize them via short story collections, anthology sales, and, occasionally, expansion to novel-length. (

1236:- does not help to aid in explaining the "big box" aspect - here, instead, we should be using a picture of one of their "Big box"es next to a typical boxed release at the time as to demonstrate the physical difference that the cover alone cannot (this also possibly can be done with simple 3D boxes of the right size without art, or by a photo taken at such an angle to make the cover art unusable and meeting 3142:

able to treat these as free images, though I would make sure to expand the file page to explain what methods you've worked to assure this. (eg the description above). But at least last time I used the LOC copyright search, there are periods it did not coverage (the records only in print form or per request) so that's what I want to make sure we're not missing that. --18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

93: 4507:

article. If there is no sourced discussion, then the image is simply being decorative and its removal will not impact the reader's understanding. Old logos run afoul of this all the time - if the logo changes but there's no explanation given for this change, then for the encyclopedia, it is not necessary to show the old logo, and is standard practice to remove such logos in these cases. --

4773:

however, aware of the KOTK case or the WPRS guideline cited above by Hammersoft, though in the latter's case I don't believe a WikiProject's guidelines take precedence over a community-wide policy/guideline like WP:NFC. Since there does seem to be strong disagreement about whether the use of non-free images in this manner is acceptable, I decided to go back a self-revert my edits per

4593:(please note, this is not a perfect page as the # of non-frees that aren't discussed are still too high); applicable of discussion of logos are those under the "Public Broadcasting Service IDs" describe how they came to using the "human" "P" to be inclusive of such. So logos can be the subject of sourced commentary, so that's a metric we use. -- 530:

crown-less version for all articles besides "Made in Chelsea". Technically that is probably fairly easy to do, but I'm not sure if contextually it's the right thing to do. Is this the type of thing that should be discussed on each respective article's talk page? Perhaps something like "The non-free logo for the series cannot be used here per

1382:, and is something you can't do without having seen at least one ad from the company. Why would you need a competing image from other companies? Other ads are not mentioned in the text for critical analysis, but this series of ads is. And why do you need an image with screenshots to show that this one does not have screnshots? 1085:(used in another article) The game may have been important and its isometric style may have been copied, but the useful image would be how other games have copied it, not that it uses an isometric view. (NFCC#8) And is there really no free-use replacement for isometric projection in all of those piles of open source games? 1405:")-which requires the image for readers to assess by themselves whether it might be a fake. (BTW, the image being blurry may be one contributing factor for why people gave it credibility as it makes it harder to spot any possible tampering, but there I'm just speculating - that's not part of my argument). 1194:"This coincided with the introduction of the distinctive Ultimate "big box" packaging , which the company felt might also help justify the price increase and encourage gamers to buy the game rather than copy it. The strategy paid off as Sabre Wulf went on to sell over 350,000 copies on the Spectrum alone." 3273:

since Tyler is only mentioned in the image's caption and two other times in the article. A non-free image is not needed to help the reader understand a statement such as "In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Arwen is played by Liv Tyler." Is there some kind of allowance made for non

3005:? The only real differences I can see are in the text, and the coloring inside the globe. I think the text for the women's logo is enough to distinguish it from the federation's logo, but I'm not entirely sure about the men's logo. If these are acceptable replacements, then they can be uploaded using 2747:

and not just copy-and-paste tweaking of the nfur for Pluto. However, if the consensus is it's OK, then fine with me. One other thing, however, is that if "Planets beyond Neptune" is the main article concerning the discovery of Pluto as the PBN nfur claims, then maybe it is actually the usage in Pluto

2579:

has the image as part of a table with other free images; I am generally inclined to opine that in such situations images should be used in an "all or nothing" fashion, i.e either omit images wholesale or include the lone non-free image if we don't end up with a mostly or excessively non-free gallery.

