Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

RfC: Non-free images in collaborations with other organizations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I will start off with the result: There is no consensus for making this exemption. As such, it is not implemented.

Now onto the analysis. The main argument for this change is that it would foster collaboration with third party organizations, who would be unwilling to release their logos under a free license, but would want their logos displayed on the collaboration's project page. While argued passionately, there is an absence of examples of where the inability to use a logo has caused problems in collaborations. In fact, there really isn't much context as to how this change wound up being proposed at all; I have to assume, based on the participants, that this is something devised and championed by WikiProject Medicine. As some of the oppose votes seem to allude to (see the beginning of J Milburn's oppose, for example), the lack of examples or context seems to have hurt the supporters' arguments. Aside from not seeing any reason for the change, the main argument against this change is that the use of non-free content outside of the mainspace (or, in some eyes, the use of non-free content period) violates the project's mission.

Ultimately, the oppose votes seemed to have stronger arguments, but in the absence of a single argument that achieved widespread support, no consensus feels more in line with the discussion than consensus against does. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose we add the follow text to the exemptions section: "Non-free images may be used on non-article space page when there is explicit permission via OTRS from the copyright holder allowing this use and the copyright holder is involved in a collaborative effort with Wikipedians to improve Wikipedia"

Support

As proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. As it will be on a non-article page, it is does not matter that it is not free. Use of such logos would be subject to consensus of the project members. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood:I don't understand how "As it will be on a non-article page" leads to "it is does not matter that it is not free." Please clarify. Specifically, please clarify how it "does not matter" with respect to existing WMF (i.e. global) policies and with respect to existing local ("English Wikipedia") policies. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The project page is not for re-use by third parties. Policies can be changed and should be changed when they are unnecessarily obstructive. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Support If Wikipedia is to grow there needs to be collaboration with other organizations. Not allowing use of logo on collaboration pages will deter cooperation and instill a belief that Wikipedia is governed ineffectively by close-minded individuals who do want to see truly free knowledge prosper. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Right now on Meta-Wiki there is a discussion about disclosing conflict of interest. Many community members take the position that Wikipedians with a strong bias to promote an external organization should be open about their relationships with those organizations. The history of marketing has always promoted the idea of a brand and this proposal to use non-free content is an attempt to create an environment in which brands affiliations may be communicated more clearly. This proposal is following an attempt to be transparent about the relationship between Translators Without Borders and m:Wiki Project Med, whose relationship includes the exchange of volunteer time for receipts recording in-kind donation. The Wikimedia Foundation has a practice of doing this also, for example by claiming donation value for in-kind donations, and indeed all organizations with donations in their finances do this. The Wikipedia community is harmed when individuals, communities, and projects are unable to clearly disclose their ties to external organizations by doing what would be done in any media channel other than Wikipedia, which would be to show the brand logo. I support this proposal because it increases transparency and makes records of relationships, which I think increases the Wikimedia movement's integrity. That said, I agree with the opposition that Wikipedia community ideals are greatly disrupted by increased use of non-free content in new ways. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is no reason that the transparency of the collaboration can be done without non-free imagery. A colored box at the top of the page, the use of their wordmark (sans graphic logo), etc. all serve the same purpose. Yes, eyes are drawn to a graphic logo, but if there's a question of transparency issues, a person is most likely going to be reading all the text at play to learn that, and not just look for a logo. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support: Masem is good faith and excellent value, but so is Doc James excellenter and he gets my ~~vote~~ support. Haven't the faintest idea what the issues here actually are mind, but that's ~~democracy~~ Wikipedia for you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't help at all. RFCs are !votes, and there's serious policy issues here, so just supporting the "excellenter" suggestion gives nothing to the discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  - Support ~~A vote~~ is ~~a vote~~ support is ~~a vote~~ support, Masem. I did read through it as much as I could understand. Are you saying that you take Stefan's position (so far as I can make it out) that only people with a Master's in Copyright are worth treating with? I do know Doc James' work on Wikipedia. I admire it very much (and on a personal note it was very helpful to me when I seriously ill a few years ago). It was your edit here, and Doc's response, that prompted me to to vote and I did vote with conviction. Did you really imagine I was being non-constructive? Not at all. I just happen to be here (as you know through my Reeva Steenkamp upload) and I just threw in my lot with Doc. Lighten up. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    - RFCs like all discussions are policy based, not "number of votes" based. The fact you say you "haven't the faintest idea what the issues are" probably means you should not participate until you know what those issues are, so that you can supply a policy-based reason. This is not a trivial matter as we are talking a core principle of a free-content work. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Voting is most definitely not irrelevant. Who is to determine what is the best argument? You? Disregarding the number of votes is purely anarchistic and allows the editor who shouts the most to win. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
        Anarchism isn't the only alternative to simple vote-counting democracy. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Consensus, which explains how decisions are made on Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy reminds us that we shouldn't follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
        Are you suggesting that because Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy we should ignore our policy of consensus and just vote count (which sounds considerably more bureaucratic...), or are you you just linking to policies in the hope that people will agree with you? J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
        I'll pass on vote-counting. That strikes me as a complex issue I partially address another remark below. I struck 'vote' in favour of 'support'. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy expressly confirms our policy of consensus. So that's a 'no' first part. Am I just linking to policies in the hope that people will agree with me? Well that's a hard one. What do you think? When other people link to policies would you say, all things considered, that their purpose in general is to get people to agree with them? Well, I'm sure I don't know. So that would be a 'not sure' second part. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
        Now you're just being obfuscatory. From that response, it's clear that your comment dated 13:03, 10 March was not in any way a response to my preceding comment, which sounds an awful lot like deliberate disruption, but it's also clear that you now appreciate the problems with your comments dated 10:26, 10 March. Perhaps you'd like to strike the offending comments? J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
        I've reindented. I wasn't being disruptive, mischievous perhaps (what would you say?) If I were to rewrite I would note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy reminds us that Wikipedia is neither an anarchy, democracy nor a bureaucracy (properly seen as a means of curtailing upriver power blocks not that I'm in any way suggesting this is what we are confronting here lorry no horror of horrors oh the horror). I did feel I understood the issues well enough to essay a modest note of qualified support, by way of being a bit of a philosopher myself see. I've read Best and Kellner and everything: I'm always struck by how far-seeing that bit at p. 302 in Critical Interrogations really is, starting:
        ... the present moment contains both utopian and dystopian aspects which open towards conflicting futures. The information explosion could work either to multiply and pluralize information, or to cancel all meaning in a meaningless noise; it could enhance literary skills or deaden them;it could decentralize information so that all people have easy and equal access, or it could further the control and domination of ruling elites who monopolize information and computer technologies ...
        — Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogation (Macmillan 1991) p. 302
Support. Masem is correct that this is currently against our NFCC policy, but that is irrelevant given that the express purpose of this RfC is to change that policy. I would prefer the wording to be slightly tighter to explicitly restrict the use to project pages about the collaboration and encourage minimal usage on those pages, however this is not sufficient for me to object given that this is implicit anyway. It is not reasonable to expect an organisation to license their logo under a free license (which applies to all uses and reuses) because of one collaboration with Wikipedia. In many organisations many more people will have the right to license use of their logo than will have the right to re-license it - for example my parents run a small business, I would be amazed if either of them knew for certain whether the copyright in the logo resides with the company or with the graphic designer who they employed to create it (and it's definitely copyright eligible). We should encourage the use of a free license but should not require it. As for why we should take this line, the simple answer is the professionalism of consistency between online and off-line branding (where neither party would have any legal or policy issues in using both logos AIUI) and between online branding produced by Wiki(p|m)edia and that produced by the partner organisation. This change in policy would have zero impact on article-space uses of non-free media (excluding in the unlikely event that the collaboration itself became notable, when any non-free branding used would be considered for inclusion (although not necessarily actually used)). The change in policy would also have zero effect elsewhere in project space because it explicitly applies only to collaborations. Yes, it might lead to more people asking for other exceptions, but without support from an RfC (which will not happen for trivial things) those requests will not be successful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy to see the wording tightened. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that people will see the logos used, without knowing there's an exception, and proceed to use non-free logos all over project pages, creating a worse problem. Further, we would never use logos like this in article space - that is, if we're on organization A's page, and there's a section about how they collaborate with organization B, we would never allow for organization B's logo on A's page if B's logo was non-free. The same must be maintained in user-space (even if we had exceptions for user-space non-free). --MASEM (t) 18:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your comments about not knowing about an exception are not really relevant - a NFUR would still be required and that would clearly link to this exception. It may be possible to link to it from the image caption or something. Any other uses would be removed as soon as they are found - under all laws I am aware of, what matters is action taken when $responsible_person becomes aware of an infringement more than that the infringement happened.

Regarding article space, content about a notable collaboration/joint venture between two notable organisations would not be appropriate on the article about Organisation A or Organisation B beyond a small note. A standalone article about the collaboration could (but not necessarily would) legitimately use the branding of that collaboration, which might contains both organisations' logos (as is the case for the (non-notable) Hochtief/Murphy Group/Murphy joint venture involved in building Crossrail). This is getting away from the main point though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors copy by example, not by understanding the basics, when it comes to NFC. They will upload the image, copy the rational from an image they think is fine, and say all done without really understanding NFC (people do this with mainspace images all the time too). Yes, improper use of NFC on non-main space pages is easy to detect via bot but still is a problem to deal with.

If there was a common logo that including both organizations' logo, and that met inclusion tests, yes, we'd include it, but that's a large barrier. The point is that if we're not going to allow using B's logo's on A's page in article space, why would we even allow it in non-article space? --MASEM (t)

Because this isn't A's page or B's page, but the collaboration's page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the idea was to use it on the WikiProject's page to show the collaboration. Even considering that, if there was a separate collaboration page, is the collaboration notable to required an identification image that we would normal require? This is the problem with this exception request - it's a situation we'd not allow in mainspace to begin with, and the use is strictly promotional and not educational. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The use of the image would be informational as well as promotional, and would be supporting an educational project. That we would not use an image in this way in mainspace is not a reason for us not to allow it in project space. We do not blindly apply mainspace rules to project space for free media use so we should not blindly apply mainspace rules for non-free media. There would obviously need to be rules, and nobody is suggesting otherwise, and those rules would be strict and probably would incorporate some of the same rules as mainspace (usable only on explicitly defined pages for explicitly defined reasons for example), but they would not be identical. Your other arguments may not be convincing to me, but unlike this one they are relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Support we need to get real about non-encyclopaedia space. Requiring everyone to release their user page photo under CC-BY-SA is another silly example of the consequences of our current rules which make the place less friendly than it should be. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
- Non-free image use that is not associated with encyclopedic content - with very limited exceptions - is counter to the Foundation's restrictions on where non-free can be used. Nonmainspace is the last place we want to allow non-free to maintain the free content goals under the Foundation's resolution. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support I created a large number of images myself in 2012 in collaboration with the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee and it is galling in the extreme that they cannot be used on the Wikipedia because they are under a free license, which we do not allow on Wikipedia. I heartily support this proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: "non-free license" I assume you mean? --MASEM (t) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  - Wikimedia concurred with IOC's policy that the images should be freely available under a free license, that is a CC (non commercial) license. This was considered fair and reasonable, but Fair Use is meaningless for such images (as they are already free). Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    - CC-*-NC licenses are not considered "free" in terms of non-free image use (the NC part restricts downstream use). They would fall under non-free content policy. That's why we no longer consider the idea of "fair use" in considering these images, we're looking for what are "free licensed" as defined by the Foundation. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support for the benefits and protection it provides to users of those pages. Having official branding helps with disclosure of conflicts of interest, reinforces the message that collaboration projects are backed up by their organizations, and helps detecting forgeries - initiatives that may present themselves as involved with an organization, but that don't have formal support behind them.

I agree with Peter (Southwood) that, as project pages are intended for coordination and not reuse, and as they're outside the scope of the encyclopedia, it doesn't hurt much that we allow this non-free usage and the benefit outgrows the potential limitations. And I agree with John Vandenberg below that it would be a good idea to host the non-free images themselves at an external repository, if possible. Diego (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

- We don't need an image to show disclosure of a collaboration, text perfectly serves this duty. We could create a message box to make sure that's highlight at the top of a wikiproject page but no logos are need for this purpose. Using non-free outside of mainspace does hurt the project, since its not tied with encyclopdic content, and only would be of editors, not readers (who rarely venture into project space). And the Foundation's resolution on non-free material will never allow for a non-free repository due to the fact that none of that none of that would be used in immediate conjunction with encyclopedic content. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  - I don't understand your point here. The use of logos on the Project pages does no more than disclose the origin of the image. This is fully compatible with the CC license, so it is still a free repository, and we already do it in a number of cases. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    - Not all CC licenses are "free" under the Foundation'a definition, specifically the one given here [1]. CC-*-NC, for example, are not compatible with the free content definition, even if for most other works it is a lot free-er than a normal non-CC copyright. Since the Foundation's goal is to promote the generation of free content, they will not be creating an repository to store works that aren't free. (This is why the inclusion metrics at Commons is very strict). --MASEM (t) 06:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      - I understand that not all free licenses are permitted. The most common one that we have permitted in the past is CC-by-SA. And that requires "attribution — You must give appropriate credit". The CC people say that this means "in the manner specified bu the author". Which may include the use of a logo. Are we now saying that CC-by-SA is no longer permitted? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        CC-BY-SA is "free", CC-BY is "free" - both of these allow redistribution and reuse without restriction (-SA only asks derivative works to be under the same license, not an issue for how the Foundation defines "free"). CC licenses with NC (non-commercial use) and ND (no derivatives) cannot be "free" as they put limits on who and what can be done with the work. (Please note that in CC terms "BY" only requires we identify the author and other details, there's no requirement to attribute in the manner the author specifies). --MASEM (t) 13:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        
        And now that I reread you are explaining a case where Company A offers its material under CC-BY-SA, and their terms for attribution require us to show their non-free logo as part of that atttribution. And this is not true. CC-*-SA licenses require the reuser to (per [2] section 4c) provide the name, title, URI, and in case of modified works, what has been changed, "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". In other words, there is no requirement under CC-BY-SA that our attribution must include their logos as well simply identify the name of the company, and their claim that the logo must be included is not a requirement CC-BY-SA licenses require. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        That wasn't our interpretation of the 4(c) requirement to "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        CC 4.0 is a tragedy. Issue of CMI not addressed, additional rights grabs, and the whole issue surrounding the license being for the work of copyright. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        Hawkeye: I'd be curious if you can point to that discussion. My reading of CC 2.0 and 3.0 (where it talks about keeping intact) also includes considerations "appropriate for the medium", and the company cannot force you to do something that would violate the license - that is, they cannot make you include their non-free logo for attribution - we would use their ASCII-based name and we can't run around distributing their non-free logo as part of a CC license. Both versions imply "reasonable" means of keeping copyright notices intact, not exact duplication. CC 4.0 doesn't contain that language.
        
        Saffron: CC-BY-*-4.0 at least in terms of attribution is not bad, but I can see other parts that are a problem. But this is why we still allow CC 2.0 and 3.0 licenses and consider the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA ones as "free". --MASEM (t) 03:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        MASEM, you just proved my point by conflating attribution with CMI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        CC-BY 3.0 [3] requires the CMI (as defined here [4]) to be kept with the work. But this is not an issue within this discussion. CMI does not require the logo of a company to be carried (the law allows links to serve the same) --MASEM (t) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        Copyright Management Information is not Attribution, even if they are served by the same notices. You linked to a license that never uses the term CMI then link me to a definition of CMI that never uses the term attribution. Well played. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        Well, until we're told by the Foundation that the CC licenses can't work as free, we'll assume they are. That doesn't affect this larger issue. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        How is that even relevant? It appears you lost the argument so stated some kind of self evident non sequitur. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        My point is: how does the issue that CC licenses don't address the issue of CMI affect the need to include organizational logos on Wikiproject pages to show collaboration? The CC/CMI issue is an issue that should be addressed probably at Commons or even the meta site if there is concern CC isn't enough, but it has no immediate influence on adjusting our non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        Indeed, and that tangent would not have occurred if you hadn't weighed in with an incorrect analysis of CMI/Attribution. Now you can get back to your concern over NFC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Support To the NFCC enforcers; the cases covered by this exception are exceedingly small. You have to oppose this when it supports collaboration? Really? "Why hello nice collaborator. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to learn our obtuse rules in using the copyrighted works you're saying we can use before we can work with you". Way to treat the world there, NFCC enforcers <cough>. Do you have ANY idea how idiotic you make Wikipedia out to the world? I would also support trimming this to be more broad based. Trim to "Non-free images may be used" and I would support it as well. We already do. This project will soon have more than half a million non-free images on it. The charade of being a "free encyclopedia" needs to end. For years ad nauseum it has created an insane amount of arguments, including this very one here. The madness needs to end and acceptance of reality must happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Fails to meet any of our limited exceptions for non-free on non-article pages. Association can be described by text, period. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Masem, is your position really, "Oppose changing the policy because changing this policy would require a change to this policy"? That's what you just said: we cannot add this exception to the policy because this exception does not already exist in the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the few exceptions we do allow are for administrative issues with non-free images (eg image deletion categorization pages), and this proposed change is nowhere close to the same level of reasoning to make the exception. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Support the idea of removing the near-blanket prohibition in cases where OTRS permission exists but Oppose this proposal because it needs to be tightened up to prohibit the use of logos in situations where the use is for or might be perceived as being for "endorsement" or "branding" purposes. As a side-note, this is the very use that the proponent of this RFC is seeking. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do agree that if a organization gets ORTS for us to use their logo on their mainspace article page, that's fine. Technically we don't need that but this would be a "feel good" step - eg we don't need the AP's permission to use File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg on the article about the photo, but its good we have that. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  - @Masem: Actually, I wasn't thinking of that because, as you say, that's already mostly covered under WP:FAIRUSE. I can see your point though, OTRS would be helpful for using something like a high-resolution non-free image of copyrighted artwork on the article about the artwork. However, the more I think about it, the use cases I would support are the very use cases where OTRS would likely be unavailable: The use of copyrighted images where the original copyright owner is defunct and the image, while still copyrighted, has no practical commercial value and where the copyright owner may be hard to track down. WikiProjects which deal with defunct companies or which deal with decades-old book/music/other-creative-arts genres come to mind. If Apple Computer had bit the dust several years ago and its trademarks and branding abandoned, I would have no problem with a WikiProject using the old logos and branding-marks IF the current copyright holder of the old logos gave copyright clearance for related WikiProjects to use the logos. I would NOT support any such use if it could be reasonably considered as "advertising" or "endorsement" of any existing entity that had a copyright claim on the image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    - See, that's the problem - non-free policy is not there directly to cover the Foundation's legal side in regards to copyright issues and the Foundation. Non-free's requirements, as a side effect, would make the Foundation's position in a fair use defense very solid. Instead, the idea behind non-free is to promote free content and in essence discourage non-free content that would otherwise be fair use, and that means when there are cases that where the non-free could be a visually appealing thing but otherwise does not directly serve the educational goals. Branding logos on WProject is exactly that type of case. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
While the desire to bring about a solution to the concerns with your project is admirable, I think you missed the mark here, James. This is a global policy and a local RFC proposing change, in my opinion, is questionable at best. Note the message in the Resolution, "This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies." In all sincerity, this RFC appears to be an attempt to circumvent policy. My thoughts concur with Masem's as stated in the previous section. To paraphrase, logos = set decoration. They may "pretty up the place", but use in this regard is really a personal preference, rather than a necessary evil. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 06:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The licensing policy found here states [5] "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood. Are you proposing a change to the licensing policy or the EDP? Cindy(talk) 07:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing a change to Wikipedia:Non-free_content Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The change you are asking for requires us to change the licensing policy, which isn't going to happen. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No the licensing policy allows this sort of use. No change is required there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding too. The restriction to article-space comes from Non-free content criteria $9, which serves as the English Wikipedia's Exemption Doctrine Policy as envisaged by the Licensing Policy but is not itself the Licensing Policy nor does the Licensing Policy define the scope (except in general terms as minimal) and specifically not the location of exempted items . There's thus no need to change the licensing policy. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, it is the partners choice to free anything they want and they know the rules. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose We are not here to plaster non-free logos everywhere. Wikipedia's m:Mission is to provide free content. Usage of non-free media in non-article space violates the core principals of both the mission and WP:NFCC. We limit the usage of non-free media to where absolutely necessary. Using non-free logos for a wikiproject goes against the very core of wikipedia and wikimedia is trying to do. We can provide a link to the article on the entity that we are partnering with if people do not recognize the name. We dont need to pollute free content with non-free logos that are being used decoratively. Werieth (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So are you proposing that we stop using the Wikipedia logo? You do realize that it is none free and owned by the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is owned by the WMF, and so their sites using their logo is in compliance with this. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes but some people use the logo within other images and use it is non article space. Check out this barnstar for example. [6] If our mission was to only provide free content we would not allow this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See, I think this is an issue due to the fact some versions of the globe logo are free, some are tagged as copyright the Foundation. We need to figure out what really should be the case. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

