Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 32

message: I see an incomprehensible explanation has been put back in, because the request for an explanation that people can understand is "not a valid objection". Really? Well it is a valid objection if you want people to follow the guideline:
:The above applies to any enumeration or summary of a group of items related to the article subject (such as a list of people, companies, anime characters, literary or musical works, and so on), regardless of whether the list is in prose, a table, bullet points, contains subsections, or is in any other format. It may be acceptable to include a single image that portrays multiple enumerated elements from the list, or at most two or three separate non-free images portraying items from the list, provided that all other non-free considerations are met.
What on earth is an "enumeration or summary of a group of items related to the article"? If you mean an article which is a list, then say so. Besides which it is not appropriate to be so prescriptive. Individual cases require individual evaluation. Tyrenius (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Understandable_language_is_essential. Tyrenius (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is that there are lots of forms for lists. Would the insertion of the word "list" address your concerns? Maybe even a link to Wikipedia:Lists or Wikipedia:Lists#List styles? Personally, I would remove the second "enumerated" as confusing, and replace the first one with "numbered list". As far as not being prescriptive, take that up with Hammersoft. He has been at the sharp end recently. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be broad without being specific, if we use list, the non-free abuse users will move the "List of characters in" to "Characters of" and thus be able to claim that their page is no longer a "list" when in fact the contents of the page have not changed. βcommand 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph already covers things perfectly clearly. The second is superflous. If needs be, qualify the first, such as, "The use of non-free media in lists (whether titled as such or otherwise)". Tyrenius (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a valid objection 

message: I wish to reprise two previous discussions about the usage of images in lists of characters (Two questions regarding images of fictional characters and Character images and lists). Please note that this discussion is about fleshed out "lists" written in prose and not just blanket table lists, in which such usage would clearly be decorative.
My main concern is the argument that characters that need illustration should have their own article. The problem is - as discussed in the first of the previous discussions - that the shift in notability guidelines means that many character articles have been merged into lists. Also, some characters could be highly significant to a work of fiction but simply do not have enough encyclopedic information to warrant a entire full article on them and are therefore better suited to a section in a prose-style "list". Images are used to illustrate characters and acts as support for discussion on them. Look at the difference between Homer Simpson and Frank Tenpenny. They are both as significant as each other to their respective works, yet only one is "allowed" an image. The reason given for one's removal is not a compelling enough to warrant this. Homer Simpson has appeared in all 400+ episodes of The Simpsons, and as a result has quite a lot of information on him that can warrant a full article. The instalments in the Grand Theft Auto video game series are not consistent and do not always feature the same characters, however Frank Tenpenny is incredibly significant to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas but simply does not have enough information to support his own entire article and is better suited into the "list". However only one can have an image simply because he has his own article. This is not a valid reasoning for removal of images in character "lists" (I use quotations as they are more prose like articles discussing the characters rather than blanket lists) and I would like to come to a new consensus about the usage of images for characters significant to a work of fiction in "lists". 
.:Alex:. 12:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the character is incredibly significant to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then that is the logical place to have the picture. If there is a link from the list entry to the game, then people can follow that to see what he looks like. Having said that, I am sympathetic to pictures being used to remind people what the character looks like, so they recognise what is being written about. A recent example was G'Kar (a Babylon 5 character). It's been years since I watched Babylon 5, and I couldn't remember which character he was, and what the Narns looked like. But no pictures anywhere to be seen, sadly. In the G'Kar article it recently (early December 2007) got removed after deletion. If someone has the time to add a satisfactory non-free use rationale to :Image:Citizen G'kar.JPG, I'll undelete it for them. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Nobody is writing policy to conform to their own ideas. The policy/guideline has evolved through extensive discussion and past practice. We do not have a debate every time a policy is applied. For example, if there is a page that blatantly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, we do not add a template to that page indicating there is a discussion about the page violating this policy and provide a link to the debate. We apply the policy, period. If we had to have a debate every time policy is applied, the amount of effort needed to apply policy would be orders of magnitude more difficult and would lead to policy never being applied. I'm sorry you do not like the images being removed. Nevertheless, it's how we are handling things and it hasn't changed since it started back in the Spring of last year. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus Can Change. Just because a discussion came to a certain conclusion, does not mean it is set in stone. My request was to have a new discussion about this, not simply say "it's been done before and came to a certain conclusion, now let's not do it again". .:Alex:. 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Concensus can change. But, in the near year that this has been applied subsequent to the Foundation's resolution, it hasn't changed. It's not very likely to change, given that we are free content encyclopedia and fair use images can never be described as free content. Consensus can also change that we should not apply the BLP policy. Does that mean we should argue over it every time it's applied? Of course not. We don't argue it every time it's applied. If we want to change something, we do it by gaining consensus to make the change, not revert warring against the standing policy, insisting we need consensus to implement policy, and generating all manner of debate every time the policy is applied. That sort of behavior is highly disruptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Last spring? The policy that you are refering to was changed yesterday! All you have to do is look at the history. Only you and Betacommand were for making that change. And you changed it without consensus. Why do you think you've had so many people just recently attacking you for all of your massive changes? Ospinad (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The Foundation's resolution came out last spring. The removal of images from a general type of article (lists, discographies, episodes, etc) began almost immediately afterwards. It's been continuing since. Also note that the policy itself forbade the use in earlier versions , and the specifics were removed to the guidelines after discussion because it was felt that specific examples should be in the guideline, which makes logical sense; "This is how we apply it". Nothing's functionally changed since the Spring of '07. The guideline has merely been enhanced to provide a clearer forbiddance of this use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of images in lists of characters 