4772:

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to "break" the encyclopedia. I was editing in good faith and only removing images whose usage, which I believed (and still believe), did (does) not comply with WP:NFC based upon discussions I've seen and been a part of at NFCR and my reading of the NFC. I wasn't,

4657:

No they are necessary limits. It's within the mission to minimize non-free and to avoid indiscriminate information. Radio stations go through format and ownership changes all the time, and as you note, the logo often changes without note by anyone else. The fact that this goes unnoticed for the most

4529:

is not too bad of an example. The four images being discussed there are not non-free, so they don't need a non-free use rationale, but even so they are the subject of sourced commentary so it could be argued that removing them would be detrimental to the reader's understanding if they were non-free.

2426:

episode because it is being used as the primary means of identification of two of the main guest characters in the episode, Garth and Marta. Using the screenshot in "Steve Inhat" is much harder to justify per NFCC#8. "Garth" was only one role that Inhat played througout his career, so if the purpose

1235:

The Knight Lore image is unnecessary on the page about the developer, as we have a separate page for the game itself, where it is appropriate. There is no need for showing an image of an ad that does not use screenshots - this is readily explained by text. The box packaging - of just the cover alone

172:

a section of the vector file used instead to showcase the color-codings (which are a thing of note per the article). The work will be non-free (the person that vectored from the photo is not the original creator, this should be made clearer). And no, we don't require credit in the caption, though in

4858:

I assume that the editors who specialize in (non-free) image rules and policy are also the ones who have been heavily involved in hammering out the concerned parts of WP:Logo, WP:NFC, WP:NFCC and other relevant community policy/guideline pages over the years. I'm not totally sure, but I think a few

4524:

My understanding is that images used in this way are not allowed for the reasons given by Masem above, and why non-free images are not generally considered accpetable for use in galleries or in a gallery like way per WP:NFG or in lists per WP:NFLISTS. Remove the image and no significant information

3141:

A question to ask is what period of years were you able to search for in the LOC for renewals? If we're certain that the LOC search encompassed the allowed range for this work to be renewed, and there's no evidence for that copyright (assuming you've done the search in good faith) then we should be

636:

I'm not sure if this image is being used properly as fair use (at least per the presented rationale), given that the subject of this image only gets a passing mention in the article, and really adds more confusion that assistance to the reader due to lack of the article having an explanation of the

2135:

Technically, within the US, there is no recognized copyright for works from Iraq entities (among about 10 other non-recipical countries) - eg it would be copyright by Iraq's laws, but US does not recognize that. That said, Jimmy Wales has asked that despite these types of non-recognizition that we

2010:

There is no current logo, as it is an article on a historical team. More importantly, though, the discussion in the article explicitly covers the placement and and font choices for the words on the logo, the original logo. So the original logo needs to be illustrated for the passage to make sense.

1257:

That is your personal opinion about the images. However, third party reliable sources have considered relevant to comment upon such images, and our policy on non-free content is that such usage is allowed when there is critical commentary provided by reliable sources, not merely when editors think

4525:

is lost to the reader, so it seems that the image is purely there for visual reasons. As for an example of a image being discussed within an article itself where said discussion is supported by a reliable source, I think there are some that can be found. It's not a radio station logo, but I think

3736:

seems specific enough so that it could be used in the article with out any NFCC problems. I think the Twitter logo is better suited than the crest currently being used (not sure how that serves as the primary means of identification) and incorporates both the crown and "Columbia", so it makes the

263:

are no longer an issue for the other articles. If it is non-free, then it needs to be decided if a valid nfur can be written for the other articles. If the consensus is that it can, then I am happy to go and do that. I am just not sure which is why I am asking for clarification. Finally, image is

3192:

Then it is probably reasonably fair to consider these images in the PD due to expired copyright, but as noted, just list out what you did to confirm the lack of renewal. You've done the right homework to show that you haven't missing any obvious copyright-loophole cracks these might have fallen

3114:

were renewed beginning with the March 1950 issue. However, the Catalog of Copyright Entries shows renewal only for that issue (not even, as one would expect, the remaining issues from 1950). The LOC database, covering later years, shows renewals of individual stories by their authors. This isn't

356:

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose it is argued that the "crown" element is essential to the logo and removing it is something that should not be done especially since the logo being used in the main article would still have the crown. Is there some sort of valid nfur rationale which could

4636:

when it comes to radio stations. The logos are different, different branding, used during diffrent times with different formats. I could write something up, but it would be unsourced (it's a radio logo, no one cares about those) and there would be more about the logo than the actual station.