They are all owned by the WMF. Those tagged as CC BY SA are in error. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all Doc isn't proposing to plaster non-free logos everywhere and we do all get that about our mission to provide free content. But I don't see anything about "non-free media in non-article space" in our licensing policy which does commit (with the exception of Commons) to using an Exemption Doctrine Policy (i.e including the use of non-free content) "to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". So I really don't think your grand appeal to our mission has any real applicability here. I do think davidwr has a valid point about endorsement that ought to be addressed. Otherwise I'm content to carry on ~~loving~~ supporting Doc, though of course I don't have a degree in Wikipedia Administration or anything. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:VEGAN to see the dangers of diluting the non-free policy and towards a free content mission. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Camel's nose (aka Slippery slope, Thin edge of the wedge, We let him in and he brought his donkey too etc.). The ones on Swedish camels are huge incidentally, Masem, and they gawk bucket-loads of spit if you go anywhere near them. Seriously, stay away is my advice. Coat of Many Colours (talk)

If our orders from the WMF are to minimize non-free, any attempt to wear away at that and allow non-free in cases previously not allowed is what is creating the slippery slope, that's the point of VEGAN. We've been there before, we know exactly what the average wikipedian - who probably has little idea about our non-free policy - wants to do when they see images being used in novel ways for their own articles. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all I sincerely respect what you do here, Masem. But with respect, Doc James isn't an "average" wikipedian. He's a pillar of WikiProject Medicine and I frankly doubt he harbours any insidious plan to undermine Wikipedia. If Doc were to call round his (I'm sure) numerous friends in Wikipedia, then I'm equally sure they would be out here in force to rubber-stamp his request and move on. But of course we know he can't do that and no doubt you would be quite right to say that kind of support, which doesn't really address the issues, shouldn't carry much weight. Equally this is a forum which plainly sees itself as a champion and bastion of free content (there are people posting here who oppose any non-free content whatsoever). That's not likely to be a very sympathetic forum for Doc James to bring his case, is it Masem? The least you could do is refrain from breaking out these pub bores on baked bean diets "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" arguments. Can you really not see that last remark of your was very patronising? We shouldn't personalise the issues, but that's exactly what you did with your "average". You profiled him and his motives. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There are people that have been on WP for years and never had to do anything with non-free content and make the mistakes of thinking "non-free" is the same as "fair use", and thus while they may be the expert in other areas, are appearing as novices in others. And non-free is not supposed to give an inch - our mandate from the Foundation is to minimize it, and that's a thing a lot of people do not respect until they actually learn about non-free and its limitations. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So when I tried to convince the WMF that the Wikipedia logo should be under a CC BY SA license where was everyone who supports free logos? They support free logos from other organizations but not the WMF? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not that we "support free logos" , but instead that we support using logos freely (but still under constraits to avoid outright spamming) when they are free and under very limited use when they are not. There's a difference here, and we have to recognize that some orgs will not release their logos under a free license. Why the WMF doesn't, I'm not sure outside that they may have to do it to protect WP's identity from the rest of the world that would like to profit off it. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah, as dumb as that eh Masem? But not so dumb I fancy as to confuse the English Wikipedia's Exemption Doctrine Policy with the Wikimedia Foundation's Licensing Policy~~which is pretty dumb, face it~~. Off here, Masem. I do hope Doc gets his exemption. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First, that's a personal attack. Second, I'm not confusing anthing. The Foundation's resolution does spell out that non-free is meant to be used under limited conditions and show the aim is tied for free content, and there free media can't do the same job (which include plain text). Yes, we could make an exception under our EDP/NFC but that would be very much against the intent of the Foundation's statement. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I apologise if I offended you. I was just being playfully robust, as indeed equally it happens I was being playfully satirical (imagine!) when I first remarked that I didn't really understand the issues here. I mean it's not exactly quantum gravity, is it Masem? Not even time travel for that matter. It's about an experienced Wikipedian asking for a straightforward dispensation, and your response essentially is to treat it as an existential threat to the project from someone who just doesn't understand what is really at stake; not a personal attack indeed, but nevertheless a response that doesn't strike me necessarily as in wholly good faith either ... No. It doesn't need a change in the foundation's Licensing Policy, period. You were wrong to say that, end of. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I really do not understand why this would be a good thing. If companies are really that keen to see their logo on Wikipedia project pages, they are welcome to release it under a free license. If a user or project wishes to display some kind of affiliation, they can do so with text. Also, is this really the kind of thing with which we want to be clogging up OTRS inboxes? J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose any use of non-free content, especially outside mainspace. If people want us to use their content, they should use a free licence (and so should the WMF). —Kusma (t·c) 10:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to support that the WMF release all their logos under a CC BY SA license? I have and would again. If the WMF dose so I am happy to require all others to do so too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Any content owned by WMF that is not released under a free license is an embarrassment. —Kusma (t·c) 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding, WMF Legal are going through the process of putting all their logos under a free license, slowed only by the fact they are also trying to obtain ownership of the rights of all of their logos.(some were created by volunteers, who may not be contactable - can someone from WMF correct me here or provide a better summary of the current status of this process). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The express purpose of our licensing terms is to allow downstream republishers the right to publish Wikipedia content without having to "ask permission". Any copyright holder that only allows Wikipedia to use an image violates that core principle. That's why we don't want such restrictions. Either something is expressly licensed under a valid GFDL/CC license, or we don't want it. --Jayron32 16:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How / why do we allow this than? [7] It of course is not under an open license as it contains the Wikipedia logo. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem. I have no idea where to find where the idea was made to allow it to be used as a cleanup logo to start. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I raised this question at commons [8]. If it turns out it is copyrighted, then we either need to remove them all or allow some exemption for WP logo allowances on non-article space (but that would have to be decided by separate consensus). --MASEM (t) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes currently there is not an exception for this but it is a common practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because people think, like I did until a few days ago, that the WP logo was CC-BY, particularly since it is hosted on commons. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons has confirmed these are copyrighted, though how we should handle it is up to us. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What did you mean by the "Foundation's resolution policy" in that post? What was confirmed was that how and where it is used in the English Wikipedia is a policy issue for the English Wikipedia community, suggesting does it not that the same holds for non-free logos in general regarding their location (i.e. in non-article space). Is that a fair appraisal in your judgement? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out that it was the Foundation's resolution on non-free, and the clarification needed is that they are copyright, not free, and thus should be handled as non-free per each project's EDP; there is no special mediawiki exception for their use, save for the fact Commons hosts them. And yes, this means that any Wikipedia logo or derivatives used in non-article space fails our policy. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So we have three choices 1) ignore policy 2) change policy 3) remove images that use or are based on non free images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can get the WMF to release their logos under a CC BY SA license I am sure I can convince TWB to do the same. All I am asking for is consistency as I do not wish to appear to be a hypocrite (requiring they release but not require the WMF to release.) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The WMF legal is already in the process of doing that, see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-March/070546.html Werieth (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify on "express purpose" please, Jayron. The mission statement says "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.". Regarding the public domain, there are many images uploaded on the English Wikipedia which are in the public domain in the United States and which shouldn't be republished outside. The same applies to Fair Use images of contemporary works (of art for example) expressly envisaged in the Licensing Policy when an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) has been established. Those last two classes of images may not necessarily be republishable outside the United States, which doesn't seem to me to square with your "express purpose" assertion. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A Hell of a lot more are free everywhere but the United States, which has the most restrictive copyright laws in the entire world. We've proposed a regime by which images are available everywhere else, and readers in the United States get a "Not available in the United states" images., Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia content" yes, Wikipedia content, but the back office stuff does not need to be CC-BY-SA, certainly user pages do not needto be, it is just simpler. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

If there is no need then why is it prohibited? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitterly oppose for English Wikipedia. I could support a less hardline position on non-free content if there was a central repository of non-free with clear rules and good management of them. e.g. meta:NonFreeWiki. Or, there is an argument that meta should have a non-free content Exemption Doctrine Policy because that is where we publish reports about real world projects, including partnerships with organisations which arnt comfortable with releasing their logo under CC in order to partner with Wikimedia (or they dont have the rights to release their logo under CC). IMO any collaboration with an external organisation should be based on meta - if it is only hosted on English Wikipedia, and the external organisation wants their non-free logo on it, it is likely to be a badly designed collaboration. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Aside from already mentioned WP:FAIRUSE, Trademark, etc... issues. Even if you had a representative of the company providing cover regarding endorsement issues, I think this would then create an ongoing confirmation requirement. What if that representative no longer represented the company? How do we maintain that on-going confirmation of representation and the validity of an individuals claim to be able speak on behalf of a company regarding logo use and the implied or declared endorsement? The maintenance issues alone seem overwhelming to say the least. Of course all of this is not factoring User pages for the (I would hope) obvious reasons. BcRIPster (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Have posted a note at Wikimedia-l linking to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I posted at meta:Talk:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment#Should_fair_use_policy_on_English_Wikipedia_be_modified_to_allow_copyrighted_logos_to_be_displayed_on_user_and_project_pages_to_communicate_affiliations.3F. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedural Note given the impact of this RfC it should be spammed around to AN,ANI, and the VPs. Werieth (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- AN(I)s are not the place to put RFC notices particularly when this has nothing to do with admin powers. VPP (policy) would be reasonable as well as listing at CENT. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  - However due to the high visibility of such pages leaving a note there will get a wider audience. Given the impact of such an RfC a watchlist notice or even a site notice would be justified. Werieth (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    - Again, AN(I) is not the place to advertise RFCs in general, period; that's not their purpose and would be consider true spam there. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No spam I agree with Masem that there are more considerations than getting attention. If editors want notices of policies and guidelines RfCs, they can sign up for the messaging service. Unscintillating (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Since there also seems to be a discussion of having a copyright owner involved in some aspect with the page that will feature usage of the image, are we talking "non-free" as in royalty-free images, or just simply images that are not CC/Open licensed? This seems like a sticky mess as a copyright owner's presence, even tangentally with an image's use should be irrelevant as there is no guaruantee of that owners on going presence or commitment for implied allowance. Whew, does that make sense? My attempt to understand this has me leaning to Oppose but I want to make sure I'm clear before casting my vote. Thanks! BcRIPster (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(I moved your comment down to help make responding clear) - The request is make the case of displaying a company's non-free logo on a Wikiproject page (outside of main space) to indicate that the company is participating in an affliate-like program with WP, an exception to the usual disallowance of non-free in non-mainspace per NFCC#9. --MASEM (t) 22:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you. Ok, I understand that. I think sometimes we need an ELI5 for some of these requests, lol. BcRIPster (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts on a new NFC#UUI item

This is something that has bugged me for a while. We have the UUI#14 for annual events that lack their own branding. A similar case that I have seen more and more of are cases like File:Discovery Channel International.svg where their is legitimate usage of non-free media on the primary article, but each sub-entity (In this case stations in different countries) that lack distinct branding and just use the parents identification. My thought in cases like this WP:NFCC#3 would apply to limit such usages to the primary article only. Thoughts? Werieth (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; parent company logos should not be used on child company pages simply because the child company lacks its own unique logo, as we don't use brand logos on pages about products made by that brand. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

How should we word it? Werieth (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The logo of a business entity used for identification of one of its child entities, even if the child entity lacks its own unique logo. ? --MASEM (t) 18:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good starting point but what about non-business groups? The largest abuse I can see is File:UCF Seal.svg which is used on 26 articles. Or File:SL Benfica logo.svg which is used on 14 articles. The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. is what I was thinking. I know it needs some work. Werieth (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yea, entity is a better term. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been asked to "close" this discussion, but I see no need, nor any reason for this to be closed. After a week of only two participants, I feel that there isn't enough input to form a full consensus. However, this discussion is simply about adding a clarifying point to this guideline that piggybacks off of an established consensus with a better, fuller explanation. Due to this discussion, although not well attended, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I am adding the proposed change to the guideline. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?

See boxed comment. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result:File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg may be used at History of Virginia on stamps. There is no consensus as to the general interpretation of NFCI #3.
There is a clear consensus in favour of the use of said image in said article. The only clear oppose was on the basis that the image was accompanied by "zero critical commentary", but there is no requirement for critical commentary in the guideline. Plus, just IMO, the idea that we should routinely subject postage stamps to criticism seems a little odd.
Matters are less clear on the general question of when stamps may and may not be used as images in article space. One view expressed is that so long as the stamp is mentioned in the article it is fair game. I would query this as allowing a loophole, particularly given the advent of customised stamps (PETA recently issued valid US stamps featuring their favourite vegetarian celebrities, for example). Is "In 2014, Belinda Carlisle featured on a United States stamp" enough? I think that question would need its own RfC. Another view expressed is that only articles directly about philately should be allowed to use stamps. I don't think that view is supported by the current wording of the guideline. Of course, there may be any number of intermediate views, but I don't think this RfC has settled on any one in particular, even if it might be fair to say that general opinion seems to be against very conservative interpretations of the guideline.

Formerip (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can stamp images be used “For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it.” as explained at WP:NFCI Guideline #3? For example, File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg, at History of Virginia on stamps, search on caption “Virginia ratification 1788". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey summary

Support use of USPS stamp images using the USPS licensing template, with adjacent commentary describing the stamp, its postal use and a neutral critique showing the analytical relevance to the topic, --- which is unlike the prohibited description of the subject depicted on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:16 am, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Oppose Given that their is zero critical commentary about the image beyond a basic description. Given your example this would open the door carte blanche usage despite the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC#1,3,8. We have already hashed this out and you are just forum shopping because you dislike the previous outcome. Werieth (talk) 9:23 am, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Support 100% per TheVirginiaHistorian. My worry about the folk at NFCR is that they run a cartel with attitude. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 2:32 pm, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Yes, the stamp commemorating the Virginia Constitution is placed on the section that describes this commemoration (of which the stamp is part), so it's relevant and can be used to identify it. Usage is minimal, as removing the image would no longer allow readers to identify the stamp. Diego (talk) 9:16 am, 30 April 2014, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)
Case-by-case treatment. If it's a one-liner mentioning the stamp, then probably not. But if there's a decently sized paragraph describing it, perhaps a non-free image is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 8:08 pm, 30 April 2014, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)
Support I basically agree with VirginiaHistorian. Perhaps what is needed is a statement that the postal authorities considered the historic event to be within their sphere of responsibility in finding events suitable for a stamp. They obviously made this positive decision regarding the official commemoration and it was in accord with the judgments of historians, scholars, experts, museum people and arts people. Rjensen (talk) 5:56 pm, 2 May 2014, last Friday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)
Comment As there are quite a number of questions here, more nuanced responses are probably appropriate than just "support" or "oppose". Jheald (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is why I am considering a completely different approach, a "casebook" describing certain common article types (like "topical stamp articles") and describing how such non-frees can or can't be used. The example would allow a reasonably limited number (no hard #s) of non-frees to be used on topical stamp articles with outlined which cases to be uesd, alongside the possible need to expand out NFLists; this idea is not fully with or against the RFC hence pointing to JHeald's comment above - the discussion is much more nuanced than just the RFC simple summary. --MASEM (t) 9:22 am, 8 May 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Weak support - It is nearly impossible to review the discussion without refactoring, and refactoring of talk pages is deprecated. However, it appears that the use of stamp images in a discussion of stamps is permitted. What is everyone else posting walls of text about? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:11 pm, 8 May 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Comment: I'm still pretty clueless. Is this a RfC which aims to change policy, or is this a request for assistance in understanding how policy should be applied in a particular case? J Milburn (talk) 12:35 pm, 8 May 2014, last Thursday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Support based upon the extensive argumentation Saffron Blaze (talk) 7:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Support. Post 1978 stamp images are unique as the copyright holder (USPS) openly grants permission for their application in educational use. Since no entity (like Wikipedia) is harmed and no one's commercial interests are compromised we need to stop hounding editors who want to use these stamp images in articles about stamps. The concern that this will "open the door carte blanche usage" is without practical basis as these images are no different than free content images in as much as no "cart blanche" door has ever been opened for free images. If free images aren't over used, the concern that post 1978 stamps images will be is quite misplaced. Easy math. --Gwillhickers (talk) 12:16 am, Today (UTC−4)
Support for philately articles, which History of Virginia on stamps is. Outside of philately articles, we have to be a bit more careful but as long as the rule is followed we're OK IMO, with "Here's a stamp" being sufficient commentary (as long as there's some reason for showing the stamp, e.g. to show that the person was notable enough to be on stamp). I wouldn't support this for other items. It's just that stamps are different, and the USPS being a private corporation is somewhat of a legal fiction, so we can allow somewhat more leeway with stamps. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth discussion

Cleaner, more articulate version of what TheVirginiaHistorian is attempting to say

Can Stamp images be used in topical/general articles without critical commentary, to illustrate a brief passage about the image, where the notability of that particular stamp isn't established, nor are there any visual aspects of the work being discussed, beyond a brief summary/discription of the work?

Werieth (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this RFC covers a number of issues:

Most concretely, is the specific image File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg being appropriately used on article History of Virginia on stamps ?
More generally, what is the policy framework that should be applied for other post-1978 stamps (and I believe there are others, even relating just to the history of Virginia) in this and other articles on themes in stamps ?
Is the guideline WP:NFCI #3 relevant here ? If so, what steer does it give the discussion ?
Finally, specifically on the meaning of WP:NFCI #3, which says that it can be okay just to use a stamp "for identification" (i.e. simply to show what the stamp looks like). How should this be interpreted ? If for example a person X has been featured on a stamp, and that fact is mentioned in the article, is it okay to show what the stamp looked like, if the image is being used specifically in the context of the stamp, rather than as the main identification of person X at the top of the article ?

(Note that there is now a devoted subsection to consider this particular sub-part of the overall question below. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

As there are quite a number of questions here, more nuanced responses are probably appropriate than just "support" or "oppose". Jheald (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jheald: Werieth is attempting to recast the RfC based on misrepresentation. There is critical commentary on the 200th anniversary of the event commemorated on the stamp, both from a) the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum, online Arago, and b) the scholarly Virginia history by Peter Wallenstein published by the Universtiy Press of Kansas. The stamp qualifies as notable because it was issued for the public use in the millions, and the event is significant enough to have a stand alone article at WP, Virginia Ratification Convention.

I am opposed to simply identifying a stamp as having been issued alone, based on discussions a month ago. To meet the contextual significance criterion for #8 before admitting the stamp as an illustration, there must be a) sourced description of the cultural-historical significance; --- this is what we would expect from an encyclopedia article versus a stamp gallery --- THEN optionally b) something about the postal usage (rate, printing, numbers); optionally c) something about the unique art of the stamp itself, such as the designer, etcher, or printer; optionally d) any literary controversy surrounding the stamp or its art.

There is no requirement for a literary controversy over the visual medium before using the stamp as an illustration, only WP:FREER that including the image enables the reader to "identify on object" such as a coin "front and back are normally used". In the case of USPS nfc stamps, the reader cannot identify the stamp without seeing it. To identify a specific stamp, the front would be normally used.

Shouldn't Werieth's disruption here be removed? He characterizes multiple critical commentaries as "zero" elsewhere in this discussion, he persists in a clear misrepresentation even after his misunderstanding is pointed out to him. A case of "I can't hear you." re-hashing arguments a month ago that I do not now hold. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, what do you consider critical commentary in History of Virginia on stamps about File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg? Please be specific and quote the article text. Basic descriptions and facts are not considered critical commentary. Looking at your points above, A&B are not critical commentary, C&D may be critical commentary depending on how its done. I asked you to clarify the RfC because the way you phrased it was poor. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

* WT:WikiProject Philately has been notified of this discussion. Jheald (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for canvassing. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, (1) it wasn't me that made the first post at WT:WikiProject Philately to signpost this discussion; and (2) it's not unreasonable to draw users' attention to policy discussions that specifically relate to them. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth:, @Jheald: Contextual significance comes from viewing the larger cultural-historic milieu apart from the explicit significance which comes from the specific event. The explicit significance of a Ratification Convention is the approval (Virginia) or rejection (Rhode Island).