message: "This image appears to be too large for non-free images as defined by WP:NFCC#3b, which requires that low-resolution images be used whenever possible instead of high-resolution images.  If you feel that the current size is required, please add in a  to your fair-use rationale to justify this.  Otherwise, you can either upload a reduced image not to exceed 500px, or you may tag this image with  and someone from Wikipedia will reduce the image for you. 
If you take any one of these steps, you may remove this caution message from this image."
Not perfect but a suggested state.  A template with this should also tag into "Large non-free images tagged on DATE" categories like disputed fair use rationales are done.  The suggested  would populate "Non-free images with large image rationales".  --MASEM 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example is :Image:Simpsons cast.png. This should be larger than it is, in order to be able to identify each character. There is no point having such a picture otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested language for caution template

message: It has been suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate‎ that the images on articles such as List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1 are unacceptable since they are part of a list and thus automatically insignificant. I think this is complete nonsense - the pictures are a significant aid in recognising the characters and so add to the article enormously and free images are clearly not available. Does the current version of the policy really intend to ban such images? --Tango (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive images in lists fails 3a - minimal use and 8 - significance of non-free images; nor is Wikipidea a guide in that we don't need to provide visual representations of every character in a fictional work if that burdens non-free use. --MASEM 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is one image per character excessive? Providing visual representations is essential to ensure that readers know which character is being talked about. People have enough difficulty remembering names of people in real life without having to remember them for fictional characters as well. --Tango (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, the Stargate article has another problem, in that while a list of characters that does not demonstrate notability is acceptable per WP:FICT, there is way too much plot information without notability information to justify the level of detail that that article goes into; that is, it is not written in a manner appropriate for summary style that such character lists should be written in.  There's two possible routes: characters that can be given notability on their own can be moved into their own article, with the picture moved there, or there needs to be major trimming of the text (saving as much as possible by moving the existing stuff to a off-site wiki) which makes this (even) more of a list and thus not justifying images beyond the very first one.  But even if neither were done, this is still a list, and thus falls under the above issues. --MASEM 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The characters which are notable enough to warrant their own articles have their own articles (and just short summaries in the list and a link to the main article). The lists are primarily for characters that appear in several episodes (although some characters that only appear in one episode are included with excessive detail - they need to be severely trimmed) but aren't notable enough for a whole article. There is generally very little information available beyond plot details, so plot details are all we include. It's still useful information to have, and enables us to easily link to characters from other articles so we don't need to explain who a character is every time we mention them. Pictures are essential for that purpose, since TV is a visual medium and people remember characters more by what they look like than what their name is. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *This variety of counter argument is frequently cited. The underlying issue is that Wikipedia is not a guide, but an encyclopedia. If a character is so un-notable that they do not warrant their own article, it's a weak argument (from an encyclopedic standpoint) that we need to have an image for them.  This is even further complicated when we note the m:mission of Wikimedia is to generate content under a free content license, and even more proscribed when we look at the Foundation's resolution which limits such media to narrow limitations. Whether an image is useful to the character list isn't really a core issue here. If we were a guide, then I would emphatically agree with you. But, we're not. We're an encyclopedia. An analogy; we're not a tourist guide. Having the encyclopedia cover in great detail all of the tourist attraction in say, Stratford-upon-Avon, is outside of the scope of our purpose. Having hours, admission prices, information on whether there's a gift shop, food available, handicap accessible entryways...all of that sort of thing would be immensely useful. I can make very sound arguments that our encyclopedia lacking such information makes the resource considerably less useful and difficult to use in the absence of such information. The problem is, we're not a guide. We're an encyclopedia. If we  can't find significant enough out of universe secondary sources to buttress the argument that a single character deserves an article, we can't make an argument they deserve an image that is decidely unfree, violating the core princicples of the project. We are first and foremost a free content encyclopedia. The use of non-free media is the exception, and granted on limited, narrow circumstances. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an argument for deleting the lists, not an argument for removing the images. The images are among of the most useful bits of information in the list, so if they're not useful enough to keep, the whole list should be deleted. If we are going to describe the characters (which is another debate entirely, and one better suited to AFD), then we should have images for them. --Tango (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your argument seems based on the idea that we are a guide, and our primary determinant should be whether the article is useful by the metric of a person being able to understand each and every character within a particular fictional universe. Ok, let's assume I agree with you. I hereby volunteer and request your assistance to begin Wikipedia:Project Travel Guide where we work to enhance all articles regarding tourist destinations. Afterall, we're a guide, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable images 