4506:

Sourced discussion (that is, references that talk specifically about the image or concepts it relates) implies NFCC#8, that there is contextual context for the image's use. If there is sourced discussion about an image, that means removing the image will impair the reader's understanding of the

3122:

Anyway. This isn't the cover to the March 1950 issue, and I don't see any evidence of copyright renewal, either for the issue as a whole or for the cover discretely. If it weren't for this having been identified as a nonfree file, I wouldn't have serious doubts. I've got a set of covers for the

297:

Would it be possible to remove the crown image and just use the text? I am not saying that would be acceptable in terms of content since the crown may be essential to the image, but I've seen copyrighted items removed from images before on Commons to allow the image itself to be kept on Commons

279:

The crown image is creative enough so that this must be treated as NFC. It is a title card for a show, so being a screenshot is legit. With TV shows, the usage that we generally allow is the main series (which should only use the most recent title card unless other title cards have clear NFCC#8

4819:

I think that's we are trying to do here. Aren't we as editors also considered to be "image and policy people"? WP:NFC is community-wide guideline and thus takes precedence over any consensus achieved at the project or article level, doesn't it? I believe all editors are free to participate in

4485:

Image has a valid FUR, so non-free use is out the window. "Sourced discussion" of an image is the silliest thing I have heard. Please show me an image that has a sourced discussion and I'll show you oceanfront property in Kansas...it doesn't exist. The image has existed just fine, under the

2176:

at the Village Pump, and the answer I got wasn't very clear. "Delete" or "keep" seems to depend upon whether the uploader drew the .svg image themselves or simply uploaded a copy. Honestly, it's all a bit confusing to me since many of the images I've seen used on Knowledge (XXG) (for example,

1167:

article, but it's important to show what the players who bought the game got from the company as state-of-the-art graphics at the time - (which is important for the topic; as this is the article of Ultimate Play the Game, not of isometric projection in general, the image should illustrate how

529:

I did not notice the differences between the two crowns, but can understand the reasoning given in Commons. I'm not sure, however, whether the "crown" used in the titlecard is taken from a different free image. As stated above, the safe bet seems to be to remove it from the logo, and use the

419:. I don't know anything about the show, but the logo did seem familiar to me. I've seen the "Keep Calm" imagery used on all kinds of different things so maybe as you say the "crown" is protected by copyright as well. I ask at the Commons VP if the logo is a candidate for a move to Commons. - 1350:

The ad image is presently being used to say that unlike other print ads at the time, this company opted to forgo screenshots. This can be described in text and does not need an image to show this (per NFCC#1); if anything, one would have to show a competiting ad to demonstrate the lack of

511:

I think the answer given there is correct: it is not the same crown shape as "Keep Calm", and should be considered novel, which means that for us, we'll treat the whole title card as non-free. But as noted above, just the text along would not be so that could be used on all season pages.

1920:. Image is briefly discussed in the sentence "The text on the logo was shortened to "Cosmos" in 1977, concurrently with the team's dropping of the "New York" label. The city name was restored two years later, but the badge remained unchanged.", but the statement is unsourced. Moreover, 2011:

Also, the change in logo does illustrate the (temporary) change in name, which is discussed in the full team history above. But in general, for a section dedicated to discussing the design of the team's two logos through its history to not include both logos seems like a silly claim.