The contextual significance of a Ratification Convention is the meaning of the resolution (pro or con) to the debate in other states, or to the geographic continuity of the proposed Union, or to the subsequent adoption of the Bill of Rights.

As referenced, linked and quoted to you before, "Virginia was substantially the largest of the thirteen states, with territory cutting west through to the Mississippi River. Without approval of Virginia and New York which likewise cut the other state territories in two, the agreement of the others would have had little effect.[27] Virginia was home to leaders supporting the Constitution such as George Washington and James Madison, and those opposing such as Patrick Henry and George Mason. Only after a promise for a Bill of Rights did Virginia narrowly ratify.[28]”

Any one of the three, sourced from the Smithsonian Institute’s National Postal Museum, Arago online, or from the University Press of Kansas’ “Cradle of America: four centuries of Virginia history” by Wallenstein, a book, would qualify for contextual significance to meet WP:NFCC #8 Contextual significance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked for critical commentary about the stamp, not the event that it commemorated. This is a case of WP:NFC#UUI#3,9. Without critical commentary of the image on the stamp there is no need to display the stamp. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You misconstrue your references. This is not an article on the building, the stamp image is not an illustration of the building for the article.

Number 3. "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses.” --- The concrete design pictures the colonial Capitol building as a rose? but the stamp is NOT used to illustrate an article on buildings. The explicit context of the stamp itself is related as the Virginia Ratification Convention, conveying notability to the 200th anniversary commemoration.

Number 9. "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person” photographed. — The concrete design pictures the colonial Capitol building as a person photographed? but the stamp is NOT used to illustrate the colonial Capitol building. The contextual context of the stamp itself is related as the geographical import, political influence to other ratifying conventions, and impact on the subsequent passage of the Bill of Rights.

Your citations do not support your point, they are a straw man unrelated to the subject at hand. There is no article here on the building alone as a rose in #3, there is no attempt to illustrate the building alone in the article as a photographic portrait in #9. The article gives both explicit and contextual context to the design image for the stamp itself, a commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Virginia Ratification Convention. WP:NFCC #8 is met. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually its using a non-free image to illustrate a passage about an event that was commemorated. There are details and sources for the historical event, but not about the stamp itself. Nothing in the text creates justification for including a non-free file. It boils down to using an image to illustrate a historical event. Werieth (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Werieth, VaHistorian, you're both being silly here.

@VaHistorian: In the context of the subject of the article, the stamp is not adding to reader understanding by illustrating the historical event (or any text about it), it's adding to reader understanding by being an important example of a stamp, which you need to establish is relevant to give an appropriately full and rounded presentation and information about the subject. The fact that you have sources underlining the importance of the historical event is fine, but it is the relevance of the stamp that you are trying to establish here.

@Werieth: This isn't an article about the history of Virginia (not really). We have those elsewhere. It's an article about stamps. UUI #3 and #9 aren't relevant here, because the image couldn't be replaced by a generic non-stamp image of the event and still perform the same function. Secondly the test not whether the image adds to understanding of the text, it's whether the image adds to understanding of the topic. The latter can be true whether or not there is text about the image, cf Jimbo's response when he was asked about the pound coins, as well as several of the uncontroversial classes at WP:NFCI. Jheald (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is an spin out article from History of Virginia, to show how the history has been commemorated on stamps. History of Virginia on stamps is not a notable topic but works fine as a standalone spinoff of the main history article (if the History article was short enough, the the stamps part would likely be part of the main article, but that's not the case here). And as such, we have several free examples of showing how stamps have been used to commemorate the history. If the only way that this aspect could be shown was via non-free, I would have less a problem with its use, but you had a couple dozen free images that clearly show the same principles. And again, Jimbo's reply on coins specifically noting something in active circulation doesn't apply here, otherwise that immediately allows for every single stamp ever published in the world to be included, and that's clearly not the intent of how this policy was developed. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Insert Belated comment: @Masem and TheVirginiaHistorian: The History of Virginia on stamps is far more notable as a topic than any article for a video game that will be obsolete and forgotten about in a few years, (unlike U.S. postage stamps which honor famous people and historical events and are sought after and collected by millions of collectors, even 100+ years after a stamp is issued) so it would seem your opinion here, once again, is far less than objective and is only asserted because editors disagree with you. Easy to ascertain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

So attack the type of articles I work in because you don't like it. That's not helpful. We might as well delete anything pre-1950s since all those people and places and events are long-forgotten too, based on that logic.
We've long established that we can include a much broader spectrum of topics than a normal encyclopedia as long as they are notable and meet all other content policies, so there's room for both topical stamp articles and video games. They all just need to meet the goals of the Foundation's free content mission, and the exceptional allowance for non-free, period. It doesn't matter what the topic is. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong once again. People that lived before the 1950's and covered here at WP e.g.Napoleon, Washington, John Wilkes Booth, Babe Ruth, etc, will live in infamy, and collectables, e.g.paintings, stamps, coins, are sought after and discussed 100+ years after they are created. As such WP articles for these subjects are almost always warranted. We can keep the video game articles, unfortunately, but your reference to the stamp article as less than notable was sort of ridiculous, not to mention hypocritical given your subject preference here at WP. Again, you need to look down the road a bit before you take off in your rocket car in these discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Active" circulation wasn't something Jimbo made a big deal of. The point is that non-free can sometimes be used to give an appropriately rounded and full presentation of a topic, even without comment on the individual items, if doing so adds appropriately to reader understanding of the topic as a whole.

As for what the "topic" of this article is, that's discussed in detail elsewhere on this page. But honestly, this article isn't about history, it's about stamps. If it extends anything, it's an article that adds one more to our articles on Stamps of the United States. Jheald (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, the way TVH has broken down this article is the history stand point first, the fact there were stamps, second. Also, I would not be surprised that the topic "Commemorative stamps of the history of Colonial US" (as a whole) could be GNG-notable topic (as it clearly was a popular theme in the mid-late 20th Century with various 200th anniversaries coming around), and breaking out how the individual histories of each states were represented on stamps also makes sense, even if those aren't notable - this example is a crossover article of both topics. This article is not going anywhere soon, but what purpose it is serving does play to the importance of the images we add in additional to numerous other factors. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem and Jheald: Werieth seems to have taken a phrase from WP:NFLISTS #2 and miscast it without policy backup. "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements." - note: emphasis added. Now we have editors coming to the RfC wondering why it is here since there is no anticipated change of policy, only a confirmation of existing policy as it applies to the specific image File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg being appropriately used on article History of Virginia on stamps. The answer is that Werieth moved the RfC from "Media copyright questions", "A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions."

In the case at hand, there is not a simple identification of the colonial Capitol building depicted in the stamp. The contextual significance of the image is discussed in detail relative to the context of the article body, History of Virginia on stamps. The stamp itself is named for an event the Virginia Ratification Convention, the stamp itself is issued on the anniversary of the event by the USPS which said it knew what it was doing, the historical discussion places the commemorative stamp itself in the "contextual significance" of NFCC#8--for the context of the article, History of Virginia on stamps, --- though not with a literary critique or artistic commentary which is suggested as preferable to simple description of the stamp design at WP:NFLISTS#2. In any event, historical analysis is not simple description of the image depicted on the stamp.

Only "contextual significance" is REQUIRED by NFCC #8, critical commentary is only suggested as possible alternative narrative at WP:NFLISTS as "preferable" to simply providing a visual identification of the stamp's design. Though that discussion of the architectural style is now added to meet artistic expectations concerning the notable architecture of the colonial Capitol building found in the stamp's design. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not to say whether using the stamp is in that list is right or wrong, but for purposes of understanding of what we normally are looking for, there is zero text in the Virginia stamp history article that discusses the image of the stamp in any fashion. You've got alot around the event about ratification, and a few lines about the stamp being issued, but nothing that expressly points to the image of the stamp itself. But again, this is not saying this means the stamp can or cannot be used, but be aware that we place a lot of emphasis on when images themselves are critically discussed, not the events that tie into the image. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The stamp image is of a generic nature, with horse drawn buggy and trees and a building in the background. The article/section covers the events that prompted the issuance of this commemorative stamp, and the stamp itself is of course mentioned thusly. Must we refer to the horses pulling a carriage, etc?? i.e.How does one tie in ratification with a couple of horses and a brick building? This really shouldn't be an issue and it seems some discretion and practicality is lacking in the judgement for the presentation of this stamp. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that if there was clear-cut sourced critical commentary on this stamp, the image would pass NFCC#8 with flying colors - there is clear, unquestionable contextual significance there. This would have to be more than just stating what is on the stamp (the horse buggy + building comment you make, or basically what is akin to ALT text for images), but going into what secondary sources talk about the image on the stamp, say "the artist's recreation of the historical capital building was praised by historians". However, importantly per this discussion, having this critical commentary is not the only means or method to qualify the stamp image as allowable NFC. I'm willing to agree that in topical stamp articles a reasonable limited/minimal (>0) number of non-free stamps, best exemplifying the topic, can be used even if the stamps themself is not discussed critically. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Jheald: There is critical commentary without having to mention the horse and buggy, the house and trees in the image. The critical commentary, again, an often subjective and opinionated idea, is inherent in the narrative -- and it might do some editors well not to cling to 'the' letter of policy and realize that there is no 'one-size-suits-all' approach for the many different images out there. Discretion. Is that possible? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First: for purposes of NFC and NFCC#8, what I said about critical commentary is our definition. It has to be about the image, not the concepts around it; yes, there may be much to say about the 200th anniversary of Virginia's statehood, but there's nothing being said about the visuals of the stamps. This idea is captured by the unallowable uses listed WP:NFC#UUI #5 and #8.

Second, and importantly: I just said in my reply that I am no longer considering critical commentary (as defined above) as the only way a stamp image can be used in a topical article (among some other cases). It is the preferred way, since meeting NFCC#8 is clearly met. But in a topical stamp article where non-free stamp image would be needed, a reasonably minimal (non-zero) number of such images can be used even if there is no critical commentary about the stamp image itself. The minimal number picked should be exemplary of the topic (the bicentennial would be a prime example) but no critical commentary on the stamp would be needed. You can't illustrate every possible non-free stamp this way, but, at TVH is suggesting, five additional non-free images on his Virginia history article seems like a fair number. This is why I want to write this up as a case book to example how, for certain common article types like topical stamp articles, how NFC can or cannot be used, to align with a reasonable minimal allowance described here. --MASEM (t) 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

First, @Masem: thank you for thinking this through for topical philately articles. I am trying to respond to the discussion, so the text now includes, "The dedication ceremony was held at the Capitol building featured on the stamp with a horse and carriage in the foreground. The distinctive barbell shaped building shown in the stamp had allotted the mirror image footprint for the royal governor's council proceedings versus the colonial Virginia legislature."

Second, @Gwillhickers: thank you for acknowledging historical analysis as a kind of critical commentary which meets NFCC#8 "contextual significance" of the article topic History of Virginia on stamps. The stamp itself is named for the event in Virginia history, the stamp itself is issued on the anniversary of the event, the stamp design shows the place where the modern ceremonies took place. The purpose of the image is to identify the stamp itself, not the image depicted.

Third, at NFC#UUI #5, relates to an image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. This specific image of a stamp "Virginia ratification" is directly related to an article on Virginia history on stamps. NFC#UUI #8, relates to a baseball card used to illustrate the subject of the article. But it is appropriate to use the image to illustrate a passage on the card itself. In this case, there is a passage on Virginia's ratification convention, so the stamp may be used to illustrate a passage on the stamp commemorating the event itself. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the section for the Virginia stamps clearly says "The dedication ceremony was held at the Capitol building featured on the stamp with a horse and carriage in the foreground." the stamps itself has been referred to while the stamp's purpose, per commemoration, is also covered -- yet we're still having issues by those who manage to see red any time their opinion is questioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You now just showed you didn't read anything I have recently said, because as you didn't notice, I've changed my stance here. It is still the case that there is no critical commentary on the image of the stamp (we have a free picture of the building that we could use instead to say that the ceremony took place there); but as I've made clear, there's a reasonable allowance to include a few examples in such articles even where there is no critical commentary on the stamp, as long as they are well-chosen and (non-zero) minimal. We'd strongly prefer such examples to have critical commentary to clear NFCC#8 without doubt, but there's room for examples without it as long as the selection is well chosen. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am grateful for the exemption in the consensus that is building, and I would like to continue to explore it. But NFCC#8 does not say, “critical commentary”, it is WP:NFLISTS#2 that says, "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements." The implication is that literary or artistic critique or controversy is not a requirement as long as there is alternative encyclopedic narrative which "does more than simply provide visual identification of the elements".

NFCC#8 requires “contextual significance” in light of the article topic. Narrative such as historical treatment requires historical significance relative to the topic, e.g. History of Virginia on stamps. If the topic is not literary, there need not be literary critique. If the media is visual as it is with stamps, it requires a visual image to explain it to readers. For the Virginia ratification stamp, the commemorative stamp is directly connected to Virginia history by reliable scholarly sources, by the name of the stamp itself and by the 200th anniversary date of issue for the stamp itself. The image is used to illustrate the stamp itself as a commemorative of an event in Virginia history; it is NOT used for the prohibited purpose of illustrating critique or controversy related to the artwork depicted on the stamp. @Masem: Correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"If the media is visual as it is with stamps, it requires a visual image to explain it to readers" is not how we use this; we have a stricter requirement than just talking about the visual work; we do not simply allow non-free to be used to illustrate that something exists. At the most pedantic evaluation, there is absolute zero need to see the stamp to understand that there was a stamp put out to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Virginia's statehood. It would be nice to have but it is far from required at all. Now, what this discussion has gone and what I would agree with is that we are never really that pedantic; instead, we should be reasonably flexible for works in visual mediums that a few non-free samples to help balance out an article like the topical stamp ones can be allowed; that is , the contextual significance is that an article about a visual medium w/o the presence of visual samples is not very useful.

Now what you are talking about is where the selection of samples is important. The 200th anniversary is an important landmark so that stamp is fair example, and that's how you should chose your limited examples. Their importance is part of the contextual significance, but that's a side aspect after recognizing a visual medium needs visual examples to be show. I will caution that paragraphs like "Virginia was substantially the largest of the thirteen states..." is effectively repeating the information from the main History of Virginia article, and you shouldn't need that much detail on the history as it is detracting from the stamps, though that does not change that using the stamp image for that part is fair. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus: in his Support, seemed to follow a thread of Masem reasoning, "Support for philately articles, which History of Virginia on stamps is. ... I wouldn't support this for other items. It's just that stamps are different, and the USPS being a private corporation is somewhat of a legal fiction, so we can allow somewhat more leeway with stamps.” That also suggests agreement with some of @Gwillhickers: viewpoint.

But he also seemed more permissive than I would want to be. "Outside of philately articles, we have to be a bit more careful but as long as the rule is followed we're OK IMO, with "Here's a stamp" being sufficient commentary (as long as there's some reason for showing the stamp, e.g. to show that the person was notable enough to be on stamp).” — which Werieth cautions us against; the rule for any free illustration is that it must be related to adjacent text, and that rule should also apply to non-free content images.

Even for stamps, I would like to see explanatory narrative. I would rather hold out for a scholarly reliable source to substantiate the notability as a personage or an event, relative to the topic. If the topic is Virginia history on stamps such as Virginia ratification example, that allows historical analysis to suffice, if the topic is popular icons on stamps such as Bart Simpson, that allows literary criticism to suffice. But in any event, some encyclopedic entry should be made, not simply asserting a stamp was issued. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable. I don't agree. The passage at NFCI says "For identification of the stamp". And I personally agree with that passage. Because stamps are different. In the article Pinckney Pruddle we wouldn't have "Hey, here's a poem by Pinckney Pruddle with no critical commentary; enjoy!" and ditto for a painting or building or whatever. But IMO it would be OK to have "Pruddle was so notable they even made a stamp with him on it. Here's a picture of it". Stamps are different because:

As a point of actual fact the USPS is effectively an arm of the United States Government. It's funded and micromanaged by that government to a level that other companies, even those that receive large government subsidies, are not. The United States Congress tells the USPS what hours it must operate, what substations it can and cannot close, what the names of those substations must be, and much else, as well as covering their expenses. And so their products are in fact works of the United States Government. I get that there's a legal fiction that it's a independent corporation, and so technically our use of images of their products comes under fair use and not public domain, but we are justified in stretching that as far as we can go without actually getting sued by the USPS I think.
And the USPS specifically has an educational mission, one of them being to get as many people as possible to look at pictures of their products.
And it's traditional that pictures of stamps belong to the world. Traditions of the people have some standing if well established and widely followed IMO. Government laws have standing too, even if they're silly laws. But governments that truly don't wish people to look at pictures of their stamps and feel very strongly about that have the option of not using stamps and using some other method of ensuring that payment for services has been made or pursuing other avenues to prevent this. The United States Government hasn't done that, so what can they reasonably expect? Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Two points: first: "But IMO it would be OK to have "Pruddle was so notable they even made a stamp with him on it. Here's a picture of it" In the development of NFC and NFCC, it was the case argued against such inclusion (on the hypothetical Pruddle article) to simple show a stamp that just said this without additional discussion, working on the assumption that we had imagery of Pruddle already. There had to be more to be said about it than just having appeared on the stamp. The type of language TVH is adding is in that direction. But to say in one sentence there was a stamp commemorating that person or place or event without anything else would not be sufficient justification to show the non-free stamp. Second: It does not matter how educational that the post-'83 USPS wants their stamp images to be - the USPS has chosen a non-free license for their images and thus we have to treat them as any other non-free image on WP under the Foundation's resolution for non-free, specifically because our interest is more what we want downstream reusers to be able to do, not what the upstream copyright holders wished we would do. That's the limit that we work under which is far stricter than fair use law (which, in this case, would probably allow us to use any and all USPS stamp images as part of our educational, non-commercial goal) because we are trying to guide people towards using free content and avoiding non-free unless otherwise necessary to be educational. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah those are fair points, especially the latter. I see what you're saying. We don't want to pollute the downstream use, so fair use should be kept to the minimum possible and still have an OK article. As to the first point, I guess the problem is not with with the interpretation of the passage so much as the existence of the passage at all. Possibly it should be more along the lines of "Non-free images of stamps should not be shown unless there's critical commentary on the stamp, such as discussion where the stamp fits in the general development of stamp graphics or stamp printing technology, that sort of thing". It doesn't say that though. It says "identification", a phrase also used for non-free company logos at the top of an article which to be honest are essentially decorative. To my mind that's permission to write in an article "Stamp such-and-such was issued because [sufficient reason to mention this, possibly because of the subject of the stamp and not necessarily details of the stamp itself], and here's a fair-use image of the stamp to more or less decorate this statement". But you're right, fair use does not usually include decorative use. It looks like the "identification" passage is permitting an exception to normal fair use restrictions (as we do for a few other things -- including a non-free company logo when there's no critical discussion of the logo itself, ditto a photo of a dead person. If the intent was not to do this why does the passage exist. Should it? Or should it say the opposite, specifically warning against doing this sort of thing? Herostratus (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that NFCI (where that "coins and stamps: for identification" language is from) is from a guideline, and its lead paragraphs for that section still note that NFCC policy must be met. Unlike cover art - which is nearly universally restricted to lead/infobox use, there is clearly more plcaes where coin and stamp images can be used outside that space. We still need to respect minimizing usage so, in this present example, it would be improper to illustrate every single stamp that requires non-free with non-free. A few examples would be reasonable. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support use of USPS stamp images using the USPS licensing template, with adjacent commentary describing the stamp, its postal use and a neutral critique showing the analytical relevance to the topic, --- which is unlike the prohibited description of the subject depicted on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Given that their is zero critical commentary about the image beyond a basic description. Given your example this would open the door carte blanche usage despite the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC#1,3,8. We have already hashed this out and you are just forum shopping because you dislike the previous outcome. Werieth (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PS NFCI#3 refers to the usage of a stamp on the article about the stamp (similar case to book covers and album cover art.) Not the general topical articles. Werieth (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your opposition comment indicates that you have not read the passage with both Arago and Wallenstein commentary. They refer to the Ratification Convention, they are not describing the colonial Capitol building pictured. You are blindly repeating specious argument from a previous discussion weeks ago. You are misreading NFCI#3. Keep your discussion in the Threaded discussion section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont move my comments. If you are referring to the text Capitol building featured on the stamp Thats not critical commentary its a description. Werieth (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You continue to deny the existence of all three together: the concrete description (Capitol building), explicit significance (ratification passed), and contextual significance (geographic, inter-state debates, subsequent Bill of Rights). You are simply knocking down straw men to no constructive purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Support 100% per TheVirginiaHistorian. My worry about the folk at NFCR is that they run a cartel with attitude. Just about everything I wanted to do with contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary visual arts I can't, or at least am no longer prepared to essay given the hassle with the NFCR mission guardians, steam lords of the Wikimedia Foundation yeah right. Ultimately our only recourse is to vote with our feet. I'm not contributing any more, or at any rate as I did substantially at say Little Girl in a Blue Armchair, until these folk have been sorted (good) and it's once more worth the trouble of my time contributing.