message: I'm breaking this into a separate section, since the above discussion is getting a little confusing. As far as I can see, full cast photos are completely unacceptable, since they are purely decorative. There is no way of knowing which character is which, so no information is gained from the image being in the article. It's just a pretty picture, which is not valid fair use. A separate shot of each character, while quite a lot of fair use images, is not decorative. It should be pointed out that "minimal" does not mean "small", it means "as small as possible". Talking about a character without the reader being able to tell which character it is is completely pointless, so one image per character *is* as small as possible, so *is* minimal. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Add a caption explains who is who, and gets the identity of X characters with one non-free image as opposed to X characters with X images. --MASEM 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Or provide a numbered outline version with a key, as Carcharoth suggested. But I don't see why including only one picture makes a difference (versus a separate picture of each character). It's still non-free. This still limits distributability. -Freekee (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Tango's objection here makes no sense. I'll go and do a caption for :Image:Simpsons cast.png to show how it can be done. I'd like to point out a good outline picture as well. I think some exist on Commons. Can anyone remember one? Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that image is horrible. You can barely make out the characters. I know of another that comes with an outline version, but it's poster sized. I could get it, if you want. -Freekee (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If you're going to rely on a cast image with a caption to identify characters, you need a large image than that. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The size can be fixed (and this would be a case where it would be reasonable to have a picture greater than 500px), but the idea of using cast pictures is still justified. --MASEM 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So making an exception on the size of an image is acceptable, but making exceptions on the number of images is not? --Tango (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making the exception for one single fair-use image, instead of making exceptions to add multiple fair-use images.  The former is better since it is a small amount of non-free image use. --MASEM 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I uploaded :Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg (the extra image was a blooper on my part). Though if you look at the page history of :Image:Simpsons cast.png, the "image reduce" people reduced it in size, which was an incorrect decision. This would be a good place to try out the "large non-free use exception rationale" template we've been trying to develop. The idea being that to have larger images to need to explicitly use a tag and explain why a larger image is being used. We also have :Image:Simpsons cast.jpg  (deleted image) in case anyone isn't confused enough yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *You can just upload the image with the same name. A warning will pop up that you are replacing the current image. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that. The different filenames (png vs jpg) caused an error message to pop up. I'm checking with the deleting admin about restoring the higher-res versions (look to be about twice the size I uploaded) that were originally reduced. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While I am defending the use of non-group images, I will say that group images are more desirable, and should be used over individual images whenever possible. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When it doesn't detract from the article, I agree that one image is generally better than many. In many cases, there simply isn't one image containing all the characters, so it really isn't an issue. We can make our own montages, but that's just having lots of images in one place - how is that better than having lots of images spread out in the article? --Tango (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A user-created montage of characters must be used carefully.  If X non-free images are used to created the montage, the montage has to be treated as a derivative work of X non-free images, and thus counts as that many.  Putting 20 character images into a single image to try to reduce the image count is not an acceptable solution.  (This doesn't mean that montages can't be used but there must be good reason and should rely on only a few non-free pictures). --MASEM 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, a home-made montage is no better than what we have at the moment, so all this talk of montages is pretty meaningless. I agree entirely. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically.  In legal terms a user-created montage image isn't any different than multiple images; just because the images all exist in a single file doesn't mean they're not still separate images. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And just to clarify, montages/cast pics that are from the copyright owner themselves (such as the simpsons one) are a single non-free use regardless how many characters they include.  --MASEM 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons picture isn't really a montage, it's just a picture with multiple characters in it. (Yes, each of the characters was probably drawn separately and then combined, but that's just how cartoons are done, it doesn't make it a montage.) --Tango (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full cast photos 