4588:

where we include the old logo and the new, because we have two sources that talk about the change in the logo to reflect the series' new direction (the last paragraph under "Sale to Activision and development by Neversoft (2006-2009)"). Another example is several of the logos at

393:

which itself is marked PD everywhere, and if the crown is essentially the same, I would find it hard to claim that this titlecard it a novel copyright atop that , even in the UK. We may want to check at commons where there's people better versed in how this would apply.

3860:

I don't think either qualify. The first one has additional glossy text that gives it a general 3d appearance that is above and beyond standard filters, so there's some creativity in that. The second has more hand-drawn elements so it is beyond just simple geometries.

950:

This page is only for files marked as unfree while PUF only is for files marked as unfree, so it seems that both this page and PUF have become the wrong venue. Maybe best to relist the file at FFD since FFD should be able to handle the file no matter how it is tagged.

1847:

I see no real reason to doubt that it came from the group mentioned and would be overly nit-picky to delete it for lack of a valid previously published source. It would be highly recommended if this could be found, however even if it is a print work (as it might be).

4563:

Have you actually seen a sourced discussion for an image? I haven't either. I believe that rule unnecessarily limits previously used images. There isn't a newspaper article or other source for the change of a radio, TV or other logo. That would just be silly. -

548:

I removed the logo from every article without an an nfur. I also did some googling and found that at least some and possibly all of the individual seasons have been released on DVD. Would it be possible to use the cover for an individual season's DVD (like

4366:

You don't include them, particularly given the table has empty rows already for other places. Non-free are not to be used in tables with limited exception, as generally the table (like this one) has zero discussion about the image, failing to meet NFCC#8.

299: 1333:(critical commentary in RSs) is not enough for you to consider it significant, there must be some other alternative, objective criteria that we could agree upon and doesn't reduce to "I think it's needed" or "I don't think it's needed"; so what is it? 3504:). The article section is a list of alumni and nothing warrants displaying the pictures of these two specifically; there are plenty of free images of other alumni who are listed. Even if these two Nobelists are the most important among the alumni, as 3745:

might also be possible. It could be tricky if it's a photo because even if you add a nfur for the logo/crest, you might still need OTRS permission from the photographer/copyright holder of the photo. Anyway, these are just a couple of suggestions. -

1385:

Fine, we can replace the current photo of the box with the one you suggest when someone provides it (but how do you achieve a free photograph of the copyrighted cover art, without at the same time making it impossible to assess the quality of such

1275:

The Stampers shrugged off questions about whether this screen shot was genuine, but stopped short of actually denying it. There have even been suggestions that Ultimate themselves may have created the screen shot to generate more interest in the

4610:

To add that a google search of "best logo changes" shows many many hits from RSes, so people in marketing are very much aware and track this too. Sourced discussion of logo changes do readily exist, just likely not for every logo on the planet.

1212:

CRASH magazine published a reader's photograph of Lunar Jetman featuring Jetman's moon rover pulling a trailer.The possible existence of a trailer (as depicted on the game's cover art and loading screen) had been speculated on since the game's

4687:, specifically the Buzzard aspect, comes to mind. But's an iconic symbol of the station (and of the city at the time) so it definitely falls within allowable use. Demonstration of iconic nature of a logo would be a point towards keeping it. -- 2521:

It needs to be removed at least from that user sandbox. Not so sure on the others; I'd imagine that images of such planetary subjects tend to be in short supply. Incidentally, it looks like this image is being propagated through a template or

3104:) now also includes free images serving the same purpose, so it looks like this nonfree image should be removed and deleted. However, I can't find any evidence that the (magazine) copyright was ever renewed, so this image may well be free. 3526:) of what this section, let alone the whole article, is about. The images themselves aren't the object of critical commentary either, so the use fails both aspects (identification and object of commentary) of contextual signification.( 1133:) are the only ones that can be said to be used for decorative purposes; and I have doubts abour the Sabre wulf box, since the high-end "luxury" packaging is discussed as part of the company's strategy to deter copyright infringement. 4873:

I for one gave up. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC apply project wide...except where they don't. There are quite a few special, if unwritten, exemptions to the policy. Currency articles and broadcast stations are two such examples.