There are US stamp issues I would like to write article starts for, the Modern Art in America 1913–1931 issue or the Abstract Expressionism issue for example, but that's not going to happen until I can feel confident about uploading fair use images of each of these stamps, as expressly allowed by USPS for educational and cataloguing purposes, without having to go to court about it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What the USPS wants/allows has zero impact on NFC as long as limits full, unrestricted downstream use. Period.--MASEM (t) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I do get that's your view. The attitude that goes with the "period" bit is that you and your fellows (your royal "we", the cartel) are tasked by the Wikimedia Foundation to protect its mission. I don't believe you are and I'm not playing ball. My guess is that you will respond, repeating yourself. Frankly don't bother, Masem. End of. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my point of view, it is the Foundations The Resolution is clear that whatever is not free as defined by [9] is non-free. The USPS license does not meet that definition of free, so we treat is as non-free. There's zero interpretation in that. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

And the Foundation has promulgated a USPS licensing template which allows their use under the policy guideline WP:NFCI #3 Stamps, which is consistent with WP:NFCC. Which should not be interpreted in an idiosyncratic way to take away the plain meaning. A stamp under the USPS license with contextual significance related in adjacent text can be used in a topical philately article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:, once again you misrepresent matters. "...zero impact on NFC"?? -- NFCC #2 expressly shows concern for commercial usage. Since the USPS openly grants permission for educational use #2 is easily satisfied. You are clearly arguing with the editor, not the issue. Once again, you're continual misrepresentation of policy is habitual and, just so you know, is now a matter of record. I would strongly advise that you chose your words more honestly and carefully or you're going to earn yourself a topic ban. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter. For our purposes, NFCC#2 means that the use of a stamp image is equivalent to, say, a screenshot from a movie, the cover of a book, or a photo of a work of 2D art - the single individual image of these have no significant commercial value to the copyright owner, and hence they all satisfy #2 equally. On the other hand, if we are talking a photo from a press agency, which sells those images for profit, then that's where NFCC#2 matters, and why we don't allow such photos to be used even at reduced size unless the photos are specifically the topic of their own articles. This is how NFCC#2 has been used forever - we don't consider the license behind the copyright but what they are actually doing with the works. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Weak support - It is nearly impossible to review the discussion without refactoring, and refactoring of talk pages is deprecated. However, it appears that the use of stamp images in a discussion of stamps is permitted. What is everyone else posting walls of text about? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Support per Users TVH, COMC and McClenon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the walls of text

We need to make an effort to make the point with a couple of sentences or a short paragraph, as the walls of text clearly discourages outside participation, esp for those who come to the debate a little later. Everyone makes a lengthy comment from time to time, but with some it is clearly a habit. Just for the record, when I come across a response that is nearly a page long I almost always don't read past the first few sentences. Don't think for a minute that most editors are clinging to every word in such long winded diatribe. This sort of participation is clearly becoming disruptive. Just look at the length of the rant directly below. Ridiculous! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's too long, but NFC is not a simple concept that can be waived off with a simple paragraph. It conflates the issues of international copyright law, the individual copyright laws of 200+ countries, the notion of free content, the Foundation's goals, and the history of how non-free content has been used on WP for years. People that do not spend the time to understand the basics before uploading non-free content hurt the project as often people have to go back and clean up bad rationals, copyright violations, and freely-replaceable images when they exist. So yes, we need discussion a which over a fundamental aspect of NFC is going to be long. No issue with NFC should be a simple discussion. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, the disputed points we're discussing can be expressed with out all the verbage, the likes of which are even longer than the policy itself. Please don't try to confuse policy and copyright issues with all the opinion and misrepresentations you've redundantly dumped into these discussions. NFC is a simple topic for anyone with average intelligence while you've intentionally clouded these issues to prevent them from being so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. I'm speak as someone deeply involved with NFC for years, I'm pretty sure I know what's going on, and while I have a stricter approach to what qualifies meeting certain NFCC#8, everything else I say about it is fact and/or a fair representation of current practice of NFC. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrative break - 1

@Masem:. The template WP license protects WP, not self-censorship. Unreasonable restriction which is unrelated to actual stated policy is at the core of the dispute.

By the WP license template, use of the image is permitted "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) --- on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profitWikimedia Foundation, — due to the educational purpose at WP, the image use ... "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

then the warning, --- "Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.” --- The "other use" which may be copyright infringement on WP is explicitly a stamp illustration for "things appearing in the stamp's design”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The only consideration of the copyright holders' intention in evaluating nonfree use is via NFCC#2, commercial opportunities. And the USPS statement on use at least assures that #2 is met for stamps. But there's 9 other NFCC points otherwise completely unrelated to the for-academic license. This is black or white on how NFCC is written, there's no intrepretion possible here. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No interpretation stands without a policy to back it up. We are absent any policy to self-censor licensed USPS stamp images that are used to illustrate the stamp itself, not the image on the stamp, because there is no other possible interpretation in how WP:NFCC is written than to allow it.

In this case, #1, there is no free alternative, #2, there is no lost revenue to USPS, #3, no multiple image of same content in the article, #4, previous publication on the stamp issue date, #5, content meets WP standards, #6, meets image use policy for stamps, #7, used in at least one article, implying more than one are permitted, #8, contextual significance of Virginia ratification convention with its own WP article, #9, allowed only in an article, and #10 image description page includes source, copyright tag, and name of each article, implying more than one permitted. All ten are met for the File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg at History of Virginia on stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For #1 and #3, no image is a free alternative if there is no demonstration of the impact on educational quality if the image is removed (eg NFCC#8). Since we have text that affirms that the stamp exists and was commemorated to relate to an historical event, we're not losing any educational quality on that. There is nothing in the text that describes the image of the stamp itself that requires seeing the stamp to otherwise understand the existance of the stamp in context, so #1 and #8 fail, and since we minimize non-free we remove it. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"nothing in the text that describes the image of the stamp itself" isn't, and never has been, the test. The image itself adds to the rounded understanding readers get of the topic of the article: what stamps have been issued with Virginia history as their theme, including what did those stamps look like. Jheald (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

99% of the time, yes it is, this is no different. And you are ignoring NFCC#8 part 2 - the image can be removed and no harm is done to the reader's understanding of the topic, that Virginia's history has been commemorated on US stamps. That's clearly a failure here without any additional critical commentary. This is why critical commentary on an image is the most objective and clear way to pass NFCC#8 - if others have talked about the image on the stamp specifically, then it makes sense for us to show it . But if no one has talks about the image directly, then we shouldn't be including that either. This is a clear bright line for a case like this especially when there's dozens of other free stamp images that demonstrate the topic already. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The point of the article is not to present just that Virginia's history has been commemorated on US stamps, but how Virginia's history has been commemorated on US stamps. Understanding of which this image specifically adds to, over and above what any of the other images adds: an additional understanding which would not be conveyed without it.

I can't help but be reminded of the pound coin discussion, which found that there was encyclopedic value in comprehensively presenting what British pound coins looked like, just for what they looked like. Something Jimbo himself agreed with. You tried to make the same false argument then, that we couldn't show an image unless it was necessary to understand the text, or unless it was specifically called out by secondary sources, and the argument didn't run then either. Jheald (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no "how" being answered here, that's already explained by the fact "Virginia's history has been commemorated on stamps by the US gov't". This is why this is a list article - it's listing out specific "what"s that have been commemorated. I will point out that the coin issue was closed "no consensus" and with strong recommendation to find sourcing for the other issues of the pound, and reading Wales' statement does not infer that specific usage was okay - he made it clear that a coin in circulation should be imaged non-free or otherwise, but didn't comment on the mass images. And given that this stamp is no longer in circulation, that same argument that applies to the pound coins doesn't fly.

NFCC#8 has a very simple question - does the removal of the image harm the average reader's understand of the article topic. That answer, as the article's prose currently given, is unquestionably "no". For a stamp collector, sure, but we're not a collection catalog/guide. A link to the Postal Museum page is sufficient if someone needs to see the image. This is a flat out case that if we override NFC we are letting in a huge class of images that have been routined deleted before - not just stamps or currency, but anywhere the first part of NFCC#8 can be answered "yes", and the second part "no". This has been a non-edge case for years - if the image had been included, it would have been flagged for FFD and likely deleted with little fanfare. So this is a massive massive change in practice that is impossible to work with our goal of minimizing non-free content. So unless you can answer from the average reader's POV how there harm of the topic "Virgina's history being commemorated on stamps" given everything else, including the couple-dozen some other images, by removing the non-free stamp image, then this is an open and shut case. Note: A counter-case would be if we could have an article "The Simpsons on postage stamps" where there would no way a free image could be used for that (due to both the recentness (post 1983) and the copyrighted nature of the work). In such a case a representative non-free single stamp or sheet would be fine, even if there was no critical discussion of the stamp, as this would be the case of showing a single example to help illustrate, and no free equivalent exists. This is not the case in the Virginia article where the couple dozen other free stamps exist already. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't for WP:AGF, I'd assume you were just being deliberately obtuse now.

If there's an article called History of Virginia on stamps, then the question how that history has been commemorated should be expected to be covered with rather more of an answer than just the bald statement "by issuing some stamps". Specifically, the reader should expect to find out what those stamps have looked like -- since that is the most characteristic distinguishing feature of a stamp.

And then once again there's your bizarre theory that we somehow need to judge whether omitting the image would somehow harm the understanding of the article that the reader would have had, if the image hadn't been there -- rather than the obvious interpretation of the second half of NFCC #8 that one needs to consider the understanding the reader would have if the image is there, and consider how that would be harmed (or not) by omitting the image or trying to convey the information in some different way. You've tried your strange reinterpretation any number of times now, and I don't know of a single person who's ever found it convincing, or even logically coherent. Time to give it a break.

Then your strange view once more that, so long as there's some website we can link to, there's no need for coverage here; and/or that we shouldn't even try to cover specialist topics comprehensively -- despite the very first point of WP:5 that WP is an encyclopedia that "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs and gazeteers." (emphasis added). Your miserable ambition-sapping notion of just handing things off to other websites goes diametrically against the fundamental credo of why we're here: because we're different to other websites. We're the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We're the encyclopedia that anyone can extend or correct or re-write. We're the encyclopedia whose content anyone can reuse. They are not. And that is why our m:vision is to describe as much of the world as we can find volunteers to write and sources to verify. Which includes really rather good new fully encyclopedic articles on philately by theme, which (like everything else) we should try to make as rounded and comprehensive as we can.

But let's return to NFCC #1, in particular the second half of that clause "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." From your post above one might conclude that the only purpose you see in any of these images is simply to colour some pixels, so any old images would do. But the purpose of illustration in an article like this is not just to gratuitously colour some pixels, it is to inform the reader by showing them a representative survey of what the objects being discussed in the article actually looked like. (Or even a comprehensive survey, if the number of objects is limited, and the copyright taking plainly very slight). That includes being representative as to date - not just pre-1978, and to design - not just very very traditional stamp portraiture. Simply showing only the oldest images does not fulfil the same encyclopedic purpose, because it does not convey the same understanding.

Finally, you might want to re-read the close in the pound coin discussion: "There is a consensus to keep the images in the article, citing that the removal would be detrimental to the article." Yes, if possible, discussions of why the particular designs were chosen would be nice, and certainly an area where expansion should be encouraged, but it was not found to be a pre-requisite. The discussion was not closed "no consensus", it was closed "keep". You made the same arguments you made here, and they were rejected, both by Jimbo and by the closing admin. Jheald (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit. These are all arguments weakening our strong enforcement of NFC to minimize non-free as persuant to the free content mission.

Point 1 about the nature of the article. First, content that fits "X on stamps" would be something I would include in a topic's legacy section; if there's SIZE issues it would be properly spun on into a list article as all these topical ones are (eg I am not questioning the validity of these list articles in the broad sense). But all we're doing is saying "here's a number of stamps that show how X was commemorated on stamps", and there is zero exception for the average reader to actually see any stamps. And since we are not a stamp catalog or collector guide, we do not need to show the image of every stamp (even if free). A few examples help, and if we have a number of free ones, a link to a Commons catagory is proper. So no, there is no requirement that "X on stamps" need to show every possible or even a majority of stamps.

Point 2 on NFCC#8 - I can tell you that it would be impossible to argue that any image fails NFCC#8 based on the test was "the removal of an existing image", because that is duplicating the first test (the article is improved by the addition) which is nearly impossible to disprove. The key word in NFCC#8 is omission - meaning "not included from the start". That word makes the second part a very different and important test that is how we have otherwise treated non-free for FFD in forever. (since NFC started at least). If the word was "removed" I would agree with that test, but it is "omission". And that's why the need for critical commentary about the image 99% of the time - the image may help beautify the text and be "oh, I see" but if it can be omitted and the reader still clear that Virgina's history was commemorated on stamps, NFCC#8 is outright failed.

Point 3 on pointing to other sources. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary summary work, We make no attempt to include all details on the subject but instead summarize in a very broad sense what the topic is about and backup with sources and links for the reader to learn more. And we are not a stamp catalog, so that also infers a limit for how much should be covered. Granted, these topical articles are something I don't see any equivalents of, and I think it's reasonable to describe the various ways that X has been commemorated, but in line with staying a summary work, these should brief to the average, non-stamp collector reader, linking to the appropriate sources that have better descriptions than we could ever do. So linking to external images when the image fails NFCC#8 is completely fair. And remember: "We're the encyclopedia whose content anyone can reuse." We can't be that if we include excess non-free - non-free limits reuse.

Point 4 - I admit I thought it was closed no consensus, but the point here is as made by Jimbo, pictures of coins in circulation seem reasonable to have since a large number of people will see them every day. This here is not the case, we are talking stamps well out of circulation. Far different scenario - a historical relic seen by few compared to something touched by millions a day.

Overall, every point people making in here are chopping (not chipping) away at the pillars of NFC and the Foundation Resolution on keep this a free mission. WP:VEGAN once again applies - people want small uses here, small uses there, and we'll find out the next day that the floodgates are burst open. We have to be vigilant about letting NFC be weakened (that is, increasing what allowance it has) without extremely good, encyclopedia reason. This is a very case that (under the present status of the article w/o critical commentary on the image) undermines the treatment of NFC. I'm a very reasonable person and I helped TVH to justify some stamp images on other articles, but this is a point where I am putting my foot down that we cannot let this type of use be allowed. If we do, we might as well thumb our noses at the Foundation and moon them, saying we no longer care about their damned resolution and just allow unfettered use of media under fair use. People need to understand how critical this specific case is. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you make a number of points above, most of which I believe are fundamentally misconceived, so please forgive me if I have to take several bites to get through them all. I will try to respond to them all in time.

(BTW, these exchanges are getting rather long and detailed for a part of an RfC that is really supposed to be for summary position statements. If anyone wants to re-factor this discussion to a different part of the RfC in a sensible way, they have my blessing.)

I think the most interesting issue you raise, and one which I think is well worth exploring by the community to see what we think, is this: what should we consider the "article topic" fundamentally is here, for the purpose of NFCC #8 ?

Do we think that "History of Virginia on stamps" should be considered a fully first-rank encyclopedic topic, worthy of encyclopedic consideration in its own right? Or do we consider it as some kind of second-rank topic, merely an adjunct or a spin-out of "History of Virginia", not worth encyclopedic consideration in its own right, but being presented separately for reasons of space? (So that the relevance and significance of the stamp images should be considered only for the understanding they add about the general topic of 'the history of Virginia', rather than for their relevance and significance for the specific topic 'the history of Virginia as a theme on U.S. stamps.

The article appears to be one of a growing number in Category:Postage stamps of the United States that explore how particular themes have been depicted in the country's stamps: for example Hanukkah stamps, U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps, Territories of the United States on stamps, Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, History of Virginia on stamps.

The question is: do we regard these as appropriate first-rank encylopedic topics in their own right, to be illustrated as such; or are they merely adjuncts to other topics. Masem says no (and Masem is an honourable man). In Masem's view, such titles should only be regarded as overflow spin-outs from other topics, merely geared to summarise "the various ways that X has been commemorated", "[in] brief [for] the average, non-stamp collector reader", because we should be thinking of the "average reader", not the stamp collector, which "[implies] a limit for how much should be covered."

I have to say that I don't think that that is a correct understanding of Wikipedia and what it aims to be for. I think we aim to be more than just a general encyclopedia catering only to the lowest common denominator of "average reader". IMO we aim to be a lot more than that. Per WP:5, as quoted above "WP is an encyclopedia that combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs and gazeteers." I see us rather (in analogy to the internet) as the encyclopedia of encyclopedias, bringing together all the specialist encyclopedias that one could imagine all under one roof -- including specialist encyclopedias (and gazeteers and almanacs) of particular places, times, subjects, movements of thought, that can sometimes be incredibly specialist (some of our deeper mathematics articles, for example), so long as (as I put it above) we can find the volunteers to write the articles and the sources to verify them. And as part of our "encyclopedia of encyclopedias", I would include articles that could be from an encyclopedia of philately, along with being a dictionary of national biograraphy and the rest. Sure, why not? This sense of almost limitless possibility, and encouraging anybody to come and contribute to it, is to me what gives WP its very spirit and life. Which is why I visceral reaction against what seems to me to be such a stunted, ambition-sapping and toxic view of how WP's scope should be ruthlessly clipped as described by Masem. We're here to describe the world, and put it in people's hands, as much as we possibly can. That's our m:vision.

If we consider whether these are the kind of topics one might expect to find in a philatelic encyclopedia, or perhaps a philatelic encyclopedia of U.S. stamps, I think they are well-judged and appropriate. In fact, I think it is a more encyclopedic approach to bring issues together by theme in this way, than to have an individual article on each issue. And, you know, even for somebody like myself who only has the most casual interest in stamps, they're actually quite a good read.

So in my view: yes, these titles should be treated as first-class article topics in their own right, and WP:NFC applied accordingly. But I think it would be useful for the community as a whole to give its view. Jheald (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (thoughts on some of Masem's other points to follow).

Short answer: No, this can't be a article-class article. The topic "History of Virginia on stamps" fails to meet WP:N if it were treated as an article as there are no secondary sources to support that topic, a requirement for any article topic. There might be other cases of "X on stamps" that could be notable, the topic of "X on stamps" being specifically addressed by many sources, but I've not seen a case of such sources. But they are readily acceptable list articles (eg I'm not challenging the stand-alone nature of the page), a spinout of the "History of Virginia" article (which is clearly a notable topic). sourced mostly to primary works and with no sources specifically on the collective nature of "History of Virginia on stamps". If for "X in stamps" X was a rather brief article, we'd likely talk about the stamps within the body of that article. Remember that a list class article does not require bulleted lists or tables - this is just a logical non-narrative assembly of information. Note that in this specific case, I'm not considering whether the image is being included what is considered an article or a list, I'm looking at context and the failure of NFCC#8 and other NFCC criteria. (EG NFLISTS has no bearing on my arguments). --MASEM (t) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a well-constructed argument in abstract, but I (personally) don't buy it.

The reality of the article is that has the smell and feel of a well-constructed article in its own right, worth reading in its own right, which people may come to through an interest in the postal stamps of North America, rather than the history of Virginia, rather than a set of left-overs from the latter article. Yes, you joined the dots well, but I think it is casuistry (ie "specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning") to pretend that the manifest topic of this article is anything other than what its title says it is. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not buy it, but that's what it is to conform to the same practices used across all of WP. If you want to treat it as a stand alone title with no connection to History of Virginia, I would have to AFD this as a non-notable article composed only from primary sources, demonstration how narrow the coverage is. No, I don't want to, nor would do that, but to escape the AFD, it has to be considered a list spinout of the History of Virginia and not its own individual topic, which allows us to ignore the sourcing issue and let this stand on its own. (Note that it is completely possible to summarize this as "The US Postal Service has issued well over XX stamps that commemorate the history of Virginia." along with a few free representative examples to stick at the bottom of Virginia, if this were to actually be deleted, so we're not losing any information that is not outside of IINFO).

Or to put it another way: Given topic X that has at least one commemorative stamp, discussing that factor in context of the topic makes complete sense (omitting it would be harmful, as well as any other ways that a national gov't has commemorated the topic). If there are multiple ones, then they can be discussed too, but these still are all in context of topic X. If there's so many to approach SIZE concerns, then splitting off the part about stamps is reasonable, but that new "article" remains under the coverage of topic X. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources consulted are referenced as Dabney, "Virginian: the new dominion”, Wallenstein, “Cradel of America: four centuries of Virginia History”, and Heinemann et al, “Old dominion, new commonwealth”. The article is divided, half chronologically following Wallenstein and using footnotes from his book, the other half topically “Big ideas and landmarks”, and Virginia’s presidents”.

The contextual significance of the Virginia Ratification stamp in “History of Virginia on stamps” meets all ten elements of NFCC including #8 as stated below item by item. You fail to recognize either a) the cultural-historical significance of historical analysis, or now even b) the existence of volumes of history and citations to Wallenstein. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: What Masem is looking for is references to a source or sources that discuss the protrayal of VA history on stamps as a topic in its own right. It could be a book, a chapter, a pamphlet, even an isolated page or pages: but something that just supports the idea that how VA history has been presented on stamps is a topic worth reviewing in its own right.

Yes, the article has references to history books that reference the stamps in the context of each event depicted. But without being able to read the books, it not clear whether they have any passages that introduce the idea that looking in the round at how that history has been presented on stamps should be a topic of interest worth studying (especially: rather than just as an adjunct to the history).

I don't think it's a fatal objection, because a core principle of WP is to be flexible about rules to be able to "do the right thing", and you've clearly been able to create a solid well-sourced article here, which is the main motivating concern underlying WP:N. Topical stamp collecting is a very well-established thing, so looking at a nation's stamps through the lens of geographical area portrayed is an obvious topic to pursue. Jheald (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

insert For reference, the following books treat history on stamps.

Bianculli, Anthony J., Railroad history on American postage stamps 2004.

Bloomgarden, Henry S., American history through commemorative stamps 1969.

Deaton, Charles W., The great Texas stamp collection 2012.

Renfeld, Fred. Commemorative Stamps of the U.S.A.: an illustrated history of our country 1954.

Woreck, Michael and Jordan Worek. An American history album: the story of the United States told through stamps 2008. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Jheald is just repeating the point Ive been trying to make. So far the article discussed the historical events but fails to cover portrayal of VA history on stamps in any but the most basic ways. There is nothing being discussed about the contents of the artwork, or anything associated with the visual medium which would justify the inclusion of non-free media. Yes so sue me, Im actually agreeing with Jheald for once :) Werieth (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To add a bit (and reiterating what I said), stamps are a visual medium so some example(s) would be fair to add. If this topic could only be done by non-free imagery, a single stamp or stamp page would be reasonable as a lead image. But in this case, we have dozens of free stamps that illustrate numerous ways the stamps have been done, so the need for a single additional non-free stamp very much begs the need for this if the stamp's imagery is not specifically discussed (and I have looked alot to try to find more but come up dry). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The stamp itself and others like it since 1978 is culturally notable in that a Congressional joint resolution caused the stamp to be published, and in that millions were used by the public. I have not found a multi-volumed literature 'Collecting stamps of Virginia' as I have for Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Jheald gives me hope that the History of Virginia on stamps is not ipso facto WP:original research.

The only way to identify a visual medium such as the unique artistic design of a commemorative stamp is to view it. It is not enough to view alternative stamps of other designs on disparate subjects. In the case of a history-related stamp article, that implies relating a stamp to the historical event, it seems to me.

To address the contents of the non-free "content stamp artwork" --- alone --- seems to me to be prohibited. Non-free content stamp images may be used “For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it.” I am saving up for the "Encyclopedia of U.S. stamps and stamp collecting” used extensively as a reference by the National Postal Museum, which gives more detailed information on each stamps art, designer, etcher, printer. The volume is not available in my local library system. It is at the top of my retired budget list, ahead of the next flowering crabapple tree. That may give me the wherewithal to add additional information on "content stamp artwork" that Werieth and Masem have required.

There is a great deal more to be said relative to the unique barbell shaped footprint of the building itself, built to symbolize and accommodate the distinct Governors royal council and court on one side, connected by a passage way to the equally shaped and sized wing which was set aside for the General Assembly, the first representative legislature in the English colonies. I am not opposing enhancing the article and its treatment of stamps and their artwork. I am for it along many venues, two editors are actively contributing to the article in multiple ways I have not imagined for the piece, --- the power of WP collaboration.

There is at Virginia Ratification stamp, something “associated with the visual medium” as Werieth requires. The stamp issued on the 200th anniversary and named after the event, is visually related to the event it commemorates, using the place of the Ratification Convention as its central design. That connection is described in the sourced narrative taken from a reliable source, Smithsonian Institute, National Postal Museum online, Arago: people, postage & the post. I do not make this stuff up by myself. But if this attempt fails, I am resolved to improve before my next trial. I'd just like a) to avoid edit warring of the first trial, and b) find the right venue to start off, an issue at this second trial. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And it's worth remembering (@Werieth:) that policy doesn't actually require discussion about the contents of the artwork. In fact NFCI#3 says fairly clearly that identification can be sufficient, so long as it is specifically identification of the stamp as a stamp. (cf the pound coins, the artwork of which wasn't much discussed either.)

We're probably all repeating ourselves, but to me it comes down to giving a rounded presentation of the subject. If we are going to have this page, then it should contain what it needs to be balanced and representative. The most obvious distinctive feature of a stamp is what it looks like, so we should show a balance that includes new stamps and old stamps, current as well as classic designs.

To me (and I suspect many other Wikipedians) the bottom line is the smell test. That the page must be legal, both for us and for our principal commercial redistributors, is a pre-requisite. That the images are not pre-empting free images from being brought forward is also a pre-requisite. But I don't think I'm seeing any doubts on either of those two scores. The remaining thing is whether the image smells right. Does it feel as if the non-free content images are being used soberly and proportionately to the purpose of the page, rather than wantonly and gratuitously? In this case I think the answer is yes. The page has the feel of a solid and sober article, not a wanton or gratuitous gallery or picture-strip; plus the few non-free images are far outnumbered by free images. And presenting a balanced, thorough, rounded survey seems an honest and serious purpose.

The only thing, in fact, that smells slightly off -- if this is to be a rounded, balanced presentation of the subject -- is there seem to be surprisingly few recent stamps for the presentation to be properly balanced and representative. Did the USPS abandon the history of Virginia as a subject? Or is the article skimping on presenting modern stamps? Jheald (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Last point first - I would think any person that recognizes that WP aims to be a free content work that any material coverage after 1923 (roughly) of contemporary works will be limited by copyright, or at least, this would be a completely fair lowest-common denominator expectation that our readers should understand. I would also not rely only on visual mediums to relay a point such that "did the USPS care to release any more stamps about Virginia?"; this is a point that the text should explain explicitly if there's a source to comment on it, or simply leave it as an exercise to the reader. (I note there's other post-1990 stamps mentioned). If anything, if this is an important fact that needs to be shown, then these should be presented in a table to show the date of issue, the name/title of the stamp, and the reason for commemorate where the dates of release can then be easily tallied. Relaying on an assembly of separate visual images to relay a point would be original research as well as an assessibility problem for those visually impared.

"Does it feel as if the non-free content images are being used soberly and proportionately to the purpose of the page, rather than wantonly and gratuitously?" is NFCC#3, for the most part. We are talking NFCC#8 more specifically. You do not need to see the image of the stamp to understand that "the history of Virginia has been commemorated on stamps". No one yet has shown how, very explicitly, there is harm to the average reader's understanding of this. I can understand why a stamp affectionado would be disappointed at the lack of the image but that's why the references provide them one link away.

And this is why NFCC#8 is best met by showing critical commentary on the image so that there's no doubt that the image is important and in context with the text; it makes the idea that NFCC#8 is met much more objective than this "smell test". If we only had something that weighted like this smell test of yours, I would be claiming a lot more inclusion of non-free. But no, we don't have a iffy smell test, we have a test that considers the requirement of the image to be there if it really helping understand, not because it feels right. If we discuss the image directly via sourced critical commentary, then clearly it is nearly always required to include it. If there's nothing discussing the image in the text, there still may be a reason to include it (eg if it is the only possible way to identify the topic lacking free replacement) but in general we will delete it. This fits with past practice of FFD, GAC/FAC, and NFCR for the last 6-7 years (we've been no more strict or lax than today), this fits with how policy was written and developed, this fits with the Foundation's requirement that non-free use be exceptional and removed if it fails our NFCC policy. And mind you, I'm very open to cases at the edge of these tests where maybe one criteria just under the bar for failure, to keep the image.

This is not the case at all for the stamp image in question - there's zero comment on the art that can be added (the best I could find to try to justify it only affirms of what the buildings are in the BG and who the artist is, but that again doesn't require imagery), and as such NFCC#8 fails. This is what the NFC#UUI case for the Billy Bonds baseball card sets out (and note the critical commentary on its counterexample for Billy Ripkin). I will also add that there is a possible free visual option here, File:Old_Capitol_Building_-_Williamsburg.png which while not the exact stamp shows a scene nearly exact from it but at least can be used next to that text to state "The 25 cent Virginia commemorative stamp features the old Capital building, shown here." (I bet in most cases of dispute, this type of "close" free replacement can work.)

And another important issue here: The way that your (JHeald's and others) argument is being constructed - that as long as we can describe the events, people, or things on the stamp and details of the commemoration, then you have just opened the door to include every post-1983 USPS stamp, given that we can provide that sourced data from the Arago website and, more recently, USPS press releases. I do not know what other countries have that would compare to Arago, but I would assume that as long as the history of the stamps from that country is discussed in some source, the line of logic would justify the use of the stamp. And that's just not showing the careful care we should be doing to limit non-free use to the exceptional cases. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Masem, you're still not seeing the key point. The purpose of an article like this is not to review that the history of Virginia has been commemorated on stamps; rather it is to review for the reader the manner in which the history of Virginia has been commemorated on stamps. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If no one else has covered the manner (and implicitly in your statement the visual manner) of how Virginia has been commemorated on stamps, then that means that we should not have an article on that topic as that is creating original research, much less be using non-free imagery to show that. How something has visually changed through the years has long been established to need sources to demonstrate those changes are significant to require imagery, otherwise they're just random illustrations and are deleted. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The proper response to that last sentence is a big fat {{citation needed}} tag -- particularly when the topic of the article is the stamps themselves, so they are central to a proper understanding of it.

As to whether this article is somehow advancing a novel thesis by presenting this topic, I think you have already answered your own point here.

Your antipathy to NFC appears to be driving everything else, warping your view of the bigger picture of what WP is here for. It appears to be leading you to the position of preferring no broad review of the history of VA on stamps, instead of a broad review that only almost everyone can read and reuse. That suggests a view of priorities that is moving out of good alignment. ("Burning down the village in order to save it" ?) Jheald (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is that an article or list on the broad coverage of X on stamps, otherwise sourced and relating to the topic X but otherwise with no specific commentary on the stamps themselves, does not need any image to make that point, that X has been commemorated on stamps, period. Both free and nonfree. The proof exists in the citations that such exist per WP:V. Now of to deny any imagery is stupid. Short of some tech issues with SIZE, there's no reason to not insert as many free images as possible. And as I've said if the only way some illustration could be done was by nonfree, one or two would be fine as lead/intro examples. When we consider the mix of free and non free, it will depend, but I'd have little problem with using a nonfree if there were only one-two free images available. Illustration of articles is important, but it is a very low priority to developing free content and minimizing nonfree

The issue in your statement - "these are articles on stamps and thus the stamps must be illustrated if regardless of commentary" - is that it makes no distinct on how to carefully chose stamp images and, taken to the logical conclusion, would permit every nonfree stamp to be illustrated at some point as long as it can be included in some topical stamp article, which of course is nowhere close to minimizing nonfree. When, for any other type of work that relays heavily on media patrticularly nonfree like visual artists or musicians, we do not document every piece they have done ever (which on average will not have individual notability) with nonfree but use a tiny number of samples that are documented as representative of the body of work. The same considerations have to be made here for stamps. Consider the present example: there are about 4 or 5 post 1983 stamps also mentioned. Why should these also not be illustrated?

Now hopefully my reading between your lines and past discussions that you are stressing only this particular stamp needs illustration and not the others post1983, and that is a position I can accept if and only if you can explain why this image over the others. Or some other rational that otherwise would say why which specific nonfree stamp images could be used absent any with critical commentary that could be used first. Some type of reason or the like to prevent the inclusion falling down the slippery slope of allowing all nonfree. (I have a few ideas but like to hear yours). --MASEM (t) 12:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be able to do its job: which is to give a balanced and representative review of its topic.

If only a selection of pre-1978 stamps are shown, then only a corresponding selection of post-1978 stamps should be shown.

If a more comprehensive treatment of pre-1978 stamps is given (in a genuinely encylopedic way, rather than a strip-list or gallery), then a similar treatment is appropriate post-1978, though we may not need to show all of them; we should show enough to be representative. If more recent treatments tend to look very different from older treatments, we should show enough recent examples so that that is apparent.

So a very similar approach as we'd apply to paintings or furniture or anything else we were presenting as the topic of an article. The important thing is what the images we show add to reader understanding. Though, as reflected in WP:NFCI, more flexibility probably is appropriate for stamps (and still more flexibility for currencies), firstly because of the lesser degree of the copyright taking (as discussed elsewhere on this page), and secondly because as formal images issued by the state, that in itself gives the objects a degree of significance.

You asked whether "every nonfree stamp [could] be illustrated at some point as long as it can be included in some topical stamp article", and my answer would be: perhaps, if they were all as solidly encyclopedically presented articles as this one. (Though the number of articles needed would be several thousand).

The point is that just totalling up the complete number of non-free images used is not a very useful metric of anything. The question is whether we are convinced the use is "minimal" in the sense of the Berne Convention, and U.S. case law -- i.e. no more than needed for the purpose identified. Jheald (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the Resolution is clear is that our "minimum" is less on the fair use concept of minimum and more on outright avoiding non-free and making its use exceptional, terms you don't find in the US Fair Use law.

Let me ask you this: in History of Virginia on stamps do you believe that every stamp (free and non-free) can be illustrated and still work under NFC? I don't think you are saying "yes", based on the above, though its clear you think some NFC is necessary. Working on that assumption, that the goal is to represent the topic proportionally, then there's a possible idea there, in that when there is a selection of free or non-free images that could be used, with no image more or less significant than the other images. As long as there's a reasonable number of non-free cases, allowing for some appropriate portions of non-free images could be reasonably justified. For example, here, there's about 10 stamps that would be non-free, out of about 50-some (I have not done a full tally, I'm just roughing that) stamps. So one or two non-free would likely be reasonable to meet the basics of NFCC. If it was the case that only one non-free stamp existed out of 50, I'd be very much against the need to illustrate that single non-free. Obviously, the cases that should be the chosen are the ones where the most significance can be given in the text, and one should avoid cases where the name of the image is just a title drop and that's all that can be said (eg like one would use in a discography). If there are non-free that are clearly justified (by discussion of the actual image via critical commentary) they would automatically be included but also considered as part of those examples. That, I think, is a fair compromise to still meet NFC but illustrate "mixed" media articles fairly. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Concrete proposal made by TheVirginiaHistorian moved to a separate section below: #Concrete proposal -- Jheald (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The stamps are not random, nor are they equivalent to the depictions of artwork such as a similar building image. Contextual significance relates to the article topic, particular kinds of stamps. These stamps show people and events of Virginia history. Events are described to establish notability, otherwise it is a collection of stamps as art, without meaning or context in Virginia history. I am identifying the stamp and the historical context in which it is issued, not the building or event shown on it. That contextual context is the policy requirement, and it is met. If it opens a door, it opens a door for some limited encyclopedic purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, not quite, VaHistorian. The contextual significance is that these are stamps showing VA history, which is the topic of the article. Discussing the significance of the moments shown to VA history doesn't really add or subtract from that, because the article is about stamps, not history. Indeed, if one of the moments commemorated had been a particularly insignificant moment in VA history, that would be interesting, because it would indicate something surprising about the depiction selection process of the stamps as stamps. The discussion of what the stamps portray is very valuable, and (as you've written else where) is what makes the approach encyclopedic, lifting it above being merely a stamp gallery. It adds very much to the sense of encyclopedic validity of the article as a whole, that such discussion adds so much more value to the reader than just the images. But if we're asking what the significance of the images is, what the claim of "added understanding" rests on, the images are valuable for the article they show the stamps, rather than because they show the history -- because the history could have been shown in innumerable other ways. Don't get too hung up on the word "contextual", which was a comparatively recent minor edit to the wording. The thing that #8 tries to get discussion to focus on is the new understanding showing these specific images brings, why that understanding is significant, and relevant, to the topic of the article, and why without the NFC images the same understanding could or would not be achievable in any different way. Jheald (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will continue to strive to perfect my understanding in this matter. I only note that, if the stamp is a commemorative on the 200th anniversary of the Ratification Convention, --- the contextual significance is not a) the meeting building, which is a concrete place described in the art, nor b) the affirmative vote, which is the explicit significance, the "event" to which I believe you refer, but it is c) the placement in the geo-political historical milieu, the circumstance that makes worthy a 200th anniversary to make the stamp a commemorative stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the following books treat history on stamps.

Bianculli, Anthony J., Railroad history on American postage stamps 2004.

Bloomgarden, Henry S., American history through commemorative stamps 1969.

Deaton, Charles W., The great Texas stamp collection 2012.

Renfeld, Fred. Commemorative Stamps of the U.S.A.: an illustrated history of our country 1954.

Woreck, Michael and Jordan Worek. An American history album: the story of the United States told through stamps 2008. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrative break -2

Absent is any policy requirement in WP:NFCC #8 "contextual significance" for a controversy involving the design of the stamp itself. In fact, were the commentary to be restricted to stamp design, then displaying it would not be permitted by WP:NFCIGuideline #3 "Stamps". The significance is found in source treatment of the event memorialized on the stamp. In this case it is the 200th anniversary of the Virginia Ratification Convention.

Removing the image of a visual medium such as a stamp does clearly harm the reader's understanding of the commemorative at issue. 'That Virginia's history has been commemorated on stamps' is not adequate. That is sort of like saying Picasso and Rembrandt painted women. A picture for comparison is worth a thousand words.

And in a topical article on "Women in painting", each distinctive expression representing a significant event in painting history would merit an image representing it. Likewise each unique commemorative representing a person or event in Virginia of significance mentioned in the context of an authority such as Wallenstein in his "Cradle of America: four centuries of Virginia history", which rate their own stand-alone WP articles, merit an image representing it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NFCC overrides anything in NFCI; policy is stronger than the guideline. So images can appear to meet a given NFCI but still fail specific NFCC. And contextual significance is of the image, not the event. There's no question the event is significant but we don't use non-free just to show that if the image is not required. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the specific trumps the general. WP:NFC states in the introduction, "This document serves as the exemption doctrine policy of the English Wikipedia. Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases…" [italics at policy added]

In the discussion “Meeting the no free equivalent criterion" WP:FREER, “Meeting the contextual significance criterion”, a common circumstance meeting the criterion is "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article.” …For example for identification of specific coins, “images of the front and back are normally used.”

In the case of USPS nfc stamps, the reader cannot identify the stamp without seeing it. To identify a specific stamp, the front design would be normally used unless the watermark were distinctive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, specific doesn't trump general, at least when it comes to policy and guidelines. All of NFCI still must meet NFCC as stated on that page - policy trumps guidelines. Also, the "exemption doctrine policy" you quote is the term used by the Foundation, not our definition of "policy" in contrast to "guideline" -- NFC remains an NFC page that transludes a policy page to make it clear. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

All is aligned, consistent and lawful. Foundation policy dictates NFCC, NFCC dictates NFCI, we are to assume good faith in the consensus building writers who write each level. The particular interprets the general, as in contract law, it is ruling. The most specific of all is the USPS template which allows non-free use of stamps beginning in 1978 at WP. If there were to be a change, there would have to be some written policy somewhere arrived at by consensus to restrict the plain meaning.

Beginning with #1 of ten, There are no free-use equivalent images for USPS copyright stamp images. So the WP license is required. The reader cannot identify the stamp, which is a visual medium, without seeing it. The Virginia Ratification Convention for the Constitution at History of Virginia on stamps meets all ten NFCC elements, NFCI #3 for stamps, and the USPS license required at WP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In my view, the use of the content was appropriate. On the question of NFCI #3, in my view NFCI #3 is not conclusively determinative either way here; though on balance probably lends support to the keeping of the content (in my judgement). I will add a more detailed explanation of these conclusions in a moment. Jheald (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for the conclusion I have just posted:

As a starting point it is important to note that the guidance lists at WP:NFCI (and other guidance lists at WP:NFC) are not intended to exhaustively cover every possible case. Rather they are intended to set out a few of the most common cases, where there is a clear community view that particular usages are acceptable or not acceptable. In the case of NFCI #3, use of an image for identification in an article about a particular stamp is appropriate; but use of an NFC stamp as a generic image of an object in an article about that object is not appropriate. Both of those are clear-cut situations, which I believe have clear community consensus for the position stated. However neither is the position here. This is not an article about a particular stamp, or a single set of stamps. But nor is it an article about an object that the NFC stamp is being used as a generic illustration of. So that is why, strictly speaking, I believe NFCI #3 is not conclusively determinative here either way. In such cases we should fall back to consider the underlying WP:NFCC criteria directly themselves.

But first there is perhaps one more thing to note in the language of NFCI #3, and that is the word identification. There are various different thresholds set out in WP:NFCI for different classes of material in which it is accepted that their use to be likely to be uncontroversially compliant with the fundamental questions of judgment set by the WP:NFCC. Broadly, the different language used in different clauses of NFCI reflects the different degrees of copyright taking that such uses are likely to represent, considered in terms of the famous four factors of U.S. fair use law. "Identification" is the weakest such requirement set by the NFCI. It reflects that the use here, even without any commentary on the image, represents essentially no legal threat: not to ourselves, nor to fully commercial re-users either. The reasons for that assessment are fairly transparent: this was an image created for a very particular original purpose (ie to be a stamp, for people to stick on envelopes), which is not what we're using the image for, so, as the jargon has it, our use here is transformative. Furthermore, as a stamp, the image was previously distributed and circulated on a mass scale, so our use of the image here represents no additional exposure that might "wear out" the novelty or value of the image. And furthermore again, the very objective of the article as a whole is to give a review of what and how images were used for that purpose -- an objective that is specifically approved of by statute. All of which is why such images are put in the highest class flexibility recognised by WP:NFCI as how such images may be used.

Having said that I think NFCI #3 is not conclusively determinative here, I should add that IMO I think it does lend some support to keeping the image, because the image is specifically being identified as a stamp, in the context of an article about stamps, rather than just as a generic image of an object in an article about that object generally. But I would accept that there is some ambiguity in NFCI #3 here, because it is not 100% clear either way whether the words "the stamp" should be taken just refer to the stamp that is shown in the image, or whether they contain any requirement that the stamp be the specific topic of the article.

Ultimately, however, for any edge-case like this, we should go back to the NFC criteria themselves, and apply them directly: What is the key purpose of the article? Does the image add something significant to reader understanding (modulo the degree of copyright taking it represents) of that key topic, in a way that would or could not be achieved without the image, or with fewer NFC images?

Here, the purpose of the article is to review how the state of Virginia and its history have been reflected in stamps issued by the U.S.'s national Mail service. In my view, the presence of this image does add something significant to that review, because almost uniquely it shows how an element of that history has been depicted in a much more contemporary design than anything else on the page. I think the image therefore particularly valuably helps balance a perception the reader might otherwise get that it is only old stamps (or very traditionally designed stamps) that have featured states' histories. Taking the above assessment that the degree of the copyright taking here is very slight, and not likely to cause a problem for us or a commercial reuser, or indeed any reuser of our article anywhere, together with my view that the image does indeed contribute something of real value to the understanding the reader gains of the topic of the article, that they would and could not gain without it or without some very similar non-free substitute, is why, in my view, the image should be kept. Jheald (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is only one modern stamp for this makes the need to show it much less important than this implies. Take history of painting as a counterexample. The history of painting has long continued through and beyond 1923 with some schools being entirely contained in the era of long form copyrights. It would be silly to deny limited NFC use on that article to illustrate these important schools. Here, there's one modern stamp and that's it. I would not consider it important to illustrate the sole example of a stamp for this article which is already full of free examples of the same. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This may be misconstruing WP:NFCC #3. Minimal usage. a. "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." — But each USPS stamp is separately unique, described in relation to the topic, the History of Virginia on stamps and the stamps are issued over time commemorating different events or different aspects of the same event, stamps released change substantially over time, especially among commemoratives.

Therefore each new issue is eligible for picturing as long as it is accompanied by narrative which places it in context of the topic. The point of the RfC relates to the Guideline #3 on stamps, which may not conform to paintings under copyright, since the USPS template specifically warns it cannot be used for any other purpose, i.e. painting images after 1923.

There is an application for "minimal usage." The same stamp might be used to illustrate the landmark of the first representative government in the English colonies in the Landmarks section of the article, since the colonial Capitol building is a registered Historic Landmark. But "minimal usage" implies that it be used in only one place for each article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not how NFCC#3 is interpreted. Minimum use is minimum use in all aspects, within an article, repeated uses, and through WP. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is the point of the RfC, as regards stamps, since "minimal in all aspects" is NOT what NFCC#3 Guideline for stamps, taken together with the enabling USPS license use template for stamps since 1978 means. Does NFCC#3 mean what it says? The protective hedge around WP is the licensing language, not artificially restrictive usage imposed without a foundation in the policy itself.

By the WP license template, use of the image is permitted "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) --- on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profitWikimedia Foundation, --- then the warning, due to the educational purpose at WP, the image use ...qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." -- on WP if the stamp is used solely to illustrate things appearing in the stamps's [copyrighted] design. As you have helped me understand before.

Likewise in prohibited images, #8, "A Barry Bonds baseball card [may not be used], to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. [But] The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see Billy Ripkin article." — in the case of the Virginia ratification stamp, the stamp image illustrates a passage on the stamp itself, in the context of Virginia history and postage usage, not the colonial Capitol building featured in the design.

Each stamp issue, especially since the advent of commemorative sets, is another school of art, original designs and engravings which would be silly to to deny limited NFC use on any topical philately article to illustrate these important issues --- notable by simple virtue of the fact they are used by the public in the millions. This limited use requires only that it is used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design), a phrase appearing in policy and in the upload licensing template. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up NFCC (policy) and NFCI (guideline). NFCI are commonly accepted uses of non-free, but as listed at the top of NFCI, this is not a guarentee such images can be used without question and all 10 points on NFCC are required. And no, you're not discussing schools of art in these topical stamp articles ; that would be a whole another topic (perhaps "Modernism in postage stamps"); you're discussing history. Again, to remind you, a good use of NFCC on one of these topic articles is what was previously discussed for Puerto_Rico_on_stamps specifically for the poet Julia de Burgos , where you have cited text that talks the images specifically unique to the stamp (not just a representation or portrait shot) , eg "The stamp features the poet with blue water flowing behind her, evoking one of her best known poems, “Río Grande de Loíza,”..." which the reader's understanding is clearly harmed if we did not show that image inline. ("What water? How is it represented?"). This is meeting NFCC#8 and where NFCI#3 is intended to apply, when we can show the stamp along with critical commentary about it. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to simply identifying a stamp as having been issued alone, based on discussions a month ago. To meet the contextual significance criterion for #8 before admitting the stamp as an illustration, there MUST be a) sourced description of the cultural-historical significance; --- this is what we would expect from an encyclopedia article versus a stamp gallery --- THEN optionally b) something about the postal usage (rate, printing, numbers); optionally c) something about the unique art of the stamp itself, such as the designer, etcher, or printer; optionally d) any literary controversy surrounding the stamp or its art.

There is no requirement for a literary controversy over the visual medium before using the stamp as an illustration, only WP:FREER that including the image enables the reader to "identify an object" such as a coin "front and back are normally used". In the case of USPS nfc stamps, the reader cannot identify the stamp without seeing it. To identify a specific stamp, the front would be normally used. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the stamp commemorating the Virginia Constitution is placed on the section that describes this commemoration (of which the stamp is part), so it's relevant and can be used to identify it. Usage is minimal, as removing the image would no longer allow readers to identify the stamp. Diego (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Case-by-case treatment. If it's a one-liner mentioning the stamp, then probably not. But if there's a decently sized paragraph describing it, perhaps a non-free image is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support I basically agree with VirginiaHistorian. Perhaps what is needed is a statement that the postal authorities considered the historic event to be within their sphere of responsibility in finding events suitable for a stamp. They obviously made this positive decision regarding the official commemoration and it was in accord with the judgments of historians, scholars, experts, museum people and arts people. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Relying on what the USPS (or equivalent in other countries) deem to put on stamps gives notability to the event/person/thing put on the stamp, but not the stamp itself. Similar to how Time picks the Man of the Year - it doesn't make that issue of Time any more important, but it does make the person chosen more important. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Contextual significance relates to the article topic, particular kinds of stamps. These stamps show people and events of Virginia history. Events are described to establish notability, otherwise it is a collection of stamps as art, or a stamp album, without meaning or context in Virginia history. I am identifying the stamp and the historical context in which it is issued, not the building or event shown on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

A brief synopsis of non-free use of stamps in this case can be found at Talk:History of Virginia on stamps#Rationale for non-free content stamp use, including discussion of the licensing tag information, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue, this RfC should be at WT:NFC. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it says up top, "A place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions." You said the other location was "shopping" before. Did you want to move the RfC elsewhere? how is that decided? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I called it shopping when you opened the same discussion on multiple pages. When having an RfC about a policy/guideline it should be held on the talk page of that policy/guideline. As for moving it the simplest thing to do would be to have you just copy/paste it to WT:NFCC and remove it from here leaving a pointer and note that the discussion was moved. Werieth (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Werieth, you are disrupting the intent of the Survey section above by introducing discussion there, just as you demonstrate a failure to understand other WP policy and procedure. Discussion there should be moved to Threaded discussion, why would you object to my moving discussion to Threaded discussion?

By referring to the Capitol building pictured, you demonstrate you have not read the linked material on the Constitution Ratification Convention with Arago and Wallenstein citations, the analytical commentary regarding the significance of the commemorative stamp itself, not the item pictured. The Convention is not the Capitol. One discussion relates to the significance of the event commemorated as it relates to the topic History of Virginia on stamps, the other identification is a concrete object of bricks and mortar.

Guideline #3 says that non-free content stamps may be used as a matter of policy "for identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." -- without restrictions about what kind of articles use the images, --- such as topical philately articles including History of Virginia on stamps. That is the point of this RfC concerning Guideline #3, which so far you have failed to show you understand. We await others input. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding a PS comment to a post isnt a disruption, nor does it violate any policy. It is a comment that goes with the initial post but was added after the fact, I could have modified my previous statement but I find that very annoying when others do it, and dont do it myself. Adding a PS enables me to tag on further information after the fact without being misleading, or having to modify timestamps and such. As for NFCI#3 just because a image may meet any one of those NFCI guides doesnt mean that it should be included. Its not a free ticket to use non-free media if it happens to meet the criteria. Reading citations doesnt provide critical commentary, critical commentary must exist in the article, not just the sources. Since you didnt read the copious amounts of text in the previous discussion which explained the facts to you by several editors Im not sure what else will help you understand it. This sounds like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because you disagreed with the outcome. Ill give you a few more hours to move this RfC to the proper venue, if thats not done Ill close it as invalid. Werieth (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You are working off of the discussion over Puerto Rico on stamps weeks ago which has since been amended, without reading History of Virginia on stamps today, a better written case using the information I learned from the last discussion.

You misrepresent the additional sourced critique compared to earlier examples which you refuse to acknowledge exists -- the narrative is not only identification that the stamp exists picturing the Capitol building. You have made no legitimate objection to the article as written or its use of the stamp. As you fail to see the difference between another article weeks ago and this article today, we await input from others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is the venue for a general discussion of WP:NFCI #3, the issue remains whether Werieth's characterization of it as meaning only one use for one-stamp article applies.

On the contrary, there may be multiple page uses of one image, there may be multiple fair-use images of different subjects on the same page. WP:NFCC #7, #3. The template used for USPS uploads notes that there may be multiple article(s), and specifies that the rationale for each must be addressed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Re American stamps at least, works by the US Government are generally in the public domain. I assume that this must not apply to stamps for some arcane reason or we wouldn't be having this discussion. In which case the File Upload Form, which says (as one of the justifications for uploading a file) "I can demonstrate that this work is legally in the Public Domain, i.e. nobody owns any copyrights on it. This may be for a variety of reasons, for instance because it was created by the US Federal Government..." is pretty misleading, and that's a problem (but a different problem I guess). Herostratus (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The stamps issued by the U.S. Postal Department USPD until 1978 are free use. The stamps issued by the U.S. Postal Service USPS beginning 1978 have a copyright. WP has policies for non-free content use, including stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Oooooh, right, privatization. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Purpose

TheVirginiaHistorian can you please clear up and make the purpose/goal of the RfC clear? right now it is extremely vague. Werieth (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The first purpose is to inquire after the community’s sense of whether the WP:NFCI Guideline #3 and others as policy and the licensing tag {{Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp}}, allows for use of USPS stamps "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp’s design)” in topical philately stamps — in this case, the Virginia ratification stamp is to illustrate the stamp’s commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution.

Four editors, TheVirginiaHistorian, Coat of Many Colours, Gwhillickers on the article Talk page, and Jheald here say yes. Masem, who has agreed with Werieth before, has not yet joined the discussion for this case. Werieth has moved the venue. Why? --- So to date, Werieth alone is disagreed, based on the false premise that a) interpretive critical commentary of a Ratifying Convention in the context of Virginia history from two sources, Arago and Wallenstein, is the same as b) merely identifying the building pictured on a stamp.

The requirement is that the image be used to visually illustrate the stamp itself --- as representing something larger than the design itself. The stamp image then may be pictured, not only described in words, --- that is what the WP USPS license is for, to implement NFCI Guideline #3 "Stamps and currency" at the upload for each image's use in WP "article(s)", as it is said in policy and templates.

Another purpose of this RfC here or elsewhere is to build a consensus in collaboration "to illustrate the stamp in question" in topical philately articles --- as allowed for in the USPS license, WP:NFCI Guideline #3 "Stamps" and in other policy citations, to advance the exchange of knowledge in an online encyclopedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to define the fact that this is for topical and general articles then. I have never disputed the usage of a stamp on the article about that stamp. The issue arises when you start illustrating stamps that either are not notable, or lack critical commentary. You are twisting my words and not listening. File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg has zero critical commentary about the stamp, there is a brief discription in the article, but thats it. Not to say that critical commentary cannot be added or isnt in the sources, but that it needs to be in the article. Just because we reference the stamp why do we need to see it? What visual elements require us to display it? Or are we just using it to display a simi-relevant image to illustrate an otherwise lacking area of the article? From the paragraph that is currently in the article NFCC#8 isnt being met. NFCI#3 isnt a black check to use an image anywhere you want when referring to a work. Werieth (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #8. Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increases reader’s understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” --- Simply denigrating visual information conveyed in a stamp image is reductio ad absurdum, without force or logic. Visual information (image) of a visual medium (stamp design related to a commemoration or honorific) conveys understanding in a way written description does not, a picture is worth a thousand words.

The article has critical commentary about the stamp commemorating the Virginia Ratifying Convention, notable enough for its own WP article, relative to the topic, History of Virginia on stamps, using both Arago (National Postal Museum) and Wallenstein (Cradle of America: four centuries of Virginia history) as sources. Why would you say it has zero? That is disingenuous at best.

Virginia was important. Virginia was home to leaders supporting and opposing. Only after a promise for a Bill of Rights did Virginia narrowly ratify. Absent is any policy requirement in WP:NFCC #8 for a controversy involving the design of the stamp itself. In fact, were the commentary to be restricted to stamp design as you propose, then displaying it would not be permitted by WP:NFCI Guideline #3 "Stamps", which has been quoted in full here and repeatedly linked for reference. You may be thinking of something other than stamps policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely the point where your analysis is unpersuasive, because your critique of the article is unrelated to any existing policy. Not to say that critical commentary cannot be added or isnt in the sources, but that it needs to be in the article. No, the requirement is to meet all ten NFCC items, and your objection does not fall within any of them. The article meets all ten, but not the unsourced “critical commentary” invention you have contrived to unnecessarily restrict NFC licensed images under the USPS template. The image may not be displayed for purposes of illustrating the design elements, it must be for the purposes of identifying the stamp itself, this is mere non-sequitur, requiring what is prohibited. The stamp itself must be seen to be identified, it is a visual medium.

NFCC#8 refers to “contextual significance” which for a topical article such as History of Virginia on stamps cited in this RfC, means something connecting the stamp concretely to the history of Virginia. The commemorative stamp is named for the event and it is issued on the 200th anniversary of the Virginia event. Scholarly reliable sources substantiate the Virginia ratification of the U.S. constitution as notable, and that notability relates to the stamp commemorating the event in Virginia history. You have no sources to the contrary, so your objection is pointless. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Venue

There has been some question as to whether this [ie WP:MCQ where the discussion previously was] is the right venue. In my view this is a reasonable venue. What is under discussion here is not changing WP:NFC, but the correct application of WP:NFC in a particular case. That is an appropriate topic for a content discussion board, so there is no reason to shut this down.

Furthermore, it is not for Werieth, as a participant in the discussion with strongly held views, to shut it down. If done at all, that should be done by an uninvolved admin on petition from Werieth. It was also highly inappropriate to remove somebody else's comment on the question. I have therefore undone those edits. @Werieth: if you are unhappy about this, please take it to a neutral admin. Jheald (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth:. I'm not going to edit war about it, but IMO Werieth your action, especially diff after what I had just posted above, was well out of order. Jheald (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I find the forum shopping and canvassing by the original poster uncalled for. Ensuring that this is at the proper venue (the policy/guideline in question) is the least I can due given those actions. Having a discussion about a policy on a different talk page and canvassing for support along with picking a venue that isnt watched by those who necessarily watch the policy is sneaky and an attempted run around policy. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No. There is a reason we have content boards -- indeed, why such boards were split away from here in the first place -- and that is to allow very detailed discussions of how the NFC criteria should properly be applied to particular items of content, without clogging up boards like this, which exist to discuss whether or how policy should be changed (or re-worded). The proper place for a discussion on a particular piece of content was not here. What is most likely to happen now is that the discussion is likely to sub-paged for manageability, and is likely to end up on even fewer watchlists than before your unilateral move. Jheald (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The way the RFC is phrased begs a broad use of stamps, not just one page though certainly the page in question was what spawned the RFC. MCQ was certainly the wrong board (that is meant to run like the reference desk, not so much policy wonkery), and the or VPP would be the proper venue.--MASEM (t) 14:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To the newly aspiring editor, there seems to be a thicket of WP projects and boards and panels and pumps, no one-stop shopping. But RfC somewhere seemed to be the best beginning.

When a month ago, an editor disrupted three articles without the courtesy of discussion, I found links to two venues and pled the case for twelve USPS template stamps with rudimentary description and commentary. Looking for an increased understanding in the face of unexplained edit-war attack, I was not able to recover fast enough, and stamps which one orphaned were quick-deleted by others. I lost the Julia de Burgos stamp which was first criticized as living person with free-use images available; she is dead, commemorated on a stamp and as a Puerto Rican born American, I thought appropriate to the 'Puerto Rico on stamps' article. My enhanced text for the poet was deemed satisfactory to keep the stamp by Masem after the fact.

I value the WP community of collegial enterprise. Masem was able to help me with four with out-of-copyright art used in Civil War commemoratives in spite of rejecting seven others. This month's case of the Virginia Ratification Convention stamp has enhanced description and interpretive context based on 'third party sources' demonstrating their notability, --- an improved effort compared to my efforts a month ago. Any error in placing the RfC was made in good faith. I'd rather not an edit war as the starting point of the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NFCI #3 specifically

I think it is probably useful to have a separate specific section to discuss our understanding of what it is that NFCI #3 actually says, and whether the present phrasing is correct and what it actually should say.

I summarised it above as follows:

Specifically on the meaning of WP:NFCI #3, which says that it can be okay just to use a stamp "for identification" (i.e. simply to show what the stamp looks like). How should this be interpreted ? If for example a person X has been featured on a stamp, and that fact is mentioned in the article, is it okay to show what the stamp looked like, if the image is being used specifically in the context of the stamp, rather than as the main identification of person X at the top of the article ?

@Werieth: has written:

NFCI#3 refers to the usage of a stamp on the article about the stamp (similar case to book covers and album cover art.) Not the general topical articles. Werieth (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: has suggested that there must be:

a) sourced description of the cultural-historical significance (i.e. of the item, or event, or the person, that is depicted -- presumably articles on the topic of particular individuals would almost always meet such a criterion -- JH); --- [because] this is what we would expect from an encyclopedia article versus a stamp gallery --- THEN optionally b) something about the postal usage (rate, printing, numbers); optionally c) something about the unique art of the stamp itself, such as the designer, etcher, or printer; optionally d) any literary controversy surrounding the stamp or its art. [...]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: has suggested that

If it's a one-liner mentioning the stamp, then probably not. But if there's a decently sized paragraph describing it, perhaps a non-free image is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For myself:

It seems to me that, almost without exception I think, we almost always allow an NFC image of the title-object of an article to show what the object looks like (if no free image is likely to be achievable). That goes for paintings in copyright, for as-yet unbuilt buildings, even for news-agency photographs (which of all the NFC on WP we are probably rightly the most paranoid about) -- if it is the object itself that is the topic of the article. So why this special specific singling-out of stamps (and currency also), that use is appropriate "For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it" ?

I think it is because (or perhaps more accurately was because) stamps and currency, compared to other items at WP:NFCI, were identified as items where the copyright taking was particularly slight, and so as items whose use were particularly unlikely to create any issues for WP article re-use (commercially or non-commercially, domestically or worldwide). It's notable that the clause does not say "for identification of the stamp or currency as the title-topic of the article, nor "for critical commentary on the stamp or currency" -- either of which it could have said.

So my strong suspicion is that as originally written, the clause was intended to say that use of the stamp "for identification of the stamp or currency", not necessarily in an article devoted to the stamp or currency, was okay; so long as the stamp was not in reality actually being used for identification of the non-stamp topic of the article. (If it adds to reader understanding to say that famous 18th century scientist X was depicted on a stamp (presumably having already established at length why he was such a notable character), it adds further to reader understanding to show how it was that the national postal agency chose to depict him

And I think that that is still one way (and perhaps the most natural way) that the clause can reasonably be read today.

The question (IMO) is: is such a reading still appropriate? Particularly after some users such as particularly eg @Ww2censor: have spent several years removing stamp images from all articles where stamps were not the primary topic of the article.

Myself, I think it probably does add value to the reader in the context of an article on eg Gauss to show how Gauss was depicted on a banknote (or a stamp, if it had been a stamp), sufficient to balance the very slight copyright taking that such an inclusion would represent -- particularly if, per King of Hearts above, there were "a decently sized paragraph describing it" rather than a one-liner. But either way, I think the present text of WP:NFCI #3 could probably benefit from some useful clarification. Jheald (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In the broad sense, there is no special case being made here. If a stamp is the topic of its own article, like Breast cancer research stamp, we'd likely not question the stamp's use. But I know you're specifically focusing on the stamp used within the body of the article.

[10] this edit introduced the core of NFCI in August 2005. I'm having problems finding the actual discussion that that diff emphasizes (that's at the onset of the Fair Use policy), but the discussions I do find lump how stamps and currency would be treated as with cover art (see [11] or [12]). Note, however, this was all before it was "non-free" and still at "fair use", and which I agree that if there was a paragraph discussing the issuing of the stamp, then the use of the stamp image would be well within fair use law. Post NFC, I see [13], [14], [15] and probably more but this is minimal change to the original wording that was added. While there's no single bottom line from these discussions, it is clear that 1) the core language of NFCI#3 never really changed since it was first added in 2005, save for clarifying when it can be used, and 2) the past considerations were that the use of NFCC stamps in the body of the article not specifically about the stamp should be exception, equivalent to how to consider the use of a magazine cover about a person in the article about that person. Topical stamp articles are a bit of a different beast because we are talking "stamps" in general but also another topic entirely. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

But in this case, "equivalent to how to consider the use of a magazine cover about a person in the article about that person" does not apply, because the article is not about the colonial Capitol building pictured in the stamp. The stamp itself, which may be used if the illustration is about the stamp itself, is related to an historical event 200 years before the issue, the issue is named for the event, the commemorative is related to the event. Placing the event in historical context places the commemorative stamp in contextual significance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI #9. [do not use] A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. The stamp itself is discussed as commemorating an event in Virginia history, the stamp itself is named for the event, the 200th anniversary of the event is the date of issue for the stamp itself, as discussed inline next to the image. That is "contextual significance" of the stamp itself in Virginia history, which some deny exists because it is not critical commentary of art in the stamp design, or controversy surrounding an upside down printing -- elements unrelated to the topic of the article, which is not printing techniques or errors, but the History of Virginia on stamps as commemorated by the USPD and then the USPS.

Once that is met, the next controlling limit would be NFCC#3 Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. In the History of Virginia on stamps, free-use images are used in stead of more modern NFC stamps issued for Bill of Rights, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark expedition, two civil war battles, and Virginia's presidents in eight cases. But there are some five stamps which would be of particular interest related to the major subsection divisions of the article. I am trying to meet the spirit and the letter of all governing policy and guidelines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

(Extracted from the discussion above -- Jheald (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

Let me ask you this: in History of Virginia on stamps do you believe that every stamp (free and non-free) can be illustrated and still work under NFC? I don't think you are saying "yes", based on the above, though its clear you think some NFC is necessary. Working on that assumption, that the goal is to represent the topic proportionally, then there's a possible idea there, in that when there is a selection of free or non-free images that could be used, with no image more or less significant than the other images. As long as there's a reasonable number of non-free cases, allowing for some appropriate portions of non-free images could be reasonably justified. For example, here, there's about 10 stamps that would be non-free, out of about 50-some (I have not done a full tally, I'm just roughing that) stamps. So one or two non-free would likely be reasonable to meet the basics of NFCC. If it was the case that only one non-free stamp existed out of 50, I'd be very much against the need to illustrate that single non-free. Obviously, the cases that should be the chosen are the ones where the most significance can be given in the text, and one should avoid cases where the name of the image is just a title drop and that's all that can be said (eg like one would use in a discography). If there are non-free that are clearly justified (by discussion of the actual image via critical commentary) they would automatically be included but also considered as part of those examples. That, I think, is a fair compromise to still meet NFC but illustrate "mixed" media articles fairly. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As an example of what might be reasonable, Five of sixteen USPS stamps identified might be pictured to limit usage. If any more are discovered, as there are sure to be among Virginia’s presidents, the limit should remain at five, corresponding to the article’s major subdivisions, one each to represent modern stamps. The five stamps would be less than 5% of the stamps pictured in the article. Altogether there may be 20% USPS post 1978 "modern" stamps related to Virginia listed at the end of the day. Descriptions of these stamps need to be enhanced to meet the level of the Virginia Ratification stamp, they do not yet meet that standard. Additional commentary related to the stamp art and postage use was expanded at the Virginia Ratification stamp this morning. I intend to improve my writing.

First, one of one USPS stamp is noted in the first section — the state flag is shown, not the commemorative of the state bird/flower. Commentary needs expansion.

Second, one of seven, perhaps more in the chronological section: the choice would be the Ratification stamp under discussion here. Best commentary example to date.

Third, one of two USPS stamps in Other famous Virginian section, showing Arthur Ashe, a second Virginian African-American to Virginian Booker T. Washington. Commentary is substantial, may be improved upon.

Fourth, one of three in landmarks section, one a duplicate of Ratification. Perhaps the CCC commemoration showing the Appalachian Trail in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, the only geographic feature commemorated on a stamp is a modern stamp, unless you consider Hampton Roads in the Battle of Hampton Roads commemorative up in chronology, which I would choose to forego as an illustrated stamp. Commentary is substantial, may be improved upon.

Fifth, one of two, certainly more in the Virginia’s presidents section. Picturing one stamp of a president represented with the fewest of free-use stamps (not Washington who is pictured the most of any individual on U.S. postage). Commentary needs expansion.

The "limit" in "limited use" should be related to the size and scope of the article on a case by case basis. I put this example proposal on the table for discussion as a best case as I understand "limited use", and I appreciate that the final outcome may differ. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see a concrete proposal of this kind emerging. Do people think that something like this is the way forward for the article? Jheald (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is very reasonable. One thing in the Ashe stamp per [16] is that it is the same photo used when he was recognized as Sportsman of the Year by SI, so there's definitely something about the photo used to build the stamp on. I don't necessarily need to get into the specifics of what your arguments are, on here, save that you are in agreement that not every stamp needs to be shown, and you are focusing on the ones that have more interesting "stories" to tell than just "here's a face on a stamp" ones. For purposes of this discussion, this gets us somewhere (would like to hear Jheald's opinion too), but how to translate this to a guideline or policy statement, I'm not 100% sure. It would definitely require adding at minimum a footnote (if not actual text) to NFCI#3 to explain what's preferred to be including these; perhaps a bit of touching up on NFLISTS. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I can agree with Masem. As I understand it, the NFC usage must be limited, even if inclusion enhances understanding and omission detracts from it.

So lets see if we can come up with an operational definition of how the usage is limited. If in an article of 120 images discussed, there are relevant non-free images amounting to 20% of the article scope, under 5% of the total images, and limited to one image for every major section in the article (one per section), then if all ten NFCC elements are met, up to five licensed nfc USPS stamp images might be used in a single article, if it meets contextual significance by historical analysis or critical commentary. An example might be found at History of Virginia on stamps, the maximum NFC images allowed would be five.

But if there were only 40 images treated in an art or stamp article, with eight (20%) NFCs described, there could be no more than two (5%) nfc images, and they would particularly require "contextual context" of historical analysis or critical commentary before being pictured in the article. One NFC image may be used to illustrate a "modern" image over the most recent 30-plus-year period. One NFC image may be used in an article to illustrate a stand alone article concerning a stamp itself, not the image pictured on it.

I'm trying to hit on a balance which would work between art articles and stamp articles, to avoid overpopulation of nfc images in articles of either visual category. Most in my view would be limited to one or two, no more than five for a substantially illustrated article with over 100 images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make it a numbers game, though that will definitely enter into it. Other factors include how the article is broken out and structured (making sure image use is balanced across the article to make it visually interesting), if the non-free is really needed - for example, in TVH's present structure of the history of a localation and the recognition of famous people from that location, if we have a free image of that person and the stamp image is very simple (ala the Great American series), it would be better to use the free image of the person), and probably some other factors. I would always keep the advice that if you can remove the non-free, that's the best possible solution, but adding a few examples if the non-free represents a reasonable fraction of the overall works for these topical articles is at least a fair compromise. I can't guarantee that a process like Featured Articles would accept that, but outside of that if the image was challenged at FFD for its use in a topical article and the image was selected under these types of exceptional conditions, I would likely !vote to keep. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

An idea that comes to mind to hit the middle ground is to consider NFLISTS, and specifically to consider the differences between what I'll call a "short form" list and a "long form". A "short form" is typically going to be formatted as a bulletted list, a definition list, or a table (which would include discographies, episode lists, etc.) where there is little prose (or at least in the form of complete sentences). The use of NFC on these types of lists (barring any direct discussion on the media) should be avoided, though one example for a lead image is reasonable if no free example is available. A "long form" list may be a list or an article but it is a form that these topic stamp articles take , or would be comparable to History of painting or even a character list from a television show. While we would again push for reducing non-free in such to zero, this is where we can allow a "reasonably minimal" number of specific examples if no free equivalents exist. Ideally, the examples should be ones with critical commentary on the media itself, but if those are not available, the examples should be the minimal number that fairly represent the list or highlight the most "important" elements on that list. In the example of the Virginia history on stamps, the 200th anniversay stamp (the 1988 issue) is a large highlight in terms of the state's history and would be reasonable. The key is that while we ask for "zero", that would not be a hard limit. The number and specific image use may be challenged under NFCC#3 and #8 still, but under this proposed change, the challenge would have to be considered that long-form lists do not have a hard maximum NFC limit that we would ask for short-form lists (which would be zero, one, or two, depending on circumstances). Issues with number and choice of images would be a matter at NFCR to consider. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem:Limited use WP:NFCC #3 in an article might mean limited to one for each major article divisions, no more than five. But at History of painting, we have several pictured for each topic division, a total of maybe 25, there is no “contextual significance” explicated for each image, they are aggregately exemplars of each school, rather than one per school. Likewise at Puerto Rico on stamps, there are four stamps to be pictured in the topic division, “modern personalities”, a baseball player, politician, poet and actor. These now should have either historical analysis or literary commentary such as found at Julia de Burgos and Roberto Clemente to meet “contextual significance” by historical analysis and reliable sources, then the article images submitted to WP:NFCR — so as to avoid edit wars without discussion on the article Talk page?

@Jheald:Let me say that there is no encyclopedic import to simply asserting historical significance. Further, merely relating an explicit event which may be commemorated on a stamp, a) the surrender at Yorktown, — is not contextual significance, but adding b) the battle brought about the end of the Revolution, a military truce followed by the Treaty of Paris (1783) recognizing independence, --- meets the requirement for “contextual significance” WP:NFCC #8. And there is an additional requirement that there be a reliable scholarly source beyond the issuing agency or a newspaper write-up to meet “contextual significance" in historical analysis. That the NFC illustration must support qualifying encyclopedic text is fundamental, illustration cannot be gratuitous. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What my idea is is to take out the NFCC#8 issue - that in long-form lists, representative samples of non-free (where no free replacement is possible) that are not specifically the subject of critical comment would still meet NFCC#8 to a degree, such that the discussion about images in that section should be focused more on NFCC#3a and to some extent NFCC#1. Editors creating such lists should be well aware that NFCC#3a is key and only minimal samples should be used, and the number used may be challenged at NFCR. But what the "right" number is is nothing something we can define, and is going to vary from medium to medium, as well as considering other factors within the article, and editors should be very well aware that NFCR and other consensus processes will likely challenge when more than a few are used (in general). There's no way I think we can write language to quantify NFC use further outside of stressing minimal use and that illustrating every non-free in such lists is feasibly impossible, but we can stress limiting NFC to the examples that themselves are subject of critical commentary, or examples that have the most importance to the subject will less be a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we want to be careful not to be too limiting, if these images are on-topic and valuable to readers. For currency images, we should recall that recent use both at One pound (British coin) and at Banknotes of the Australian dollar have recently been upheld; so I would like to see the standard banknote tables restored, with a face and an obverse image at 0.7 pixels per millimetre for each denomination, per the standard originally developed at WP:NUMIS to allow worldwide comparability. We're always being told how easy it is for admins to re-instate images, even if we mortals can't see them. Per Jimbo's approval of the pound coin images, I would now like to see that done. Jheald (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be reasonable in this for coins/bills in active circulation. The Pound coins would work since the old designers are different mintings but still regularly used, a point Jimbo made in that comment. When we talk about older mintings/bills that are to a degree reasonably out of circulation, that's where I would definitely limit inclusion barring additional discussion of the images; for example, if the Royal Bank reissue a new design for the pound, itself with several different designs, then at some point (a few years) after that, I would expect the current alternate designs of the pound to be deprecated from the article since they are not longer the actively circulated denomination. At the same time, there are probably exceptions - if , for example, the entire US state quarter series was non-free (it's not), displaying all 50 images without discussion would be a problem. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

An article specifically on a previous issue should also show all denominations, in the 0.7 px/mm format. (I'm thinking particularly banknotes here). The important factors are the non-replaceability, the slightness of the effect of the copyright taking, and the relatively visually controlled appearance of the standard banknote table). Jheald (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In an article like Banknotes of the Australian dollar, which is a good example, I would not include the images - save for one example - on the first table, since those notes are well out of circulation. I do note each of the bills are notable on their own and the front and back are shown there, so here's a case that removing the images on that first table is appropriate. On the second table, as all those bills are still in circulation the images on that page make sense (in addition to the fact they have separate articles). That's for the "overview of bill/coin" type articles. On a specific currency pages, like the pound coin, all images of the present circulating coin/bill make sense, while a representative sample of past issues, if such exist, would be appropriate, but not all past, non-circulating different issues. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Stamps trial proposal-A

So here is a trial proposal. A is for Guideline #3.

Proposal A-1-b WP:NFCI Guideline #3. Stamps and Currency. For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. NFCC#1, editors should use care to find free-use images where possible. NFCC#3a, the NFC images must be limited in relationship to the total article context, the topical subsections or modern examples. NFLIST#2, images must be discussed in detail in the context of the article body. NFCC#8, images must illustrate encyclopedic text with “contextual significance” by sourced critical commentary or historical analysis. More than a few NFC images in the same article are likely to be challenged at WP:NFCR.

I think that the internal reiteration of references with explanatory text strengthens the provision which otherwise is likely to lead to unnecessary confusion and contention. I am not sure how Masem envisions long form lists of stamps being treated differently from articles on stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to limit this to just stamps - we've been at this point before so we need better advice that is general, which is why I'm targetting NFLISTS. I would like to see language also added to NFCI#3 and perhaps #2 (that's logos) to say when these cases are reasonable when the images are otherwise not the infobox lead image. Mind you at the present time I do not have an exact language but I want to make sure with others like you TVH and with Jheald if this makes sense, to stress that in long-form list-style articles that there's no outright disallowance but a need to balance minimal use with some illustration. --19:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've recast Proposal A with your suggestion, plus my own emphasis on minimal use of images must be accompanied with substantial explication in text, because the encyclopedia uses images to illustrate text, and relabeled it A-1-b to reflect the change. I've added Proposal B to address Logos. Another editor's proposal might be labelled B-2-a for shorthand until a "friendly amendment" brings about B-2-b. Or I can just keep modifying the two proposals if editors are satisfied I am properly incorporating their suggestions as we go. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NFLIST #2 doesn't say that images "must" be discussed in detail. Rather it says that, if there is a choice to be made, images that are discussed should be preferred.

For currencies, per Jimbo's recent intervention, it is appropriate to show all images of denominations of a particular issue. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, NFCC #8 doesn't say that images "must illustrate encyclopedic text". As confirmed elsewhere on this page, the requirement is that images must add something significant to reader understanding. Where “contextual significance” means relevant significance in the context of the topic of the article. This attempt to redefine the interpretation of WP:NFCC is not acceptable. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

a) There is no attempt to "redefine" NFCC on my part, only to place concurrent requirements from NFCC adjacent in NFCI#3 on stamps, the concern of this RfC. --- Merely stating a stamp is issued is not sufficient, there MUST be encyclopedic text, as the provision is enforced by Werieth at Puerto Rico on stamps, Territories of the United States on stamps and Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, and concurred with by Masem, resulting in the loss of eight images, with Masem providing the rationale to save five, (but I was not nimble enough to save Julia de Burgos stamp). While policy merely suggests literary commentary to be one example of "contextual significance" Werieth has called for only literary critique or controversy when the policy is open to other kinds. I thought that Masem agreed with him, I may have been mistaken. This RfC is a test to see if I got it right without edit wars.

b) Agreed, “contextual significance” means relevant significance in the context of the topic of the article. When the topic of the article is a topic related to places and stamps or history and stamps, significance is related to the issuing of the stamp concerning the people and landmarks of a place or significance is related to the issuing of the stamp on the anniversary of an event. The choice to make a stamp about a person is related to the notability of the person. The choice to make a stamp about an event is related to the notability of the event.

c) But considering how the policy has been administered before on stamps, merely declaring historical importance is not sufficient to meet "notability", nor is merely describing an event with "explicit" significance. Historical "contextual significance" requires a larger meaning, connecting the event to larger movements. Stating a Yorktown battle stamp is issued is not sufficient. Describing an American victory does not suffice. "Contextual significance" of the 200th anniversary in the 1981 stamp issued is related to the military truce and the treaty recognizing U.S. independence, --- encyclopedic text which can be substantiated with scholarly sources.

Or is it sufficient to simply say, "A commemorative stamp honoring the 200th anniversary year of the Battle of Yorktown was issued October 16, 1981, at Yorktown, Virginia. The designer was Cal Sacks, the modeler was Clarence Holbert. The stamps were printed in the offset/intaglio process and issued in panes of fifty." I may have misunderstood "contextual significance" of the stamp itself.

In an article with stamps from every historical era of stamp issue, those from the modern era deserve representation on the same grounds, explaining their contextual significance in the same way as the others, --- events which do not necessarily give rise to literary criticism, but are nevertheless fit subjects for encyclopedic treatment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Logos trial proposal-B

From Masem above, B is for NFCI Guideline #2. Italics for specific Logo-related direction.

Proposal-B-1-a --- withdrawn, see Masem "alternative" below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

An alternative interpretation of Masem above would be to consolidate Logos and Stamp and Currency, but that's not what I think he meant. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

As per my previous comments. These attempts to slide in completely different interpretations for WP:NFCC are quite inappropriate. Jheald (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NFLIST trial proposal-C

Masem also considered amending NFLIST. Italics denote new language.

Proposal-C-1-a --- withdrawn, see Masem "alternative" below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope this covers the ground. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The addition is unnecessary. The words "Such as" already indicate that the list is not closed.

BTW, VaHistorian, in some of the material above you seem to indicate that we should for some reason hold a stamp depicting an event from history to be more significant than a stamp depicting Bart Simpson or some other icon of popular culture. This is not the case. What matters is the relevant significance to the topic of the article. Stamps showing historical events don't get any special pass here, simply because the events they depict are historical. We don't consider them on that basis any more or any less important to cover than any other stamps.

"Historical context" in the above would have to mean the historical context of the design being chosen for the stamp, not the historical context of what is depicted on the stamp. Jheald (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, the context is related to the choice of the design for the stamp itself as a commemorative, not the design pictured as an explicit event in history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternate approach

Instead of modifying NFCI too much or touching NFCC, I just came up with an idea of a NFC use "casebook" when talking about specific types of pages - currency, topic stamps, discographies, etc. These would be cases where the use of multiple NFC, typically that would not have critical commentary or significant discussion as to meet NFCC#8 or where NFCC#3 could be an issue. It would be outline by page type, noting that it makes no attempt to cover every possible page, and is more or less common practice such that editors known they can editor towards that and those on NFC enforcing side should know not to be overly strict there (though can still call out specific issues, for example, believing that a page that has the allowance on a casebook to have some non-free examples, as having too many examples). This allows advice for specific page types to be tuned without making NFCI, NFCUUI or NFCC too excessive or specific. And again, broad NFCC concerns still override these, but the idea is to make out a reasonable use area. I cannot promise that processes like GAC or FAC, which will critically review image use, will necessary abide by that, but this should prevent a mass FFD on such pages without preliminary discussion first on the issue. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What would a draft look like in the stamps section, say, for instance, to begin? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea yet; I would work that out if this idea of a casebook made sense. It would probably be something that follows the line we've discussed already: "Topical stamp articles: Limited non-free stamp images may be used to balance illustrations of free images of stamps or used in a limited fashion where no free stamp images exist in a topical article. Editors should favor the use non-free stamp images where the stamp's artwork is itself the subject of critical discussion. Otherwise, a limited number of stamp images representing key or important concepts of the topical article where there is no equivalent free image can be chosen, subject to review by other editors under NFCC#3a." This is not exact wording but this is the type of language and direction I'd expect for each entry in the case book. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable start. And the place for review under NFCC#3a Minimal usage, minimal number, --- or for all ten NFCC elements for an editor acting in good faith, --- would be at WP:NFCR with an RfC? Sample language would be helpful, since one would anticipate a review for each upload of 1-5 stamps. I notice that History of art has groups of four NFC images without any discussion for each image, as it would be in the case of a WP:LIST long form? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't give any number for NFCC#3a without it being gamed in either direction. We want to encourage you to develop such lists with zero NFC if at all possible, but this would recognize that some illustrations of non-free in the topical stamp articles would not be out of line. So where the number is set is more of a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing. The more selective with non-free that such an article uses alongside using non-free that has the most discussion around it and where some type of free replacement (even if not the stamp but the element the stamp represent) isn't possible, will be factors to someone reviewing the article. What this should stress, and why I think NFLISTS may need to still be changed in light of a case book, is to make sure NFC enforcement is not harsh on these and immediately complain about excess non-free but instead, if brought to NFCR, commenting on specific imagees if really required or considering the number too high. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

a) I get that use of NFC images should be minimized, not used when free-use images are available to represent the same thing. As of this morning, In seventeen cases at History of Virginia on stamps, a free-use stamp is used without using the image of the modern USPS stamp commemorating or honoring the same thing or kind of thing — NFC stamps not used include Jamestown founding, Battle of Yorktown and related Battle of the Capes, Bill of Rights, Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark Expedition, one Robert E. Lee, two of five civil war battles commemorated, one Edgar Allen Poe, five presidents, Washington, Jefferson and Madison more than once. More NFC stamps will be described but not illustrated as I find them.

b) In the case of the Virginia ratification stamp, it is used only to illustrate the Ratification Convention, not the building itself — the NFC stamps is given descriptive narrative and a footnote link in Landmarks section to minimize NFC usage.

c) I’m trying to anticipate questions which should be answered in a “casebook” Of twenty-five non-free content NFC stamps of USPS issue out of 110 mentioned in the scope of the article, only one is now pictured, the Virginia Ratification stamp. The justification for more should be explained on the article Talk page, correct? Also in the purpose of the USPS license? And in the ten-point submittal to NFCR?

d) For another instance, African-Americans are 20% of Virginia’s population, of the fifteen treated under ‘Other famous Virginians’, three images would be 20% of the category. It happens Booker T. Washington is free-use, but NFC Carter G. Woodson (founder of Black History Week, holding a volume of black history, legacy: Black History Month), and NFC Arthur Ashe (tennis great, portrait from Sports Illustrated cover) are NFC stamps. That leaves five (four NFC stamps) in the section not pictured after these two NFC images are used. After appropriate preparation of the narrative, I would nominate the Woodson and the Ashe stamps at NFCR with an RfC, correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to get too tied up on the specifics of stamps (again, it's meant as a broad aspect), but for comparison: what I'm proposing is what WP:OUTCOMES is to WP:N - cases where articles that appear to fail notability guidelines are kept on general principles. Here we're saying where NFC that, in isolation would appear to fail NFCC (to some), being appropriate in specific context. So there's definitely precedence for this. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a friendly proposal to the wider use of NFC images when appropriate in specific contexts. I'm interested in following it.

For reference, the following five books treat "history on stamps", which I could not provide earlier in the discussion. These bear on the notability of the topic History of Virginia on stamps allowed by @Jheald: using general principles even without the five books for reference. I believe that he has a wider knowledge of NFC issues than my newly acquired acquaintance with stamp-related policy.

(1) Bianculli, Anthony J., Railroad history on American postage stamps 2004. (2) Bloomgarden, Henry S., American history through commemorative stamps 1969. (3) Deaton, Charles W., The great Texas stamp collection 2012. (4) Renfeld, Fred. Commemorative Stamps of the U.S.A.: an illustrated history of our country 1954. (5) Woreck, Michael and Jordan Worek. An American history album: the story of the United States told through stamps 2008. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that some of the more specific details should be left to the philately project, with the understanding that image use guidelines there are 1) overriden by guidelines and policy and 2) are aware that a reasonable minimal number of images should be used. As long as what the philately project puts down as the more exacting aspects (eg what is a defining historic event, etc.) that recognizes that these fill out the space that can't be covered in policy, I'm fine with having those there and less under scrutiny than just setting up the concept of a casebook that includes, among others, the general allowance for a small number of non-free stamp examples on topical articles that then can nod to the philately's guidelines for image use. Similar with any other casebook case, if there's an associated WProject with similar image use guides specific to them, we can call out to that too. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NFCC#8 governs guidelines in NFCI and NFLISTS.

In a topical philately article History of Virginia on stamps with a scope of 130 stamps, four images are displayed from those issued by the USPS since 1978. One is not copyrightable by the USPS because they reproduce art without altering the image, in the First Bull Run stamp. In the Arthur Ashe Sports Illustrated cover, the illustration is not recognizable to the reader without the image provided. The Virginia ratification stamp has been reviewed at Non-free content with nine support, one oppose and three comments.

Of the 29 USPS stamps referenced, two new uploads File:Woodson 1984 U.S. stamp.1a .jpg and File:Ashe 2005 U.S. stamp.1a.jpg represent under 5% of the article scope (NFCC#3a limited usage) to commemorate an important Virginia event or notable Virginian personage, each meeting all ten NFCC criteria for WP usage, including NFCC#8, “contextual significance”. Together with the free-use Booker T. Washington commemorative they display 20% African-Americans in the “Other famous Virginian” section scope, the same percentage as their proportion in the general Virginia population.

Note, "contextual significance" as policy is independent of the guideline WP:NFCI#3 which does not require context, and the guideline WP:NFLISTS #2 which suggests critical commentary is preferable to simple description of the stamp artwork, — without forbidding other context such as historical analysis as provided for in each case here. NFCC#8 governs guidelines in NFCI and NFLISTS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Summary of RFC

The discussion of this RFC has been so long and apparently repetitive that I don't understand what the question is. Can someone provide me with a one-paragraph summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. It's not at all clear what is being proposed. How it could be meaningfully closed at this stage is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's one RFC, which can be summarized as asking "Can non-free images of stamps be used on topical stamp articles even if they otherwise are not discussed with critical commentary?" The above section about NFCC#8 is completely separate. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn:, @Robert McClenon:. No, there is an expectation that there will be encyclopedic text and images will illustrate the text, and for non-free images, all ten NFCC requirements will be met, including NFCC#8 "contextual significance" to be met by historical analysis explaining the relevance of the anniversary of the stamp issue itself, not the artwork depicted. Policy discussion suggesting "contextual significance" including examples of encyclopedic text "such as critical commentary and controversy" do not exclude historical contextual significance of the stamp itself. The RfC is:

Can stamp images be used “For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it.” as explained at WP:NFCI Guideline #3? For example, File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg, at History of Virginia on stamps, search on caption “Virginia ratification 1788". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:16 am, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)

RFCC#8 "contextual significance" is met in the RfC example, File:Virginia ratification 1988 U.S. stamp.1.jpg, at History of Virginia on stamps, search on Virginia Ratification Convention, which has its own article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Support use of USPS stamp images using the USPS licensing template, with adjacent commentary describing the stamp, its postal use and a neutral critique showing the analytical relevance to the topic, --- which is unlike the prohibited description of the subject depicted on it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 9:16 am, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Oppose Given that their is zero critical commentary about the image beyond a basic description. Given your example this would open the door carte blanche usage despite the requirements set forth by WP:NFCC#1,3,8. We have already hashed this out and you are just forum shopping because you dislike the previous outcome. Werieth (talk) 9:23 am, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Support 100% per TheVirginiaHistorian. My worry about the folk at NFCR is that they run a cartel with attitude. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 2:32 pm, 29 April 2014, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)
Yes, the stamp commemorating the Virginia Constitution is placed on the section that describes this commemoration (of which the stamp is part), so it's relevant and can be used to identify it. Usage is minimal, as removing the image would no longer allow readers to identify the stamp. Diego (talk) 9:16 am, 30 April 2014, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)
Case-by-case treatment. If it's a one-liner mentioning the stamp, then probably not. But if there's a decently sized paragraph describing it, perhaps a non-free image is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 8:08 pm, 30 April 2014, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)
Support I basically agree with VirginiaHistorian. Perhaps what is needed is a statement that the postal authorities considered the historic event to be within their sphere of responsibility in finding events suitable for a stamp. They obviously made this positive decision regarding the official commemoration and it was in accord with the judgments of historians, scholars, experts, museum people and arts people. Rjensen (talk) 5:56 pm, 2 May 2014, last Friday (6 days ago) (UTC−4)
Comment As there are quite a number of questions here, more nuanced responses are probably appropriate than just "support" or "oppose". Jheald (talk) 7:06 am, 1 May 2014, last Thursday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)
Comment This is why I am considering a completely different approach, a "casebook" describing certain common article types (like "topical stamp articles") and describing how such non-frees can or can't be used. The example would allow a reasonably limited number (no hard #s) of non-frees to be used on topical stamp articles with outlined which cases to be uesd, alongside the possible need to expand out NFLists; this idea is not fully with or against the RFC hence pointing to JHeald's comment above - the discussion is much more nuanced than just the RFC simple summary. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I'm still pretty clueless. Is this a RfC which aims to change policy, or is this a request for assistance in understanding how policy should be applied in a particular case? J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

More a request for assistance in understanding how policy should be applied in a particular case. The example has considerably more commentary than eight stamp images rejected a month ago. The RfC was never intended to change policy, much less gut NFCC#8 “contextual significance”. It does have historical analysis of the commemorative stamp itself, designed to relate to an event or personage and issued on the anniversary of the related event, birth or death. This relates to the stamp itself as a commemorative named for the event and issued on the anniversary (Virginia ratification convention), not the design on the stamp (colonial Captiol building).

WP:NFCI Guideline #3 says stamp images can be used for the identification of the stamp or currency, and I am met with walls of text concerning corporate logos and magazine covers which do not have a WP standing license such as the USPS template. By the WP license template for USPS stamps, use of the image is permitted "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) --- on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, — due to the educational purpose at WP, the image use ... "qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.”

These considerations are dismissed based on a) NFCC#1, there are free-use stamps to show stamps commemorated Virginia history, WP needs no examples of images post 1978. b) NFCC#3, if stamps are used to illustrate stamps themselves in a topical article, then every stamp in the world will appear on WP; WP is an encyclopedia not a stamp album. c) NFCC#8, “contextual significance” means only literary or artistic critical commentary of the artwork itself, even though policy only suggests critical commentary or controversy as two bases of “contextual significance” in encyclopedic text, and the NFC stamp cannot be used to illustrate the artwork of the stamp.

The article in question has over 110 stamps referred to, 25 are Non-free content USPS stamps beginning 1978. I have proposed here using five USPS stamps with substantial accompanying text (20% of NFC, 5% of total) to illustrate modern examples, but I am assured this is not a numbers game to define “limited usage”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support based upon the extensive argumentation Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Support. Post 1978 stamp images are unique as the copyright holder (USPS) openly grants permission for their application in educational use. Since no entity (like Wikipedia) is harmed and no one's commercial interests are compromised we need to stop hounding editors who want to use these stamp images in articles about stamps. The concern that this will "open the door carte blanche usage" is without practical basis as these images are no different than free content images in as much as no "cart blanche" door has ever been opened for free images. If free images aren't over used, the concern that post 1978 stamps images will be is quite misplaced. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That is what the WP Template:Non-free USGov-USPS stamp says, which the old style upload wizard prompts the editor to select for stamps issued by the USPS beginning 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That template is a license template, and NOT a non-free rationale, so it is not an allowance to use a stamp image, but a requirement to help complete documentation for their use. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have to stress - as long as the license the copyright holder sets for a license does not meet the definition of free defined by this [17], the image is non-free. There's no grey area between free or non-free even if the copyright holder begged us to use these images; in the case of the USPS, because they don't allow commercial reuse, they are non-free. That's what the Foundation has said, so we can't change that resolution. That doesn't mean we can't use a reasonably limited number of these images, but we can't treat these anywhere close to a free image. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

* Support. Per Gwillhickers and TheVirginianHistorian above. Grateful to both for persisting here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) (Sorry. I already voted.)

Thank you, we are agreed then. The non-free rationale for the Virginia ratification stamp meets all template guidelines for usage as non-free content, but that does not make the image free-content. We know from WP:Non-free content, NFC use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, we know from NFCI#3 that these include commemorative stamps themselves, (not the subjects depicted), and from NFCC#8 the accompanying text requires “contextual significance” to be imparted at each image displayed, though there are exceptions as found at WP:NFLISTS such as History of art for NFC images without accompanying text for each image used.

In the case to be made for stamps, the entire stamp is used to identify the stamp itself, as there are no free-use alternatives for USPS stamps beginning 1978. Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original. Visual identification of a USPS stamp in an educational article about an a USPS stamp represented by the image, illustrating the topic of the article. Limited use to the one article subsection for this topical purpose. Use on servers limited to the United States as provided for in the Foundation license.

The rationale and textual explication for Virginia ratification in History of Virginia on stamps meets all ten non-free content criteria and USPS licensing in form and substance. Likewise for Carter G. Woodson and Arthur Ashe there as noted below, about 10% of the NFC images discussed, less than 5% of the article scope. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the way that I'm considering this is that we're basically talking about how NFCC#3a + #8 work hand in hand. In isolation, ignoring #3a, the bicentennial stamp just manages to meet NFCC#8 (compared to the Ashe one, which has more discussion on the image itself and so passes it cleanly), so it would be fair to include, if we considered everything in isolation. But when you talk about multiple stamps, now #3a comes into play, and with each added stamp included, we have to consider which ones really meet NFCC#8 so that #3a is met. This is not to say any more than one is wrong, just that there's a balance that needs to be meet, focusing on the stamps that meet NFCC#8 the best so that we keep NFCC#3a in check. So individually, one can argue each stamp (discussed as you have done) is okay, but we do need to be more critical of what selected stamps are shown to be illustrated as more are added. I don't think what you've selected for this article is a problem at this point, but I also think you're at the reasonably fair limit too, based on a general "what feels right" test. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this seems reasonable for 'History of Virginia on stamps'. #3a is limited NFC for the purpose to be met, the two African-Americans recognized in the modern era allow for proportionate racial depiction as it relates to the topic. As more modern stamps are added to the scope, another category might emerge to justify another modern stamp example -- maybe in landmarks? But that would be down the road after the article evolves some more. Thanks again for your assistance, your collegial attitude is appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on doing the casebook which I think is the best solution to handle this and other pages that commonly use NFC. The point to keep in mind is that it should never be a numbers game - just because you only illustrate 5% of the possible non-free stamps (3 out of 60 for example), that 5% is always the right number. Eg if the article later grew to have an added 20 stamps, a total of 80 possible non-free, that doesn't immediately say that a 4th non-free example should be added. The key has to be the balance of how strongly the images meet NFCC#8 verses the minimization of images via NFCC#3a (assuming all other facets are met). --MASEM (t) 19:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Which I should point out is over here User:Masem/NFCCasebook but far from complete. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of complexity in your draft that I am unfamiliar with, so I’ll revisit stamps. We know from WP:Non-free content, NFC use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to illustrating historically significant events, and these should be sourced to scholarly determination, those criteria might be included. --- So we can imagine illustrating non-free stamps, depending on the editorial selection of historically significant persons or events commemorated on non-free use stamps in the same topical article, depending on the subsection divisions.

The NFCC#3 minimization of the images for the editorial purpose served is certainly not fixed and that criteria might be included -- They may be five stamps at 2% of the scope of the article and 10% of the modern stamps as in the History of Virginia on stamps — They may also be six stamps at 50% of the scope of the article and 100% of modern stamps as in Puerto Rico on stamps (a writing in progress), as long as they are historically significant persons or events with contextual significance and are limited to the editorial purpose of the topic. NFC images would not be allowed to be gratuitously uploaded unrelated to Puerto Rico on stamps, for instance.

Articles with more than five NFC images do not “feel right” unless those images are each historically significant and are supported with substantiated sourced narrative adjacent to the images, and that criteria might be included — in which case considerations of NFCC#8 contextual significance and NFCC#3a minimization for the editorial purpose of the article would admit more than five NFC images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

A couple points:

We should never play the numbers game with NFC, at least for cases like this. (Cases of things like cover art, where we allow exactly one image without additional commentary, that's different). There's no right percentage rage or the like, it all depends on what could be supported. It is completely possible that 100% of the stamps that require non-free to be illustrated have strong visual significance to require illustration. Sure, this is very extreme, but it could happen. If we set some number ("you should never illustrate more than 10% of the possible non-frees with non-free images") people will read that as the maximum allowable. The result (I hope) of this discussion is that in a case like these stamp topical articles, being a visual medium, we can allow a reasonably fair number of non-free images for example purposes, though we will always stress minimizing and/or replacing with free whenever possible. What's reasonable will be a highly subjective number, but as you point out, your present ratio here seems to be well under any bar that will draw attention.
My goal on the case book is to describe the base cases, and then defer to any project specific guidelines for the details. So for example on stamps, I'd hope that the stamp project could describe some rules-of-thumb of non-free use in topical articles. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would hope your invitation at WP:STAMPS would get a response, since it is meant as a constructive, collaborative effort to both meet all requirements and avoid common misunderstandings. I like the idea, and would support it further there. It seems important since the oversight for NFC images introduces an element to article writing which is unusual and unexpected for the new editor. There also needs to be something said about appeals process and the multiple policy and guidelines which all apply in some measure to NFC stamp images for illustrating the stamp itself. There should at least be a "reading list" for background before an editor begins uploading, so some acquaintance with the multiple levels of complexity can be anticipated.

I may say from experience that the initial surprise can be unpleasant, especially when disruption occurs without justification, such as the claim that all dead Puerto Ricans commemorated on stamps were alive, so all NFC stamps meeting licensing requirements must be removed without discussion, -- nonsense on the face of it -- Different bot notifications lead to different venues for appeal, leading to charges of venue shopping, when the accused editor is simply following bot-directed protocol, and finding the walls of accusations disabling for writing additional text to answer objections. In the event, all were lost but those four you helped salvage. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.