message: For awhile now, we've been merging small articles (fiction-related, in particular) into list pages rather than keeping as indivdual stubs, with the idea that once they grow, they can then be resplit off into their own articles. This is something that's said again, and again, at AfD and elsewhere.
If that's the case, then Fair use images should be able to be used in such lists, just as they would be used in articles, I would presume.
If this is not the case, meaning that lists are considered (for some reason) to not be articles, then it looks like we'll need to work on re-splitting up the various list pages back into separate articles.
Clarification about this would be welcome. - jc37 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the current debate is about. Currently, policy supports any image that passes WP:NFCC, regardless if it is in its own article, or if it shares an article with other topics. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't understand what the debate is about (noting that I only just caught a glimpse of the discussion on a noticeboard "somewhere", hence my questions). Someone wants to make a determination that lists aren't articles? or that lists are a sub-class of articles not worthy for images? or what? - jc37 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 along with the Foundation's resolution on fair use suggests that using more than X non-free images in an article is breaking the Foundation's fair use allowances.  The number of images and the purposes of the images, more often than not used for showing the reader what the character looks like, is what is at issue. --MASEM 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) They're implying that previous discussions that resulted in images being removed from lists of episodes and other excessive image uses (where only a small bit of text was used for an image, and/or was unnecessary) means that any image in shared articles should be removed. Myself and others believe this is far more extreme than what those discussions supported, and that many non-free images in shared articles are justified. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists question 

message: Is an Alien vs Predator image OK in a Talk page?  Talk:Bathhouse Row#Options for block quotations  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-free images can only be used in articles in the Main namespace.  --MASEM 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alien vs Predator intrudes in Talk 

message: On 4 January 2007, I observed a number of fair use images being used on Minor Harry Potter characters . Despite the very title of this article being minor characters, an edit war lasting three days nonetheless erupted over the removals and now the page is protected for seven days. We can't even agree that minor characters do not deserve images. The issue is lost. Fair use needs to be permitted anywhere and everywhere, as liberally as possible, in order to avoid these debates. It's the only solution. 
Ok, so fine...polling is evil and all that, but what the heck..at least we'd see how many people are in favor of having fair use. So, here we go
===Poll===
If you support, you are saying that fair use images per character should be liberally allowed, with no restrictions on any main namespace page (be it article, list, what have you...the distinction is fair use images per character being liberally allowed, sans restriction). If you oppose, you do not agree with that stance. 
====Support====
# Since no compromise has been possible among any recent debate, support if only to stop the endless arguments. It means we're no longer about free content, but c'est la vie. It's more important to keep people happy than adhere to our m:mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another example why this fair use issue must be resolved 

message: If you support, you are saying that fair use images per character should be liberally allowed, with no restrictions on any main namespace page (be it article, list, what have you...the distinction is fair use images per character being liberally allowed, sans restriction). If you oppose, you do not agree with that stance. 
====Support====
# Since no compromise has been possible among any recent debate, support if only to stop the endless arguments. It means we're no longer about free content, but c'est la vie. It's more important to keep people happy than adhere to our m:mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: # Since no compromise has been possible among any recent debate, support if only to stop the endless arguments. It means we're no longer about free content, but c'est la vie. It's more important to keep people happy than adhere to our m:mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Compromise is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # No really, what? -- Ned Scott 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wut?