2136:

still respect country copyrights. So the SVG image as a derivative work of the ICP would not be considered free despite the user creating it themselves, and should be deleted, with the existing PNG acceptable to use. --

2558:

the image is used in the infobox along with the images of other large dwarf planets. I do think it does have contextual significance there if we stick to having the mini-gallery of 5 earliest recognized dwarf planets.

1328:

use, to consider some prose more understandable with an accompanying image than without it? Is there a situation where you don't think that a prose description of an image is enough to understand the image? Because if

4426:

A non-free image used as a gallery clearly does not meet fair use policy, and the fact that it is not the current logo makes it even more the case. I've removed the image and will tag for deletion. Non-admin close.

1591:

Arguable the original cover and the first of the 30 year anniversary one would be best suited. The original alt cover has nothing, and if you use the first 30yr one, the second one of those is nearly duplicative.

2256:

because both provide essentially the same information. There are many other examples of the type of thing thing. Infoboxes in articles about wars/battles happening in the Middle East, etc. are filled with them.

2058:

This whole discussion centered on whether there is a free alternative, and Commons has decided that the alternative is not free. Since there is no free alternative, the image meets the criteria. Non-admin close.

4658:

part tells us that holding onto all of our non-free radio logos is indiscriminate information and because they are non-free we should only keep the one that is current (as for marketing and branding aspects per

2251:

be non-free? To me it's exactly the same image only in .svg format with a white background added. Moreover, if the .svg version is OK as "free", then I'm not really sure how the non-free version still satisfies

2427:

is to simply show how Inhet looked, then any screenshot/photo could do the same. It would be better to try and find an image (photo) of Inhat as "Steve Inhat" and use that instead at the top of the article. -

3792:

Since the station used The Buzz as its name for a long time, I moved the image to the proper section and will keep it. The other two logos were for short-lived formats and have been removed. Non-admin close.

534:, so it should removed. A non-free logo specific to this particular season (if one can be found) or a freely licensed 'crown-less' version of the main logo may be used instead. Is there a preference?" - 3289:

If it was the only identifying image of the character available then yes it would be okay, but as a secondary one and where there is no discussion of the appearance or the like it does fail NFCC#8. --

2367:. A non-free use rationale is provided each article, but use in the actor's article does not seem warranted. Ihnat seems to have appeared in many well-known series so singling out an appearance in a 1354:

The box image to say the box was bigger than others as to convince people to buy it can be replaced with a free photograph of that box next to a regular retain box to make that a much stronger point.

3170:

was published, except the last (when it published very little by pro writers). The magazine's first publisher shows up as renewing copyrights for every (monthly) issue of another of its magazines,

1103:

I'm less concerned about this one because the image's significance is discussed in the article, but I don't think the blurry shot adds anything over what the text adequately explains on its own. –

4486:

current and valid FUR, since it was moved a few months ago. I'm not sure why this has become an issue for this user, as he has commented out other images under NFCC#8 on hundreds other pages. -

4171: 2576: 2472: 1357:

That they released a blurry photo of a game they were developing can be stated in text - there's no specific discussion of the features of the blurry photo to require it and failing NFCC#8. --

4988:

which I've always considered the "high water mark" for TOO issues. I am not 100% sure however. As an aside, this logo needs a proper source link and a version that is not as badly artifacted.

3537:

on that article because it's not specific to this institution but rather a representation of the university as a whole. As such, it isn't necessary for identification here, unlike the seal.