message: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is the English Wikipedia's EDP (Exemption Doctrine Policy). What other Wikimedia projects have EDPs? Is there a list of them anywhere? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Err, no fair use I believe, but the do allowed trademarked materials, and are way more diligent about trying to claim things don't qualify for copyright - for instance, we count the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Republicanlogo.svg The Republican Party Logo as copyrighted on our tag, they http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Republicanlogo.svg use it anyhow, claiming its not copyrighted, but trademarked, and so use it. WilyD 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *(ec) German wiki ruling: :de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. In short: Fair use does not exist in Germany, and art that passes a Threshold of originality is not allowed (which is most art). An exception is when art is placed outside by the copyright holders, because then there is Panoramafreiheit (i.e. everything outside, like buildings and certain art, can be photographed and distributed without special permission). The use of copyrighted logos is allowed because of trademark. The rest is similar to US law. Commons is your friend in Germany. – sgeureka t•c 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other EDPs 

message: How about a different approach to minimising non-free images, an approach designed to draw a line in the sand and avoid incessant arguments? Minimising non-free use can be approached several different ways:
*(1) Minimise non-free use per image and per article - this is what I call the smallest-scale level. This is the way it is currently done, and it is the way that aligns most closely with fair-use laws. Justify each image on its own basis. This should still be the basis for most decisions, but this approach breaks down when trying to minimise fair use in other ways (lots of arguments per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8, and liberal interpretations of the WMF Licensing Policy still lead to excessive use for some), hence the next two approaches.
*(2) Minimise non-free use for a topic area or group of articles - this is the medium-scale level. It can range from a group of articles about a fictional universe or TV show, or other fictional franchise, to groupings on much larger and looser scales (logos, books, albums, and so on). For the larger scales, see point 3. For the medium-scale, well-defined fictional topic areas, it is clear that it is possible to have lots of non-free use under the current policies and interpretations. it is also equally clear that such use appears excessive to some, and within that limited area it is indeed sometimes excessive. It is here that concerns about a specific copyright holder are often raised, as non-free use from one particular show or fictional area may become excessive in terms of the overall product. My proposed solution here is to have umbrella discussions to set quotas for particular areas, depending on the amount of encyclopedic coverage. ie. Allow 20 images for Stargate articles - thus forcing the editors to chose the 20 images (or 50, or whatever number is chosen) that contribute most to, and complement, the existing encyclopedic content. This sort of overview quota system is unworkable under US fair use laws, but as is often pointed out, WMF Licensing Policy is more restrictive than US fair use laws, and there would be nothing, in theory, to stop en-Wikipedia adopting such a system.
*(3) Minimise non-free use for Wikipedia as a whole - the largest scale. Minimising non-free use on this scale takes on a whole new meaning, and is often directly related to how freely the whole encyclopedia can be distributed. First, it is indisputable that massive chunks of Wikipedia are, and always will be, free content. Articles on history, dead people, living people, places, and so on, are nearly always easily illustrated by free images. The approach that I propose here is to clearly identify the areas where free images are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain - films, contemporary fiction, and so on. The approach can then be two-fold. Either: (a) point to a quota system for fictional articles, like that outlined in 2, and state that, combined with the large amount of free content, Wikipedia as a whole is free enough and fit for purpose; or (b) state that the non-free areas that have been identified are not free enough, and cut them loose from the free content encyclopedia, or separate them somewhat while maintaining the wiki-links between the two, just just filter out the non-free content before distributing.
I would favour (3a), ie. a quota system (2), with all individual images still needing to be justified under (1), but avoiding the incessant arguments about NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 (which are effectively replaced with the quota system which forces editors to chose the most significant images for particular sets of articles), and is more flexible, but at the same time minimising the non-free use to quantifiable levels. If (3a) fails, then (3b) may be the next option. Would anything like (3a) and (2) be workable? Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course (3) will always be the best option, but it needs quite a lot of work. However, I would advance much more: create a new namespace, NonFreeMedia/NonFreeImage, leaving the Image namespace to be only for free images. Every media in the NonFreeMedia can be speedied deleted an hour after uploaded if it hasn't been FUC'ed. And create a taskgroup that runs through that namespace deleting repeated images or images that could be replaced for another. There are times when two or three articles of related topics have different non-free images about the same topic. This way we will have full control over the non-free media, and be able to run through site-wide politics more effectively. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different approach to minimising non-free images 

message: We've got a lot of ideas floating around here, and it's getting a bit hard to understand what people are supporting. I think we should set up a sub-page with an RFC style. As in, allow anyone to list a statement, then have "agree with" sections under that, similar to what is done in a user RFC. I, for one, try very hard to limit fair use images, but still see an acceptable level of use. I don't support using a few hundred images in a list, but there are "lists" that I believe have valid use-rationales for some of their images. I'm not black and white, and I'm sure the same can be said for others. Yet we have some people who would just like to lump everyone in one of two possible groupings, which isn't fair to anyone. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-informal RFC 