2243:

Many of the flags, logos, etc. I've seen on Commons which look non-free to me do seem to be .svg files and I have really no idea as to why that makes a difference. How can something like

1378:

The ad image also serves to identify the visual style of that company's advertising -i.e. the topic of the section where the ad is placed, which is the other recognized valid purpose at

2186: 831:

IMO above the TOO. I think this one is an edge case where we'd need a court ruling for a definitive statement. The structure of the circle seems complex enough to have some creativity.

3845:. The "Buzz" logo seems be just a combination of text which is too simple for copyright protection, but I am not sure about the record image used in the "All Time Favorites" logo. - 2098:

to identify the same organization. The images appear to be the same, except the free version has the additional text on the flag. Is this additional text important enough to satisfy

1713:

I'm keeping WSVN HD, the image of the news studio, which was innovative in its day and is the subject of commentary in the article. The remainder have been removed. Non-admin close.

3422: 2173: 2169: 2153:

Thanks for the replies Masem and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could the Commons image be used as a replacement for the non-free one per NFCC#1 if (a big "if" perhaps) its licensing is acceptable?

2225:

being derivative works of the files they are made to resemble - that appears to be the thrust of the keep arguments in these deletion requests. I find it odd but it might be true.

4539: 4175: 2606:, it is only necessary to present pictures of dwarf planets, but it is irrelevant which planets we show in the infobox. There is therefore no need for non-free files there. -- 2165: 2185:) licensed as "own work" are fairly detailed and professional looking so they do not look as if they were redrawn. I also asked about the PD-USonly use for Iraqi images at 4720: 2879: 2825: 2030: 4187: 2772:

IMO this image can be kept on both articles. The image is significant in the context of the discovery of Pluto and that topic is handled in both articles. Checking over

1505: 1460: 3680:

says: "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image." This makes me think that a cropped logo is

2700:

When there's no template, I could reasonably expect the approach used here to identify the targets, but in this case, the use on all but Pluto seem inappropriate. --

4072:

should be removed from the aritcle. Only the The nfurs provided for them for the articles for each individual are valid per the reasoning given by Stefan2 above. -

1676:. I was thinking about removing the 30th anniversary image instead of the US vinyl/CD one. That 30yr one would not be that significant as it was one of reissues. -- 1932:

if we really need to see the older logo to understand that "New York" was dropped. In my opinion, this is more than adequately being explained using text alone. -

84: 72: 67: 59: 3633:. From that discussion, it seems that if the crown is removed or it is a derivative of a freely-licensed "crown", then the logo might be OK as "PD-logo"? Perhaps 1240:

use). There's no need to show a screenshot of a unreleased game to demonstrate that a magazine provide such an images, or the impact of the blurriness factor. --

3689: 3608: 3497: 2581: 4458:. Image has non-free use for the article, but the image is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the the article and use appears purely decorative ( 3726:. Basically, it is generally considered OK to use the logo of an organization in the "parent" article, but not in any of "child" articles of said organization. 300:

c:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/06#File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg

1317:

Are you saying that the level of understanding that readers get from a description of the image without the image itself, will be the same as the description

4167: 3948: 3063: 2157: 2156:

Regarding the Commons image, there are plenty of similar flag/logo images being used in articles about conflicts/organizations in the Middle East, etc. like

1091:: The text says they used full page ads that did not describe the product. The image does not add any additional significance to that understanding (NFCC#8) 3306:

Thank you Masem. Not sure of the meaning of "secondary one" since there is only one image being used in the article. Are you by chance referring to any of

2575:

do we need the whole image? The moons are only a segment of the full image, but I think the non-free usage there to illustrate the article subjects is OK.

1397:")-which prompts readers to compare the similarity of this image with those others-, and the possibility that the image itself may have been manipulated (" 3738: 550: 2960:

Federation logo is being used in the articles for individual teams. Just wondering if the following would be acceptable non-free alternatives for use in

1351:

screenshots, making that 2 non-free images would be even more problematic. And it is readily described by text, making the contextual significance weak.