message: In cases or articles about characters where group shots are not available, what should the procedure be? In some cases, the show or comic or whatever is still active, and it is possible to write to the producers or artists and ask if they can provide a group picture. In other cases, the show will have ended or the original material be otherwise unavailable. In such cases, would it be acceptable to make composite pictures? Have another look at :Image:Simpsons cast.png - it would be possible (and someone should do this) to do an outline version with everyone numbered, and a key provided to identify the characters. Surely a picture like this at the head of every character article would satisfy most people. Can someone remind me of the arguments again against such compositing of separate non-free pictures? Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see #Discussion of derivative worksβcommand 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cases where group shots are not available

message: Bringing this out from a separate discussion above.
There seems to be consensus that in lists, when there are a "few" (being somewhere between 1 and 5) non-free images, preferably with those images being described constructively, are not a problem.
There seems (though not as strong) consensus that a long (more than 10?) list with non-free images at each entry is not appropriate at all, particularly when there are used simply to demonstrate what that item looks like without any additional comment in the text about it (aka "decorative use" as I see it)
Obviously there's some point between that consensus meets at.  Here's my take on it (and unfortunately, I see this as an issue that runs smack into the middle of WP:FICT's rewrite so I'm seeing it from several ways.)
WP is not meant to be a guidebook for any field - we don't go into excessive details on certain elements but are meant to provide an overview of the topic at hand with appropriate references for those to learn more.  We are serving the general reader - not the fan, not the tourist, etc, though we can help provide some resources internally (episode lists, links to external resources) for the more specialized reader to learn more.  
Providing visual represents of items that do not demonstrate their own notability, and without commentary on how the pictures unique reflect/impact/demonstrate some necessary aspect of the main topic is a function that a guide would have but that is not necessarily appropriate for WP.    Example: providing pictures of characters in a fictional work, if the characters individual or as a group do not have their own notability, is not key to helping the general reader understand what the impact of those characters are on the fictional topic at hand.  The characters pictures in this case serve to help the people who will experience the fictional work, but is only a subset of the readers for that - such a case is acting as a guide, just the same as bird-watching guides work.  But, this is not to say that no visual representation can be given at all; just like we allow brief music samples to allow the reader to understand the style of a musical work, non-free images can be used to provide the style of art or other aspects that certainly cannot easily be verbalized without introducing original research, and if identification can be done with minimal fair-use (group shots) or with multiple purposes, all the better.
If all images for a list were free-as-in-thought, there's no issue with loading up such a list with them; there's no issue with making the list work more like a guide by providing such - there's no impact on WP or the Foundation by the image inclusions.  But when the images are non-free, then there's a conflict with the Foundation's request to keep the encyclopedia with as minimal free-use as possible while trying to provide guide-type information.  In this case, we have to respect the wishes of the Foundation and avoiding going the route of "images for all items in a list" that would make the article more convenient but burdens it with excessive fair use.
I will also point out that very often, while it may not be the best picture or the like, other non-free images will have images within the list already, or worked such that this can be the case.  An image of a unique monster on Doctor Who would likely be appropriate as a non-free use on the episode that monster appears in.  Thus in a list of Doctor Who monsters, there's no need to include a picture again, referring back to the episode in the list.  
There's also cases where once you've identified the art style and design that is used by one or two images, you can verbally provide enough details to allow other items to be visualized easily.  A prime example is the movie Cars - once I've shown a picture of Lightning McQueen and Mater, to give how the cars have been anthropomorphized, I can then verbally state that Sally is a Porsche and that Doc Hudson is a Hudson Hornet, and the reader should at least get a basic idea what the character might look like.
We also should not be afraid to fall back to existing lists that might exist in other wikis that are appropriate to link to, where the nonfree burden is not present.  There is no harm providing links to such sites off the list pages, possibly even referring directly to them in the text.
To summarize: It is not necessary to provide images of every item in a list when the images are burdened by non-free fair use: there are alternatives to this which include "cast images", referring to existing non-free images, offsite use, or appropriate verbal descriptions.  Failing that, there is some maximum number "X" of non-free images (X seems to be "5", but this is in question) that can be used in such lists to meet NFCC#3a and #8, as well as Wikipedia is not a guide; preferrably images should be serving more use than just visual identification of said item. --MASEM 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that significance does play some part in the fair use rationale, and that, with the same idea as in WP:FICT, we're not a guide to cover everything. However, most of my examples so far don't go that far, and the same can be said for several other lists were users are indiscriminately removing images from. Those are my concern. Again, this goes back to the rationale to use an image, not a blanket ban on lists. (not to mention we also have other ways of dealing with disputed rationales.) -- Ned Scott 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a significance and non-replaceability requirement, of course, which translate to a requirement in some cases that there be prose commentary.  Neither of those categorically preclude including images to show what something looks like in a list of those things, but on a case by case basis they may mean the images may be unnecessary.  The only criterion that seems to apply to all of these cases is minimal use.  I don't think the intent of WP:NOT#GUIDE is to preclude comprehensive coverage of any subject - we are all about comprehensiveness.  The "decorative" analysis is rarely useful, and whatever it means, decorative is different than using an image to show what something looks like.  That terminology is borrowed from copyright law where it means simply that there is no purpose other than to be ornamentation.  Most images, and most non-free use here, is precisely to show what something looks like.  That's pretty much the reason there are pictures of things in the first place (though other categories include use for identification, and use as evidence of something).  Any maximum number, whether one, two, or five would be arbitrary.  It would make some sense to prohibit non-free images in parent articles where the child articles have the identical picture - though I'm not sure what that accomplishes for our free content mission.  What difference does an extra hyperlink really make?  We do make arbitrary distinctions here because sometimes you just have to draw a line somewhere...So the bottom line, though I have different reasons for supporting it a policy like "five [or three, or any number] or fewer, but in any event no more than necessary" might be the best approach if a case-by-case judgment becomes too cumbersome, contentious, or inconsistent.  I don't think we have to do it to keep up with the "free content" half of our mission, but we may reasonably choose to do it.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Non-free content used to show what something looks like where no free alternative can be obtained is permitted. 
Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Yes, I'm object. No, we should not have per character images, and no we should not be advocating Wikipedia turning into a giant image repository.  That is not its purpose or function.  For other reasons for objecting...read all the other discussion here. We need balance.  We do not need the  extreme of "free for all" any more than we need an extreme of "one per article" or "none at all." AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem is the middle road has led to innumerable, unending arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decorative use" vs Wikipedia's Mission 

message: Ok, given Wikiedemo's comments above, I recommend the addition of this language to the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images:
:*Non-free content used to show what something looks like where no free alternative can be obtained is permitted. 
Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I'm object. No, we should not have per character images, and no we should not be advocating Wikipedia turning into a giant image repository.  That is not its purpose or function.  For other reasons for objecting...read all the other discussion here. We need balance.  We do not need the  extreme of "free for all" any more than we need an extreme of "one per article" or "none at all." AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem is the middle road has led to innumerable, unending arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested guideline language change 

message: Lists are still articles. I think pictures SHOULD be allowed on lists. Because without that lists are pretty useless. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a list that is pretty useless without images. And don't tell me "people needs to know the character's picture" because, if they are major characters, they will have their own article, and if they are minor, they aren't important. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. I recognise some of the aliens, but for many I struggle to make sense of the text without a picture. Someone made the fair point that many of the episode articles include pictures of the aliens, but I can equally understand that clicking back and forth between the list and the episode articles can get tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) You miss the point (again?) that many so-called list articles aren't really that. They are articles that simple don't have enough so-called real world content to fill out a single page, while still being notable enough for an article. Let's give a good non-fiction example -- Piano Concertos Nos 1-4 (Mozart). This article is about a few separate pieces of music, all of them very notable, but they are combined to make a nice and much fuller article, including info that would otherwise be repeated across four separate ones were they not combined. Granted it could use more work, but I think the point is there. Many character list articles are much more similar to that than to, as given above, List of dog breeds. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What probably needs to happen is for such "character lists" to be renamed and rewritten as overviews of the characters or cast of a particular series. In other words, keep a list in there somewhere, but flesh it out with overview and commentary sections. A bit like how 1345 was created from 1345 timeline, or how the Ent article contains a subsection Ent#Named Ents, or how Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is an overview with a list stuck on the end. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I can't understand why everyone keeps fussing over images in lists. I thought it was quite straight-cut; WP:FUC policy, criteria 3a says we cannot use lots of images in articles and cannot have many uses of one image all over wikipedia. So why is this being disputed? I geninuely can't understand o_0... Seraphim Whipp 12:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand why people are ignoring Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Different approach to minimising non-free images? It is plain to me that minimising non-free content means different things at different scales. The reasons for minimsing use are different when you consider an individual image, a group of related images, an individual article, a group of related articles, and Wikipedia as a whole. It also means different things when you consider an individual copyright holder (ie. images related by copyright holder, rather than topic), the specific overuse complaint, as opposed to all copyright holders everywhere, the nebulous general overuse complaint. But if people want to keep oversimplifying things regarding minimal use (not the other aspects of non-free use), they will get the good-faith misunderstandings and arguments they deserve. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your last comment specifically directed at me? Seraphim Whipp 13:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. My proposed quota system for specific areas would actually help reduce the overall amount of non-free use on Wikipedia, and encourage more thought on which images are really essential for a topic area. So it is disheartening to see people take the easy option of trotting out the same tired old arguments time and time again. I'm trying to make progress here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have forgotten one crucial thing here. I asked my question in sincere good faith...and you treat me in a bad faith way that I don't dserve. I haven't read this talk page recently, but I did see this section name come up on my watchlist and so asked a genuine good faith question...I'm not sure why I bother here sometimes. Seraphim Whipp 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for that. I assumed, wrongly, that you were aware of the rest of the posts to the page. I hope you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it is offered, and will take the time to read that section and the new proposal below. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. Seraphim Whipp 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I agree in principal with the view that images are banned from any list or group article regarding characters, otherwise there will be a problem with image galleries being created. I believe the current concensus it that they are not allowed, and I can't think of a reason why they should.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-free image galleries are (very rarely) allowed if the layout of the section or article is helped by arranging the image in a gallery rather, than aligned left or right. This is why the wording was changed from "unacceptable" to "usually unacceptable". The canonical example here is the gallery at the bottom of Padmé Amidala#Costumes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And as just another example of what people seem to be missing -- a lot of times, we often split out content that would normally go into an article because it's too big otherwise -- take a good example of jazz (word) split off of jazz. Many of these so-called list articles are basically the opposite - the content is too small, so they are put together. There's a number of "Music of..." articles that are used instead of seperate pages for each album -- in fact, here's the PERFECT example I think. Most people seem to agree that a singular album page can have a picture of the album. If a bunch of them are combined into a single page (say, Music of Final Fantasy VI), that's not really different in how we present the pics than if they were separate pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures not allowed on lists makes no sense at all. 

message: Regarding removal of NF images for free replacements, as per this removal , all that seems to happen is a tag is placed on the uploaders talk page  and the image categorised as such.
The question is, does there not exist any other more positive group / process / project for this kind of work? If the uploader never returns, who else knows which article this image was deleted from? The image page loses the link to the articles it was used in, so even for people who routinely view the image replace categories and are not possibly involved directly in the subject matter, how are they supposed to know where it came from, even if they are able to find a free use version in the just 7 days allowed before it disappears completely?
Anyway, I was able to find a free use version already on WP in a matter of seconds, something the remover was seemingly unable or uninterested in doing. It seems to me from this, and past experience, that the whole image deletion policy is generally disruptive, rather than constructive, as there is no onus on the people who love to remove these images and just place tags to actually try and fix the situation, or more importantly inform other interested parties of the situation so they can fix it, or help the constructive but not necessary involved people to fix it either. I only found out as the article is on my watchlist, but it may well not have been, it is already too large as it is. Apologies if there are other processes or groups, or a more appropriate place for this question, but I am not aware of them, not for want of looking. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the process itself is neutral.  The way it's applied can be anywhere from disruptive and contentious to constructive and collaborative.  To my mind the best results come when people who are actively interested in a specific subect get together actively to improve the article and bounce ideas off each other.  It's a real pleasure to work with a good editor, tweaking each other's contributions, adding things, coming up with better and better content.  When you do that you don't even think of it as deletion or a policy matter, it's just editorial discretion.  If I'm working on Anita Ekberg and someone finds a great free image that completes the article, I'm happy they replaced the old non-free one.  The other approach I sometimes liken to dive bombing.  People who have no history with an article or the people who wrote it come in, find something amiss, and attach a bunch of tags and/or boldly edit the piece.  That can work too, and sometimes things need that kind of correction.  Often everyone appreciates the guidance.  But that's probably what you're thinking about.  Sometimes people don't like being dive bombed, and sometimes the bomber misses the target.Wikidemo (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The process itself may be theoretically neutral, but it is often applied in a disruptive manner.  We should encourage editors who are deleting images to at least make a brief effort to replace the image.  Too many people get into a one-track operation of simply trying to delete images. Johntex\talk 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking back I think this belongs in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, so I'm moving it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacable fair use process: constructive or disruptive?