3831:. Neither image is the subject of sourced critical commentary within the article itself, so usage appears to be purely decorative and does not satisfy 3700:(rationale on image description page) from being addressed. Is there dissent about my interpretation of NFCC#8, which I think is the real issue here? 3425:

which has taken care of the NFCC#9 concerns and left a link to this discussion in the edit sum. The No. 17 still need to be taken care of however. -

4310: 3878:

Thanks for taking a look Masem. OK, they should stay non-free, but then I'm not sure if they satisfy NFCC#8. Do you think they should stay or go? -

2965: 94:

File:Map of New York City Subway, by Reka Komoli 2015 reconstructed from handdrawn map by Raleigh DAdamo 1964 for NYCTA Subway Map Competition.jpg

4728: 4959:

instead of a non-free image? I'm not sure: I only see geometric shapes and text in this logo, but it seems like it may be considered "unique".

1215:). The blurriness of the image was there in the original, this is exactly what readers got and prompted them to enquire about its genuineness. 4913: 2095: 4295: 3677: 3515: 3009: 1788: 390: 2117:

I must ask, is that SVG really free? It's marked as "own work", which would only work if the uploader was the artist that made the image.

47: 17: 3123:

magazine ready to upload as free images, but if I've missed something about this file, it probably applies to most or all of the others.

4997: 4538:, but if it was being used somewhere else (say in a section titled "Coat of Arms"), then discussion about it could be supported by this 4357: 4051: 2785: 2593: 2531: 2294: 2234: 2126: 1051:

Knight lore 3 removed from two articles, Nightshade ad removed from one article. Sabre wulf was deleted some time ago. Non-admin close.

840: 3500:

has resulted in back and forth reverting. I oppose the use of these files in this article because there is no contextual significance (

3119:

is a bit more tangled-up than the standard case, but that only casts doubt on whether the renewal of the March 1950 issue was valid.)

2815: 3713: 3594: 3550: 2207:

just to see what they say. If Commons feels the licensing is OK, then I think we can safely replace the non-free version with it. -

2161: 1018: 715: 3676:

calls for a portion to be used when it carries the same educational value as the whole work, for logos this is somewhat different.

4325: 4290: 2584:

violates NFCC#9. Each article needs its own use rationale but I don't think we need the same rationale twice for the same article.

2182: 4531: 4065: 2924: 2178: 2164:. Most of these are .svg files uploaded to Commons as "own work". I've found some which have been nominated for deletion such as 4039: 3183: 3131: 2641: 853:

which was found to be too complex for this logo's source country. With respect to the United States, there are some logos like

3310:

found on Commons? While Tyler's portrayal of the character may be the most recent and well-known, I believe something such as

1389:

There is specific discussion of the features of the photo, I've provided it above. It discusses specific parts of the image ("

857:

which have been found to be too complex, and the thing to the left of the text seems to be at the same level of complexity. --

2961: 1947:

Not a significant enough change (the removal of text) to require the image to be seen, particularly that it's not sourced. --

652: 600: 375:

too high for this logo? It looks rather close to being a Prince of Wales crown with simple stars replacing several elements.

3093:

This was uploaded as a nonfree image eight years ago, and the uploader is long gone, so I can't expect an answer from them.

1986: 1880: 1321:

the image accompanying it? The editors of the reliable sources that included the image in their articles begged to disagree.

3560:

I've removed the two images. They clearly fail NFCC8, and also NFCC3a because they're already used in their own articles.

3178:. There are also a batch of issues at the Internet Archive (which is hardky perfect about checking copyrights, of course). 2458: 2383:

is non-existent. The same screenshot can be seen in the episode's article, so it's use in actor's article is not needed. -

553:

for Season 3) in the infobox of its Knowledge (XXG) article? A non-free rationale could be added and the image tagged with

462: 153:? Also, I'm not sure if attribution to the artist(s) who drew the map needs to be given in the image's caption, does it? - 5014: