Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Not a valid objection

I see an incomprehensible explanation has been put back in, because the request for an explanation that people can understand is "not a valid objection".[1] Really? Well it is a valid objection if you want people to follow the guideline:

The above applies to any enumeration or summary of a group of items related to the article subject (such as a list of people, companies, anime characters, literary or musical works, and so on), regardless of whether the list is in prose, a table, bullet points, contains subsections, or is in any other format. It may be acceptable to include a single image that portrays multiple enumerated elements from the list, or at most two or three separate non-free images portraying items from the list, provided that all other non-free considerations are met.

What on earth is an "enumeration or summary of a group of items related to the article"? If you mean an article which is a list, then say so. Besides which it is not appropriate to be so prescriptive. Individual cases require individual evaluation. Tyrenius (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Understandable_language_is_essential. Tyrenius (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there are lots of forms for lists. Would the insertion of the word "list" address your concerns? Maybe even a link to Wikipedia:Lists or Wikipedia:Lists#List styles? Personally, I would remove the second "enumerated" as confusing, and replace the first one with "numbered list". As far as not being prescriptive, take that up with Hammersoft. He has been at the sharp end recently. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be broad without being specific, if we use list, the non-free abuse users will move the "List of characters in" to "Characters of" and thus be able to claim that their page is no longer a "list" when in fact the contents of the page have not changed. βcommand 14:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph already covers things perfectly clearly. The second is superflous. If needs be, qualify the first, such as, "The use of non-free media in lists (whether titled as such or otherwise)". Tyrenius (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage of images in lists of characters

I wish to reprise two previous discussions about the usage of images in lists of characters (Two questions regarding images of fictional characters and Character images and lists). Please note that this discussion is about fleshed out "lists" written in prose and not just blanket table lists, in which such usage would clearly be decorative.

My main concern is the argument that characters that need illustration should have their own article. The problem is - as discussed in the first of the previous discussions - that the shift in notability guidelines means that many character articles have been merged into lists. Also, some characters could be highly significant to a work of fiction but simply do not have enough encyclopedic information to warrant a entire full article on them and are therefore better suited to a section in a prose-style "list". Images are used to illustrate characters and acts as support for discussion on them. Look at the difference between Homer Simpson and Frank Tenpenny. They are both as significant as each other to their respective works, yet only one is "allowed" an image. The reason given for one's removal is not a compelling enough to warrant this. Homer Simpson has appeared in all 400+ episodes of The Simpsons, and as a result has quite a lot of information on him that can warrant a full article. The instalments in the Grand Theft Auto video game series are not consistent and do not always feature the same characters, however Frank Tenpenny is incredibly significant to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas but simply does not have enough information to support his own entire article and is better suited into the "list". However only one can have an image simply because he has his own article. This is not a valid reasoning for removal of images in character "lists" (I use quotations as they are more prose like articles discussing the characters rather than blanket lists) and I would like to come to a new consensus about the usage of images for characters significant to a work of fiction in "lists".

.:Alex:. 12:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If the character is incredibly significant to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then that is the logical place to have the picture. If there is a link from the list entry to the game, then people can follow that to see what he looks like. Having said that, I am sympathetic to pictures being used to remind people what the character looks like, so they recognise what is being written about. A recent example was G'Kar (a Babylon 5 character). It's been years since I watched Babylon 5, and I couldn't remember which character he was, and what the Narns looked like. But no pictures anywhere to be seen, sadly. In the G'Kar article it recently (early December 2007) got removed after deletion. If someone has the time to add a satisfactory non-free use rationale to Image:Citizen G'kar.JPG, I'll undelete it for them. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alex, you answered your own question. Quoting you, "Also, some characters could be highly significant to a work of fiction but simply do not have enough encyclopedic information to warrant a entire full article on them" (emphasis mine). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a guide for characters, episodes, museums, tourist towns, vintage trains, etc. Conflating the two generates significant problems. To sum, if a character is not encyclopedic enough to have sufficient material to create an article of their own, you can't make an argument to justify breaching our basic core tenant, that of creating a free content encyclopedia, unless that argument is based on the premise that Wikipedia is a guide. It isn't. There simply isn't a justification. As for achieving consensus, you won't. Umpteen discussions on trying to find a way through this have yielded nothing. Thus, we default to the base case; no unfree material unless consensus emerges to grant exceptions. The base case is not to have unfree images and we have to prove a case to not include them. Wikipedia is not the "unfree encyclopedia". --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is a tradition of specialist encyclopedias effectively being guides. In that sense, Wikipedia can be a guide for characters, episodes, museums, tourist towns, vintage trains. What I see here is a problem of excess, not of not being encyclopedic. If there is sufficient verifiable material in the sources about a group of characters, then that can justify a list or overview article covering those characters. And that list or overview article is then both an encyclopedic article and a guide to the characters. Category:Encyclopedias makes interesting browsing, particularly Category:Fictional encyclopedias and Category:Specialized encyclopedias, which includes Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds, and The Soap Opera Encyclopedia and Category:Online encyclopedias. Wikipedia is, of course, a general encyclopedia, but it also has the capacity to have specialised areas as long as those areas still meet the basic policy restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a guide. WP:NOT. The point here is that if this is a guide, then by all means having pictures of every character, even ones appearing for a mere few minutes, might be justified. But, Wikipedia isn't a guide, and more to the point it is a free encyclopedia focused on free content. The basic policy restriction is that Wikipedia is being developed as a free content resource. All the arguments in favor of zillions of images on every character list misses this basic premise. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, Wikipedia is not a guide. But Wikipedia is also not paper. So while some want to see as much information as possible here, because this is where they come to find out about a subject, others prefer to limit topics to the strictly encyclopedic, whatever that means. But where do you draw the line between? Guidebook is not a cut-and-dried term. Its as nebulous a concept as encyclopedic. Sometimes lists, sections or even articles read like guidebooks. Airport articles list carriers. Articles about cities can include lists of parks. One can certainly argue that this information helps one to understand the topics. -Freekee (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, Hammersoft, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. But if you have over 2 million pages, there will need to be some non-free content to satisfy the encyclopedic content. I fall between the two extremes of "illustrate everything" and "only free content". Some non-free content is needed. If you read the archives of this talk page, you will see more clearly what my position is. As for the "not a guide" arguments, Freekee addresses that better than I could have done. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Except that the image inclusionist think the default case is include as many fair use images as you think you can get away with. Whereas the people committed to the mission of the project understand that no unfree image is the default case, and a strong argument must be made as to why a given case should be considered differently. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Exactly. I agree entirely with you on that, though I would say I am more easily persuaded than you in some given cases. For example, when an image is discussed extensively and in detail, it makes no sense for no image to be the default. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a classic case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's an idea. How about instead of acting like a bot and going through all "List of" articles and removing all images in them, and rewriting the policy while you do it to match what you're already doing, how about instead you add a template or some kind of notice to the article saying that the use of such images is being debated and provide a link to the debate. That way we run into less revert wars and the people who uploaded the images and are interested in keeping them can join the debate. This way, when we reach a consensus, it will have more significance because right now the only people who are arguing in this debate seem to be the deletionists. Ospinad (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody is writing policy to conform to their own ideas. The policy/guideline has evolved through extensive discussion and past practice. We do not have a debate every time a policy is applied. For example, if there is a page that blatantly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, we do not add a template to that page indicating there is a discussion about the page violating this policy and provide a link to the debate. We apply the policy, period. If we had to have a debate every time policy is applied, the amount of effort needed to apply policy would be orders of magnitude more difficult and would lead to policy never being applied. I'm sorry you do not like the images being removed. Nevertheless, it's how we are handling things and it hasn't changed since it started back in the Spring of last year. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus Can Change. Just because a discussion came to a certain conclusion, does not mean it is set in stone. My request was to have a new discussion about this, not simply say "it's been done before and came to a certain conclusion, now let's not do it again". .:Alex:. 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Concensus can change. But, in the near year that this has been applied subsequent to the Foundation's resolution, it hasn't changed. It's not very likely to change, given that we are free content encyclopedia and fair use images can never be described as free content. Consensus can also change that we should not apply the BLP policy. Does that mean we should argue over it every time it's applied? Of course not. We don't argue it every time it's applied. If we want to change something, we do it by gaining consensus to make the change, not revert warring against the standing policy, insisting we need consensus to implement policy, and generating all manner of debate every time the policy is applied. That sort of behavior is highly disruptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Last spring? The policy that you are refering to was changed yesterday! All you have to do is look at the history. Only you and Betacommand were for making that change. And you changed it without consensus. Why do you think you've had so many people just recently attacking you for all of your massive changes? Ospinad (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Foundation's resolution came out last spring. The removal of images from a general type of article (lists, discographies, episodes, etc) began almost immediately afterwards. It's been continuing since. Also note that the policy itself forbade the use in earlier versions [2], and the specifics were removed to the guidelines after discussion because it was felt that specific examples should be in the guideline, which makes logical sense; "This is how we apply it". Nothing's functionally changed since the Spring of '07. The guideline has merely been enhanced to provide a clearer forbiddance of this use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What progress has been made and plans for the next three months

Since several people and, ahem, bots, in this area seem active again, it might be a good idea to discuss what plans are in place for the next three months. Let's try and co-ordinate things so that things don't get too out of control. This is my rough assessment of the situation, to start discussion going. WP:NFC for reference.

  • "Anyway, the problem we have is the following: "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." - the way the EDP is worded on en-Wikipedia, we cannot tell which of our images are compliant or not. In fact, the compliance varies according to the use of the image. ie. take an image and overuse it in lots of articles and suddenly the image becomes non-compliant and eligible for deletion (in reality, the solution is to take the image out of the articles it shouldn't be in). In practice, the machine-readable parts of the EDP are the license tag [10a] (we are fairly good on that now, as all the non-free tags have "non-free" in their titles, and image without license tags are routinely deleted), the source (we need to develop more widespread and rigorous use of a source template [10b], like {{information}}, which is now being used on Commons and here), and we are gradually moving towards having a majority (though not all) of non-free images using some form of "rationale" template [10c]. Criteria 7 (use in an article - ie. no orphaned non-free images), and 9 (inappropriate locations such as the wrong namespace) can largely be assessed by bots. A criteria that needs a combination of humans and bots assessing whether humnans are correctly filling in a template is criteria 4 (previous publication) - we need to develop a template field that allows people to specify where a non-free image was previously published, and get a bot to demand compliance there. Critera 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (replaceable, commercial opportunities, minimal use, encyclopedic nature, image policy and significance) all need human input to decide whether an image is compliant. There. That gives an idea of how far we have come and how far we still have to go. My view is that we aren't even at a stage where we can reliably say whether any images are 100% compliant, but we are making progress."

Is this about right, or not? Anyone else want to throw in their two cents or come up with a three-month strategy? Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For minimal use more specifically towards image resolution (3b), would it be possible for a bot to assess the image size to determine if it's larger than 500px in one direction or another and add a cautionary template to state that the user either should upload a reduced size image, justify the need for the larger size, or add the {{non-free reduce}} to the image to have others deal with it? --MASEM 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Only sometimes. Sometimes (though rarely) there are valid reasons for having larger images. Maybe we could require those rare exceptions to have a specific tag to enable bots to ignore them? Random comment: just found Template:Non-free allowed in. Interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that a way to make 3b machine-readable is that either the image is less than 500px, or there is a special "large size" rationale in the fair use rationale to state why the larger size is needed (maybe there's a key detail that is too blurred at lower resolutions, but this has to be a very specific reason, it can't be "Oh, it looks better this way". We would need a bot to tag them (probably not as bad as 10c errors) but offer three options, none which require deletion: resize it yourself, tag it for resizing, or state why it's this size. --MASEM 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Perfect! <ticks 3b off the list> Now we just need a task force to write the bot, scan the images, and deal with the results. What shall we look at next? 3a? That can be approached two ways: (1) Multiple use of a non-free image in lots of articles (OK if all teh rationales are OK, but likely some will have weaker rationales than others); (2) Lots of images being used in one article (far less acceptable). It should be easy to write a bot to find this sort of thing. What would be nice is a way to mark the image or article with a separate reason for this "multiple use", to reassure people that it is not just because someone has randomly reused an image, or because someone has decorated an article with images. Anything lacking such a reason would be periodically picked up by a bot and a human would review it and decide whether an IfD discussion is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I could add 3b checking to ImageTaggingBot's work with new uploads. Checking existing images would best be handled by someone with toolserver access, who could query the database directly. --Carnildo (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If we decide on a 500 pixel limit, it should be easy to claim a justification for a slight overage. An acceptable image example, Billy Ripken's baseball card, is 384 by 534 pixels. The process of resizing these images may lose too much detail. If the image is 750 by 1000, a more rigorous rationale would be required. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So have "slightly larger" as one option (with no reason needed - but still monitor to make sure we don't get thousands of these), and "full rationale" as another option? Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we should set a hard limit on the "Slightly larger" category. My thought, and it's just an idea - if 500 is the limit, then anything within 110% of that would qualify as "slightly larger" and would need no further rationale. Of course, something 550 by 550 should have a rationale, but something (like the Ripken example) where one dimension is significantly smaller would be OK. I guess, so long as both height and width don't both push past 500, that some wiggle room is OK. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that we state 500px as the low end for tagging with {{non-free reduce}}, we probably want to set the spelled out bound to be 480px, and accept up to 500px, it just needs to be a bit of a range so a person doesn't complain when they're one pixel over. --MASEM 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. We need to implement a "large size" rationale parameter in some template first. How are the non-free rationale templates set up? Are they all interactive? Can a single edit tweak the "resolution" bit of all of them? Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The March 23, 2008 deadline applies only to projects which did not have non-free media policies at the time the resolution was passed. We did, so it does not apply. It's fine to discuss this, but don't do it afraid of a deadline that we need not worry about. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that the deadline was going to be applied to this project. — Save_Us_229 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
there was another notice sent out by the foundation stating that we had until April 1, 2008 to get our images compliant. βcommand 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Presumably that means tag everything that needs tagging (good luck on getting consensus on what needs tagging) by 23 March 2008, and allow a week for fixing and then delete still-tagged images on 1 April 2008. Or are they in fact saying that they will view the situation as a whole on 1 April 2008, and make a decision then to either keep or reject non-free use as a whole for individual projects, depending on how much progress those projects have made? Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I know I must sound like a broken record, but could you post a link or something to what they said exactly? — Save_Us_229 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going off the text here. According to that, the deadline applies only to projects without an EDP in place, and we are used as an example of a project that does have one. If there's another notice, could someone provide a link to it? -Amarkov moo! 06:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't speak for the Foundation here, but as a matter of best practices and with an understanding of the overall goal of the resolution, we should accept in good faith that deadline. "By March 23, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable license as per the above must either be accepted under an EDP, or shall be deleted." Actually, by my reading, the resolution (which I did not author) does not seem to contemplate the possibility that the "discussion process" for older images mandated by the resolution would take a full year. Unless there are some really compelling reasons (but what would they be?) to keep a bunch of stuff around that does not meet our requirements for either being free or falling under our specific Exemption Doctrine Policy, we should just delete it all promptly. We have had a year. (Well, we will have had a year by March 23.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The concerns I'm seeing seem to go in two directions. First, while we did have a year, now we have three months, with easily thousands of images to review. The volume of images tagged by bot (over 12,000 on 2 January alone per Miszabot's DFUI tracker), coupled with the few editors who appear to be actively reviewing these images, causes concern that otherwise perfectly valid images will be deleted for lack of a proper rationale that might take someone 5 minutes to write. The current 7-day period for that review is also of concern to some; given the volume of images to review, it's possible - even likely - that otherwise valid images will be deleted before being reviewed. Were I an admin, I'd be the first to delete images which do not meet our policies, but I think several of the editors here are concerned that we may be damaging the project in some way by deleting good images with the bad. Most of the proposals I see here are attempts to minimize that loss, rather than talk our way out of it (for lack of a better term). I agree, though, that it's a firm policy that we will simply have to deal with. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Responding to this from Jimbo - "does not meet our requirements for either being free or falling under our specific Exemption Doctrine Policy" - I've suggested the "delete the lot" approach in the past, followed by undeleting and fixing those that are OK, but the problem we have is that many parts of our EDP are subjective. I said above "the way the EDP is worded on en-Wikipedia, we cannot tell which of our images are compliant or not". The EDP on en-Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (the Foundation's Licensing Resolution links to Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is a combination of a transclusion of the policy bit - the criteria - and some extra guidelines and explanations).
The point is that it is quite clear that several of the WP:NFCC criteria are highly subjective. WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability), WP:NFCC#8 (significance) and WP:NFCC#10c (rationale) are, in part or whole, extremely subjective. Long debates have been had over whether an image is truly replaceable or not (eg. young person performing during their career, versus picture of them as a very old person), whether an image significantly contributes to the article it is in (too many debates to list), and whether "The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." (many people will argue endlessly over this for poorly worded rationales). Even WP:NFCC#2 (commercial opportunities) is not watertight, as there are historical images, copyrighted by press agencies, that are used on Wikipedia in an educational role (see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Birmingham campaign and Category:Photographs for some examples where there are extensive articles or sections of articles, written about non-free pictures). The point is that some people will take an extreme stance and argue incessantly for deletion of borderline images - it is a recipe for chaos and I don't know how to solve that except to use the debates to expand and clarify the criteria (see the examples for and against, listed at WP:NFC for the progress on that).
If the "delete the lot" approach is taken, then I suggest allowing one last effort to clean up at least some of the images, followed by severely restricting what can be uploaded (ie. tell people to upload free images at Commons - I know, they will really thank us for that when they get deluged with non-free pictures marked as free). Then make a widely advertised announcement about this and make clear that valid non-free images that get deleted can be undeleted upon request (and point to a noticeboard where requests can be made for undeletion).
If the "let's plan for the next three months" approach is taken, see the suggestions being proposed on this page. I suggest each of the 10 criteria are examined in turn and a plan made for each of them. Of course, this should have been done a year ago, but the experience gained in the past nine months will have been useful. The more we talk, though, the quicker three months will become two months, and then one month and then two weeks, and then three days, and then nothing. So let's try and more forward fairly quickly on all this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors have made also made good suggestions for dealing with the problem images on the Administrator's Noticeboard, e.g. here and here. Bláthnaid 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I started this thread in response to that thread. Most of that discussion should be taking place here, and we should definitely be taking ideas from there and using them here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I just thought it would be good to highlight them, since the discussion is fragmented over so many pages. The AN discussion and Betacommand's talk page have had lots of good ideas (none from me, I'm an editor of very little brain :-) ). Bláthnaid 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you interpret our EDP. There are editors who find reasons to object to every non-free image, no matter how restricted the use, or well-written the rationale. There are others who think we are already basically done with making images comply with our EDP, and all that's left is maintenance. My understanding of the Foundation's intent is that projects just need to have a plausible EDP, it doesn't feel the need to micromanage the specifics of how we fine-tune for EDP for accuracy and efficiency. Stan (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested language for caution template

"This image appears to be too large for non-free images as defined by WP:NFCC#3b, which requires that low-resolution images be used whenever possible instead of high-resolution images. If you feel that the current size is required, please add in a {{large-image-rationale}} to your fair-use rationale to justify this. Otherwise, you can either upload a reduced image not to exceed 500px, or you may tag this image with {{non-free reduce}} and someone from Wikipedia will reduce the image for you.

If you take any one of these steps, you may remove this caution message from this image."

Not perfect but a suggested state. A template with this should also tag into "Large non-free images tagged on DATE" categories like disputed fair use rationales are done. The suggested {{large-image-rationale}} would populate "Non-free images with large image rationales". --MASEM 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A good example is Image:Simpsons cast.png. This should be larger than it is, in order to be able to identify each character. There is no point having such a picture otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable images

It has been suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate‎ that the images on articles such as List of Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1 are unacceptable since they are part of a list and thus automatically insignificant. I think this is complete nonsense - the pictures are a significant aid in recognising the characters and so add to the article enormously and free images are clearly not available. Does the current version of the policy really intend to ban such images? --Tango (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive images in lists fails 3a - minimal use and 8 - significance of non-free images; nor is Wikipidea a guide in that we don't need to provide visual representations of every character in a fictional work if that burdens non-free use. --MASEM 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
How is one image per character excessive? Providing visual representations is essential to ensure that readers know which character is being talked about. People have enough difficulty remembering names of people in real life without having to remember them for fictional characters as well. --Tango (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This illustrates a problem I've seen. The rule states that NF images can't go in lists. But what makes a list? Usually, a lists consists of no more than a numbered or bulleted "enumeration," possibly with some added characteristics. Sometimes they're expanded lists, including paragraphs of text. This Stargate article is more like a collection of short articles. My first instinct was to suggest that this "list" be separated into individual articles. I've seen non-stub articles with less information than some of these sections. The only problem with that is no matter how long each section is, it's still a stub, since they only seem to include a character bio. They need more info, such as actors, how the characters fit in to the show, their overall effect on the series, some real time correlations, things like that. So maybe this is only a list? These characters seem to be put on one page out of convenience, rather than necessity. Maybe it's a list of character outlines, rather than a list of characters. It's a big grey area, I think. Which is why I don't think it's fair to limit nonfree image from all lists. There's certainly enough info on these characters to warrant images (except maybe a couple, IMO). -Freekee (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Stargate article has another problem, in that while a list of characters that does not demonstrate notability is acceptable per WP:FICT, there is way too much plot information without notability information to justify the level of detail that that article goes into; that is, it is not written in a manner appropriate for summary style that such character lists should be written in. There's two possible routes: characters that can be given notability on their own can be moved into their own article, with the picture moved there, or there needs to be major trimming of the text (saving as much as possible by moving the existing stuff to a off-site wiki) which makes this (even) more of a list and thus not justifying images beyond the very first one. But even if neither were done, this is still a list, and thus falls under the above issues. --MASEM 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The characters which are notable enough to warrant their own articles have their own articles (and just short summaries in the list and a link to the main article). The lists are primarily for characters that appear in several episodes (although some characters that only appear in one episode are included with excessive detail - they need to be severely trimmed) but aren't notable enough for a whole article. There is generally very little information available beyond plot details, so plot details are all we include. It's still useful information to have, and enables us to easily link to characters from other articles so we don't need to explain who a character is every time we mention them. Pictures are essential for that purpose, since TV is a visual medium and people remember characters more by what they look like than what their name is. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This variety of counter argument is frequently cited. The underlying issue is that Wikipedia is not a guide, but an encyclopedia. If a character is so un-notable that they do not warrant their own article, it's a weak argument (from an encyclopedic standpoint) that we need to have an image for them. This is even further complicated when we note the m:mission of Wikimedia is to generate content under a free content license, and even more proscribed when we look at the Foundation's resolution which limits such media to narrow limitations. Whether an image is useful to the character list isn't really a core issue here. If we were a guide, then I would emphatically agree with you. But, we're not. We're an encyclopedia. An analogy; we're not a tourist guide. Having the encyclopedia cover in great detail all of the tourist attraction in say, Stratford-upon-Avon, is outside of the scope of our purpose. Having hours, admission prices, information on whether there's a gift shop, food available, handicap accessible entryways...all of that sort of thing would be immensely useful. I can make very sound arguments that our encyclopedia lacking such information makes the resource considerably less useful and difficult to use in the absence of such information. The problem is, we're not a guide. We're an encyclopedia. If we can't find significant enough out of universe secondary sources to buttress the argument that a single character deserves an article, we can't make an argument they deserve an image that is decidely unfree, violating the core princicples of the project. We are first and foremost a free content encyclopedia. The use of non-free media is the exception, and granted on limited, narrow circumstances. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an argument for deleting the lists, not an argument for removing the images. The images are among of the most useful bits of information in the list, so if they're not useful enough to keep, the whole list should be deleted. If we are going to describe the characters (which is another debate entirely, and one better suited to AFD), then we should have images for them. --Tango (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your argument seems based on the idea that we are a guide, and our primary determinant should be whether the article is useful by the metric of a person being able to understand each and every character within a particular fictional universe. Ok, let's assume I agree with you. I hereby volunteer and request your assistance to begin Wikipedia:Project Travel Guide where we work to enhance all articles regarding tourist destinations. Afterall, we're a guide, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Full cast photos

I'm breaking this into a separate section, since the above discussion is getting a little confusing. As far as I can see, full cast photos are completely unacceptable, since they are purely decorative. There is no way of knowing which character is which, so no information is gained from the image being in the article. It's just a pretty picture, which is not valid fair use. A separate shot of each character, while quite a lot of fair use images, is not decorative. It should be pointed out that "minimal" does not mean "small", it means "as small as possible". Talking about a character without the reader being able to tell which character it is is completely pointless, so one image per character *is* as small as possible, so *is* minimal. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Add a caption explains who is who, and gets the identity of X characters with one non-free image as opposed to X characters with X images. --MASEM 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Or provide a numbered outline version with a key, as Carcharoth suggested. But I don't see why including only one picture makes a difference (versus a separate picture of each character). It's still non-free. This still limits distributability. -Freekee (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Tango's objection here makes no sense. I'll go and do a caption for Image:Simpsons cast.png to show how it can be done. I'd like to point out a good outline picture as well. I think some exist on Commons. Can anyone remember one? Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that image is horrible. You can barely make out the characters. I know of another that comes with an outline version, but it's poster sized. I could get it, if you want. -Freekee (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If you're going to rely on a cast image with a caption to identify characters, you need a large image than that. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The size can be fixed (and this would be a case where it would be reasonable to have a picture greater than 500px), but the idea of using cast pictures is still justified. --MASEM 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
So making an exception on the size of an image is acceptable, but making exceptions on the number of images is not? --Tango (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You are making the exception for one single fair-use image, instead of making exceptions to add multiple fair-use images. The former is better since it is a small amount of non-free image use. --MASEM 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg (the extra image was a blooper on my part). Though if you look at the page history of Image:Simpsons cast.png, the "image reduce" people reduced it in size, which was an incorrect decision. This would be a good place to try out the "large non-free use exception rationale" template we've been trying to develop. The idea being that to have larger images to need to explicitly use a tag and explain why a larger image is being used. We also have Image:Simpsons cast.jpg (deleted image) in case anyone isn't confused enough yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You can just upload the image with the same name. A warning will pop up that you are replacing the current image. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried that. The different filenames (png vs jpg) caused an error message to pop up. I'm checking with the deleting admin about restoring the higher-res versions (look to be about twice the size I uploaded) that were originally reduced. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While I am defending the use of non-group images, I will say that group images are more desirable, and should be used over individual images whenever possible. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
When it doesn't detract from the article, I agree that one image is generally better than many. In many cases, there simply isn't one image containing all the characters, so it really isn't an issue. We can make our own montages, but that's just having lots of images in one place - how is that better than having lots of images spread out in the article? --Tango (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A user-created montage of characters must be used carefully. If X non-free images are used to created the montage, the montage has to be treated as a derivative work of X non-free images, and thus counts as that many. Putting 20 character images into a single image to try to reduce the image count is not an acceptable solution. (This doesn't mean that montages can't be used but there must be good reason and should rely on only a few non-free pictures). --MASEM 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, a home-made montage is no better than what we have at the moment, so all this talk of montages is pretty meaningless. I agree entirely. --Tango (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically. In legal terms a user-created montage image isn't any different than multiple images; just because the images all exist in a single file doesn't mean they're not still separate images. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And just to clarify, montages/cast pics that are from the copyright owner themselves (such as the simpsons one) are a single non-free use regardless how many characters they include. --MASEM 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons picture isn't really a montage, it's just a picture with multiple characters in it. (Yes, each of the characters was probably drawn separately and then combined, but that's just how cartoons are done, it doesn't make it a montage.) --Tango (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists question

For awhile now, we've been merging small articles (fiction-related, in particular) into list pages rather than keeping as indivdual stubs, with the idea that once they grow, they can then be resplit off into their own articles. This is something that's said again, and again, at AfD and elsewhere.

If that's the case, then Fair use images should be able to be used in such lists, just as they would be used in articles, I would presume.

If this is not the case, meaning that lists are considered (for some reason) to not be articles, then it looks like we'll need to work on re-splitting up the various list pages back into separate articles.

Clarification about this would be welcome. - jc37 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what the current debate is about. Currently, policy supports any image that passes WP:NFCC, regardless if it is in its own article, or if it shares an article with other topics. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I don't understand what the debate is about (noting that I only just caught a glimpse of the discussion on a noticeboard "somewhere", hence my questions). Someone wants to make a determination that lists aren't articles? or that lists are a sub-class of articles not worthy for images? or what? - jc37 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 along with the Foundation's resolution on fair use suggests that using more than X non-free images in an article is breaking the Foundation's fair use allowances. The number of images and the purposes of the images, more often than not used for showing the reader what the character looks like, is what is at issue. --MASEM 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They're implying that previous discussions that resulted in images being removed from lists of episodes and other excessive image uses (where only a small bit of text was used for an image, and/or was unnecessary) means that any image in shared articles should be removed. Myself and others believe this is far more extreme than what those discussions supported, and that many non-free images in shared articles are justified. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Stealing images from commercial publishers

Wikipedia considers software screenshots to be fair use. I have run into screenshots with watermarks from video game review sites uploaded with a fair use claim. The game review sites consider these images, particularly with their watermark, to be their copyrighted image. They usually have explicit permission from the software company to make derivative images (Wikipedia does not). They also believe that the act of choosing which characters, weapons, and graphical elements to include in the screenshot to be elements of a new derivative creation. Many go through some effort with paid employees to create professional screenshots.

As publishers of game information, they can potentially see Wikipedia (who is publishing game information) as a competitor. Our fair use claim against the software company relies on the fact that Wikipedia is not a competitor. We shouldn't be copying these images to Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Their isn't anything currently in policy that makes that explicit and there should be. Miami33139 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, Wikipedia is neither a publisher nor a competitor of game review sites. When Wikipedia users assert fair use of videogame screenshots, they do so for the game content featured in whatever derivative content. Specific watermarks and logos featured therein should not be featured on any screenshots currently used to illustrate articles - that's been a part of Wikipedia image use policy for some time. However, fair use does not require permission from the copyright holder. The argument that gamesites consider "the act of choosing which characters, weapons, and graphical elements to include in the screenshots" as meeting the threshold of originality is novel. Is there a source for your claim? Many screenshots are distributed prior to the release of a videogame as promotional materials, they may or may not have gamesite watermarks, but they are all copyrighted by the game's publisher or developer. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
IGN considers them their copyright: "D. Permitted Use of Content. The content included in the Services, including all Web site design, text, graphics, photos, audio, video, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all software that are part of the Services (collectively, the "Content") is owned or licensed by IGN and/or its licensors. All Content is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use and may be stored on a computer only for such use. The Content is protected by copyright, trademark, service mark, patent and other proprietary rights and laws. Publication, sale, redistribution in any form or medium, as well as modification or use of the Content, except as expressly permitted, is prohibited without the prior written permission of IGN."
IGN, et al, likely has permission to create derivative works from the game publishers. Wikipedia does not. In any case, they claim copyright. Section 230 defense doesn't apply to copyright infringement. If a publisher sent Wikipedia a DMCA notice the images would be removed.
In the general sense of being an internet site with information about video games, it is very likely a commercial publisher would see Wikipedia as a competitor. We are an alternative source of similar information. If Wikipedia is also displaying their content instead of them making ad-dollars from their display of the content I imagine they might want to protect what they claim is their property. If a commercial publisher brought a copyright infringement claim against Wikipedia, would a judge see Wikipedia as a competitor? That is a key part of the fair use defense. The Wikipedia Foundation has no interest in finding out the answer to that question. Miami33139 (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. The question isn't whether our use of the game reviewer's derivative copyright is fair use - if that were the question we would drop the images because we don't use non-free images where free images can be made. Rather, the question is whether the game reviewerreally creates a derivative copyright at all in the process of playing the game. In most cases the answer has to be "no", and it doesn't matter what they think of the matter, whether they use a watermark, or what they put in their terms of use. If they don't own a copyright there is nothing they can protect. But perhaps the novel theory is right. Maybe in some games, like the sims, one's aesthetic choices or gameplay are creative enough they give rise to the copyright. I wouldn't lose sleep over it but I too am curious to see if there's a precedent or other citation for that. But you know, whether or not we may copy those images, we are not required to copy them. What would be wrong with simply telling people that they have to create their own screen shots or find them from someone other than a review site if the game is publicly available? Even if it isn't technically "stealing", it's not very sporting. The reviewers make their own images. So can we, right? Wikidemo (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If the review site has an agreement with the publisher, they may, in fact, have made a derivative copyright for themselves. It's between them and the publisher and thats not a contract Wikipedia is party to, nor aware of. So yeah, that was my point. We shouldn't because we can make our own, and when they get uploaded here they should be speedied away. Miami33139 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No agreement between the game publisher and a review site affects whether a derived work is created; simple copyright law applies. The agreement can determine who owns any derived work, but not whether copyright law considers it sufficient for additional copyright. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The text you quoted from that disclaimer does not specifically mention screenshots or the intellectual property of videogame publishers/developers. Taking that text to imply that IGN claims copyright on the arrangement of videogame scenarios for purposes of creating a screenshot is quite a leap. Note also that no gaming website has ever (to my knowledge) requested the removal of any screenshot and that you are not their legal representative. One could make hypothetical legal arguments which would exclude any and all instances of fair use claims on Wikipedia, and indeed there are instances when such claims are formally challenged. The best guide to go by remains the law itself. Screenshots are derivative works and, aside from watermarks, include only the intellectual property of the game's maker. Fair use claims apply both to authorized and unauthorized derivative works.
I have seen numerous videogame press kits which include screenshots that later turn up on gaming websites with a watermark, in all those instances the copyright was unquestionably held by the publisher or developer. The rights reserved extend to all game characters, logos, and screenshots. Yet I haven't seen, aside from your own reasoning, any gaming website explicitly claim copyright of a screenshot by virtue of having arranged the gameplay scenario. Do you have something more than speculation drawn from an over-broad general content disclaimer? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (e/c)
I tend to think that Wikidemo is right. We should do our own screenshots (where needed), not piggyback on the work of others. Similarly, we should do our own scans of book covers and product covers, not "borrow" them from other websites. There would be exceptions, where the original material is not readily available (eg. old historical photos and iconic press agency photos). But this is more an ethical argument than a copyright one. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There's already an ethical burden in claiming fair use to appropriate someone's intellectual property. We do already piggyback on the work of others. As long as our goals are scholarly and our approach is consistent with copyright law, I don't think we should add additional burdens based on trivial arguments for the threshold of creativity. I don't see a problem in using a screenshot of a movie made by a review website or a book cover scanned by Amazon.com. The creative input that goes in the production of these media samples is negligible, it amounts to using electronic tools to create a faithful duplicate of a specific facet of a copyrighted work. Authorized or not, outside websites are displaying someone else's work. The permissions granted to them by the copyright holder do not extend to third parties, but Wikipedia doesn't need to seek permission for claiming fair use. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely fair use is fair use regardless of whoever owns the copyright. That said, a non-watermarked image would always be preferable to a watermarked one just for quality. Sources should always be credited. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, fair use is fair use regardless of who owns the copyright. There are plenty of corporation who, whether innocently or deliberately, will try to claim ownership of what is not theirs to claim. For example, look in a stock-photo site and you will find public domain images there, yet they will claim they have the copyright and hope that you are gullible enough to buy them. Even museum websites will sometimes have a photo of a 200 year-old painting and claim they own the copyright to the picture. We don't need to be gullible and fall for the misdirection. Johntex\talk 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alien vs Predator intrudes in Talk

Is an Alien vs Predator image OK in a Talk page? Talk:Bathhouse Row#Options for block quotations -- SEWilco (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images can only be used in articles in the Main namespace. --MASEM 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example why this fair use issue must be resolved

On 4 January 2007, I observed a number of fair use images being used on Minor Harry Potter characters [3]. Despite the very title of this article being minor characters, an edit war lasting three days nonetheless erupted over the removals and now the page is protected for seven days. We can't even agree that minor characters do not deserve images. The issue is lost. Fair use needs to be permitted anywhere and everywhere, as liberally as possible, in order to avoid these debates. It's the only solution.

Ok, so fine...polling is evil and all that, but what the heck..at least we'd see how many people are in favor of having fair use. So, here we go

Poll

If you support, you are saying that fair use images per character should be liberally allowed, with no restrictions on any main namespace page (be it article, list, what have you...the distinction is fair use images per character being liberally allowed, sans restriction). If you oppose, you do not agree with that stance.

Support

  1. Since no compromise has been possible among any recent debate, support if only to stop the endless arguments. It means we're no longer about free content, but c'est la vie. It's more important to keep people happy than adhere to our m:mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Our primary mission was originally to build an informative encyclopedia. We should still have that as our primary mission. The Foundation has the Commons project to champion totally-free images. Wikipedia should make better and broader use of legally-permissible fair use images. Johntex\talk 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Compromise is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. No restrictions at all is clearly a bad idea. It's not even legal. The restrictions we already have under the policy section of this page should remain. It's the questionable interpretation of them with regards to lists which there is disagreement over. --Tango (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agreed with the above. This question is a little pointless because everyone agrees we accept some restrictions. But to quibble a bit "fair use without restrictions" is by definition legal, or at worst a self-contradiction, because it presupposes that it is fair use.Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

wut?

  1. No really, what? -- Ned Scott 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other EDPs

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is the English Wikipedia's EDP (Exemption Doctrine Policy). What other Wikimedia projects have EDPs? Is there a list of them anywhere? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Err, no fair use I believe, but the do allowed trademarked materials, and are way more diligent about trying to claim things don't qualify for copyright - for instance, we count the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Republicanlogo.svg The Republican Party Logo as copyrighted on our tag, they http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Republicanlogo.svg use it anyhow, claiming its not copyrighted, but trademarked, and so use it. WilyD 23:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) German wiki ruling: de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. In short: Fair use does not exist in Germany, and art that passes a Threshold of originality is not allowed (which is most art). An exception is when art is placed outside by the copyright holders, because then there is Panoramafreiheit (i.e. everything outside, like buildings and certain art, can be photographed and distributed without special permission). The use of copyrighted logos is allowed because of trademark. The rest is similar to US law. Commons is your friend in Germany. – sgeureka t•c 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The en-Wikinews one - well, it doesn't say it is an EDP, but it is their fair use policy. You might be safe typing "PROJECT NAMESPACE:Fair use" in all the en-projects and seeing what you get. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    FYI, the project namespace on any project has the alias "Project", so you don't even need to look up what they call their project namespace, just check out Project:Fair use. Great for looking things up on projects in a language you don't speak! --Tango (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wow! That is something genuinely new and useful I've learnt today! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Different approach to minimising non-free images

How about a different approach to minimising non-free images, an approach designed to draw a line in the sand and avoid incessant arguments? Minimising non-free use can be approached several different ways:

  • (1) Minimise non-free use per image and per article - this is what I call the smallest-scale level. This is the way it is currently done, and it is the way that aligns most closely with fair-use laws. Justify each image on its own basis. This should still be the basis for most decisions, but this approach breaks down when trying to minimise fair use in other ways (lots of arguments per NFCC#3a and NFCC#8, and liberal interpretations of the WMF Licensing Policy still lead to excessive use for some), hence the next two approaches.
  • (2) Minimise non-free use for a topic area or group of articles - this is the medium-scale level. It can range from a group of articles about a fictional universe or TV show, or other fictional franchise, to groupings on much larger and looser scales (logos, books, albums, and so on). For the larger scales, see point 3. For the medium-scale, well-defined fictional topic areas, it is clear that it is possible to have lots of non-free use under the current policies and interpretations. it is also equally clear that such use appears excessive to some, and within that limited area it is indeed sometimes excessive. It is here that concerns about a specific copyright holder are often raised, as non-free use from one particular show or fictional area may become excessive in terms of the overall product. My proposed solution here is to have umbrella discussions to set quotas for particular areas, depending on the amount of encyclopedic coverage. ie. Allow 20 images for Stargate articles - thus forcing the editors to chose the 20 images (or 50, or whatever number is chosen) that contribute most to, and complement, the existing encyclopedic content. This sort of overview quota system is unworkable under US fair use laws, but as is often pointed out, WMF Licensing Policy is more restrictive than US fair use laws, and there would be nothing, in theory, to stop en-Wikipedia adopting such a system.
  • (3) Minimise non-free use for Wikipedia as a whole - the largest scale. Minimising non-free use on this scale takes on a whole new meaning, and is often directly related to how freely the whole encyclopedia can be distributed. First, it is indisputable that massive chunks of Wikipedia are, and always will be, free content. Articles on history, dead people, living people, places, and so on, are nearly always easily illustrated by free images. The approach that I propose here is to clearly identify the areas where free images are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain - films, contemporary fiction, and so on. The approach can then be two-fold. Either: (a) point to a quota system for fictional articles, like that outlined in 2, and state that, combined with the large amount of free content, Wikipedia as a whole is free enough and fit for purpose; or (b) state that the non-free areas that have been identified are not free enough, and cut them loose from the free content encyclopedia, or separate them somewhat while maintaining the wiki-links between the two, just just filter out the non-free content before distributing.

I would favour (3a), ie. a quota system (2), with all individual images still needing to be justified under (1), but avoiding the incessant arguments about NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 (which are effectively replaced with the quota system which forces editors to chose the most significant images for particular sets of articles), and is more flexible, but at the same time minimising the non-free use to quantifiable levels. If (3a) fails, then (3b) may be the next option. Would anything like (3a) and (2) be workable? Carcharoth (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course (3) will always be the best option, but it needs quite a lot of work. However, I would advance much more: create a new namespace, NonFreeMedia/NonFreeImage, leaving the Image namespace to be only for free images. Every media in the NonFreeMedia can be speedied deleted an hour after uploaded if it hasn't been FUC'ed. And create a taskgroup that runs through that namespace deleting repeated images or images that could be replaced for another. There are times when two or three articles of related topics have different non-free images about the same topic. This way we will have full control over the non-free media, and be able to run through site-wide politics more effectively. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

semi-informal RFC

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

Images on list articles

Betacommand (talk · contribs) is going through a lot of list articles and removing all the images saying that they are not allowed on list articles. The text states that "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements is generally unacceptable because it usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." I have to protest with this, as this is a general statement that seems to leave out a lot of exceptions. For instance List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens and List of Doctor Who villains. This images on these pages had fair use rational for there use on th pages to aid the description of the monster/alien/villain being described. Therefore, these images WOULD meet criteria 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - as these images were to help the undertanding of the readers. Note also the words "generally" and "usually" in the text - this is not an absolute. In occasions that the images do meet critera 8, I feel they should be allowed, and only removed if they do not meet this. I would like to see this line clarified, because I think it would be a shame to lose all of these images. StuartDD contributions 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's intended to be absolute, the words "generally" and "usually" should be removed. Either way, just because it says so on the policy page doesn't make it "right". The pictures serve a very useful (even essential) purpose, so should be kept. It's a matter of common sense, not policy. --Tango (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of following the Foundation's mission on non-free images as to keep them out of legal trouble for copyright infringement. --MASEM 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation's mission has everything to do with generating free content and nothing to do with avoiding legal trouble for copyright infringement. The Foundation's Licensing Policy is stricter than US fair-use terms. This has been said many times before, so please don't use copyright infringement as a reason for removing non-free images (unless they are unattributed or copyvios). Removing non-free images should be intended to help Wikipedia comply with the Foundation's licensing policy, not as an exercise in copyright paranoia. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
...and adhering to our mission to develop this encyclopedia as a free content encyclopedia, which means non-free image use is the exception, and a narrow one at that, not the rule. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
They significantly add to the article and cannot be replaced by a free image. They qualify as legitimate fair use under our policies, just not under the excessively strict interpretation of those policies that you seem to have plucked out of thin air and added to the policy page. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the only reason Betacommand is "in the right" is because he added that paragraph. .:Alex:. 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That and a few dozen admins and editors who have done similar removals across the project for months now. There's not much debating that the removals are the right course of action. I know you disagree. But policy, mission, resolution are all on the side of the removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you give examples of such deletions that happened before Betacommand added the new policy? I've seen plenty of deletions from lists, but none from lists anything like the character lists. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

βcommand 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What you need, for such lists, is a montage picture, or cast list picture, distributed by the copyright holders (ie. don't make one yourself). See Image:Simpsons cast.png for an example. If the producers of the show haven't produced such a set of images, then that means that the encyclopedic nature of the list article may be doubtful. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • How does that differ from the other cases? It's still a copyrighted picture (non-free), and being used in a list article. -Freekee (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, nor has there ever been, a blanket ban on non-free images in lists. Betacommand has started removing images from List of characters in Digimon Adventure, simply based on the article's title. The reason we discourage non-free content in lists is because such small amounts of text normally do not justify an image. In List of characters in Digimon Adventure he's removing images from very large sections that discuss a specific character. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the characters are notable enough for an image why are they not notable enough for their own article? βcommand 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability doesn't cover how information is organized. There are tons of things far more important than even you or I that share an article with something else. Your interpretation of the guideline portion of NFC is way off the mark for this situation. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
And you can't compare the logic from this to this. One article is removing images that only have a line or two of info, the other is removing an image from a section that has about three paragraphs worth of text. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue gets raised like clockwork every two days it seems - see "Failure of WP:NFC on character lists" above, started two days ago. The ban is not absolute. There may be some list articles to which the ban does not apply. However, lists of characters are nut such cases. As far as I know, every list of characters is not allowed to have images for every character, even if the list is in prose subsection form., if that would mean more than one or two (or at most a handful) of images. There may be an occasional minor exception in cases the list is truly in prose form and one or two most important or relevant character images are shown, and there is some special reason to include the images. Wikidemo (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo, you know that I strongly fight to limit non-free images, but such an interpretation of the policy does not have support from the community. The rationale from removing images from lists was that these lists did not have enough information to justify that many images. It had nothing to do with the list format, or that it was an article covering more than one sub-topic. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay then. As a (non-rhetorical) query, what distinguishes a "list" from a non-list collection of prose sections in a "list of" article? Wikidemo (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
From the discussions on screen shots in Lists of episodes, text that would qualify as critical commentary was what was described as being sufficient. Most entries in a List of episodes only had a few sentences at most. The same can be said for characters. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better examples at List of Maria-sama ga Miteru characters and List of The Big O characters. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this mass removal is an excessive and extreme interpretation of the NFC. I don't think that was the intent of anyone that no list article can every have any images and I think some control needs to be exercised in the process. I certainly agree that individual character images are not needed in list of articles and should be discouraged and should replaced with a minimal number of group shots. However, courtesy would seem to dictate that lists with a large number of non-free images should be tagged first and the editors at least given time to address the issues themselves. I've had some articles tagged for this and myself and other editors immediately worked to fix the issue and if we couldn't find group shots, did the removals ourselves.

This mass stripping of every last image from random list articles seems very wrong and heavy handed. Admittedly, so far the removals I've seen go through my watch list have been from lists with 20-30 some images, but how long before images are removed from well done character lists with just 2-3 images to illustrate the major groups? It has been said that this is done per Wikipedia policy, but what proof is offered that such a strict interpretation was intended? I have seen none so far and I don't think this kind of action should be done without strong evidence that it is required by the Foundation or for legal reasons. The bots removal also are using purely false edit summaries by saying images are forbidden in lists. That was never said, despite the paragraph referenced in this guideline (which appears to have been added by the person who runs the bot without community consensus).

This sweeping change and some of the comments above are also in direct contradiction with WP:FICTION by encouraging individual character articles to allow for an image since lists aren't being allowed to have any, where as the notability policy says that only those few characters who have significant real world notability should have their own articles.AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, this is Betacommand himself, not BetacommandBot. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There should be a group shot, like List of Outlaw Star characters, but there is no need for numerious non-free images. βcommand 07:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a group shot, by all means, it would be an improvement, but the point remains that the removal of many of these images is unwarranted. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
For example, Battle Programmer Shirase contains one of my favorite examples of using a non-free image. In a single image you have all the major characters, some of the minor characters, the logo, and a great image for the infobox. But not every situation will be like that, or have such an image. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, we shouldn't have lists full of nonfree images. One or two images may be helpful to show a fictional work's style of art, and may be justifiable for that, but we don't need one for every character. That applies whether the characters are listed in separate articles or lists. Fictional works are particularly problematic for excessive nonfree content and always have been. The Foundation requires that use of nonfree content be minimal. An image or at most two serve to illustrate and present a work of fiction's artistic style, a shot of every character is excessive, decorative, and anything but minimal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A fair opinion, but an extreme position that goes beyond what has support from the community regarding what is acceptable use. Also, is this same line of thought being applied to non-animated fiction? -- Ned Scott 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott on the use of images in lists, and with Betacommand on the splitting of articles off. Both are acceptable and when character lists become large, it is natural for them to split off. The overly strict interpretation of FICT needs to stop as well as the NFC paranoia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these arguments have been discussed before: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation is a summary of those and should be reviewed - the removal of character images from lists follows from the removal of screenshots from episode lists and album covers from discographies. This is not a concept that just came up yesterday. --MASEM 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with those discussions and they are not the same situations. Yes, some of these removals are dead on, and are comparable to a list of episodes, but others are no were near the same situation. The list of episodes and album discussions were raised because the amount of accompanying text did not let the image pass WP:NFCC. It had nothing to do with the sub-topic sharing an article with other topics. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a big difference between a straight listing of albums or episodes and an article that is essentially a collection of stubs or short articles which have been merged for organizational reasons. While many of these character articles do fall into the first category, there are still some which contain wholly non-trivial amounts of information on the characters (or whatnot) they describe, and in many cases the objects they describe are such that text descriptions cannot adequately convey their nature. (Several entries in List of Doctor Who villains, for example, would require a full paragraph of text or more to explain the same thing that a single fair use image conveys, in addition to the existing text) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 08:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The insistence on group shots violates WP:NPOV by virtue of the group shots being promotional in nature, and not accurately capturing the medium described. For example, Characters of Final Fantasy XII uses a group shot with the characters in cool poses which cannot be replicated by the player in-game. A reader who is not a gamer will walk away from this article deceived about the nature of the characters.--Nydas(Talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. How can that be a WP:NPOV violation? The image is an official one released by the creator of the primary source to promote their product or service, automatically making it applicable to that product. It is not a deception at all, unless you want to go tell the creator that they are deceiving their customers for releasing the images in the first place. It doesn't matter if the shot has the characters in cool poses that can't be found in the game. The same thing is seen in movie posters, TV promo images, etc. The covers of video games usually have the characters in poses and situations that can't be be replicated in the game either, but they are still preferred for use in video game infoboxes. Also, your argument is far too sweeping. While video game articles may have to turn to promo images for group shots, the same does not hold true for the majority of the character list articles, which are primarily from television shows and anime/manga series. Those can get group shots from the source relatively easy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You answer your own question. The image is invented to promote the product. And yes, the creator may be deceiving their customers, that's advertising for you. Movie posters, etc are seldom the only image in a movie article, whereas thanks to the decree here, 'cool' images are the only ones likely in a character list. I reiterate that someone who is not a gamer will be misled by soley using 'cool' images. The effect is less for other media, but it does not go away entirely, and using publicity-machine images as our first and only choice on character lists is inherently non-neutral.--Nydas(Talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would comment with my opinion on this specific NFC case, if only I felt that it would have any merit. Basically I just don't care anymore. Delete all Fair Use as far as I'm concerned. My personal feeling is that some people have created a 4 year plan of how to get rid of Fair Use in the english wikipedia, and they are being really successful. I just wish the "powers-that-are" would be more upfront about their intentions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There's no vast conspiracy. There is a large divide between people who firmly believe in free content and those who believe that gratis content is just fine. Unfortunately for the latter group, Wikipedia is a free content resource, which was affirmed by the Foundation's resolution. You might say it's a religious war, with strong, vociferous proponents on both sides. The reality is that if the Foundation had never taken a stance in favor of free content, none of this would have happened. None of it. We'd be like Wikia. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no need to explain, I know very well how the situation came to exist. My point is just that there is little point discussing it anymore, ergo all that is left for people is to say that they don't agree and move on. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I could agree with that. The hard thing is that most times that we go to apply this policy, we run into serious argumentation against the application. I wish we could agree to disagree and move on, but it's not that simple. I've seen so many debates about this that I can't imagine any angle that has not already been explored in depth at least a few times. I've not seen a new argument facet for a while now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cases where group shots are not available

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

see #Discussion of derivative worksβcommand 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Character lists are not lists in the intention of the policy

The policy, as I read it, is about preventing editors from having an image on each and every entry of lists like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, or Dream Theater discography. If one compares those lists with, say, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, the difference is obvious. The latter is much more like an article, contains a lot of content that is not a list. It just happens to be that the subject of that article is best explained in a list-like format, for the same reason why History of the Netherlands (1939-1945) is in a chronological format. User:Krator (t c) 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This argument has been attempted several times as well. What it fails on is that such lists (and they are lists) are compilations of substub or stub articles. They are insignificant by themselves. If they are not notable enough by themselves to have an article, they do not deserve an image. One does not need every single character of a fictional universe to be portrated in order for the reader to understand, from an encyclopedic viewpoint, the fictional universe. For example, if I want to understand what Klingon is, I don't need images of every single Klingon that's ever been portrayed in order to gain that understanding. Wikipedia is not a guide. We do not have to have images of every single character, most especially since we are a free content encyclopedia and non-free images are directly against that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting images for every character, because that would indeed be silly. Most Featured Article about subjects that contain only fair use images (e.g. most articles in the scope of WP:VG) contain between five and seven fair use images. My suggestion is that such an amount be allowed for lists as well, instead of the removal of every image past the second that's currently being done. User:Krator (t c) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be best to get the list article to featured status, or near featured status, before discussing what images to put on it. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
When I encountered the images-on-lists problem on Characters of Carnivàle, I found each of my 5 non-free images seems to be allowed per common sense. If WP:NFC allows something like this (i.e. images for those list elements that have proven non-WP:PLOT and non-WP:OR coverage, but not images for every character), then I think WP:NFC is going the right way. It's IMO really a case-by-case decision, and not a "it's called a list, no images!" decision. – sgeureka t•c 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Those joining this discussion in progress may want to read back through a few archives. One of the points of contention is that there are images used in lists for purely decorative use (and which many images in character lists fall into since they are only there to demonstrate what that character looks like, and WP is not meant to be a guide), then there are images that add value that cannot be spoken in words, such as art style, changing in style during development, or the like. These pictures usually are referred to within the text in some manner, aka "critical commentary" - a term that is nearly impossible to define. It would seem reasonable to include the latter type.
As Sgeureka suggests above, it is something that needs to be a case by case basis. A list of characters where there's an image next to each character's section is likely not appropriate. I think a simple rule of thumb is: if there are multiple pictures in a list in which each is serving only one specific use -- the visual identification of one character/element of the list -- then there is a problem and the number of images need to be reduced. --MASEM 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that such use is decorative. Showing what a character looks like is the main way of identifying the character. Identifying what you're talking about is necessary for an encyclopaedic article, not just for a guide. If you're right that it's decorative, then the cast image of the Simpsons is decorative and should be removed as well. An image doesn't become decorative just because there are lots of them. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
STRONGLY disagree. (arguments not needed, no one will listen) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you are disagreeing with? --Tango (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Images for lists of characters are clearly not "decorative" (although the term is ill-defined and doesn't really have any application to Wikipedia). Showing what something looks like is certainly a valid use of an image under fair use and non-free content policy, although in the case of living people the image would surely fail as a result on the criterion of replaceability.Wikidemo (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the case-by-case basis argument. From the above discussions I seem to get that some users (e.g. Betacommand if I'm not mistaken) seem to think that having more than two-ish fair use images on lists is always inappropriate. Am I right in thinking that? User:Krator (t c) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont set a number, Ive seen them with one, and ive seen them with 5, In both cases I have agreed with their usage. the main issue is the fact that these list are abused. selecting a few good images that are very relevant and that the description cannot be done in text, (the fact that people want to put an image of Ploper (a pig from the simpsons movie) in a list of animals from the simpsons Its just a pig nothing special about it) and the fact that one or two images can give the same meaning of image style. but 10+ images is excessive. βcommand 21:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea that a character must have their own article to have an image is very flawed. As I explained to Betacommand, notability simply doesn't work like that. There can easily be a good rationale for a character's image, but at the same time have an amount of text that fits nicely with other characters in a single document. I've sent way too long explaining to users that a character or an element getting its own article is not an indication of how important it is. Like fundamental information found in basic plot summary, the reader should be able to identify (at the very least) main characters, and possibly others.

If we want to start discussions about if every character needs a picture, that's one thing, but many of these lists are not the same situation that we had in the past, where we had large lists where there was an image with very little content to justify that picture.

Editors on both sides of this debate, you are not allowed to write off everyone else as being image use extremists. Do not treat myself or others as if we completely disagree, or that we would argue for an image for every Pokemon or ewok. I've brought up examples where only a handful of images were being used, for main characters, and still have not heard any rationale on removing them. I've pointed out specifics of the past discussions and why we had them, and what the issues were. I strongly push for limiting non-free images, remove many, and try to educate others about the policies and guidelines. So as hard as it might, realize you are not talking to image use extremists, but are talking to rationale Wikipedians, who have points that are just as reasonable and logical as your own. I know it's a break from the norm, having to repeat ourselves to those who don't understand, but do try. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ned is right. There is a spectrum of opinion here. It is not black-and-white. My stance is pretty similar to Ned's. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have to say I agree with Ned as well, and I think there might be a disjunct not nessesarily in definitions, per se, but in how various people's brains work. What I mean is, some people are more visual than others, and seeing something will have a sort of 'click' in the brain that words can never do. It's not even about imagining or anything like that, more like...a way of looking at the world. Maybe this is a bit philisophical for this page, but from reading all these opinions, it's what I think must be happening here. I know an image for me makes makes something far less 'disjunct' as it were. A picture of a character says FAR MORE than any description of the character would. It's not merely something pretty, it's a part of the package. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And unnecessary. If a character in a fictional universe is significant enough for their own article, it makes encyclopedic sense for their to be an image of that character on that character's article, such as Pikachu. If a character isn't notable enough outside of its universe, then it appears on a "List of..." type article, and if it's not notable pray tell why do we feel motivated to violate the very foundations of this project to have an image of it? We do not have to have a picture of every single character in order for a person to gain an understanding of the fictional universe. We are not a guide. We are an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And Ned, we're not taking an extreme position. This has already been decided and has been implemented for months now. The problem is that almost every time we go to implement it people argue against it. I could list every single argument people have ev ever used against it, and can show how the arguments are blatnatly wrong. But, it's to no avail. The people who insist on having fair use images for characters speak louder, longer, with more energy, and willingness to attack editors. Previosly, I noted that the Stargate series has 180+ images of individual characters scattered across various list of character articles. Those of you who think this is right and proper are missing the point of Wikipedia. This is a free content resource. Let me repeat that a few thousand times if necessary to allow it to sink in. Free content. Read it. If you don't understand it, read it again. If you still don't understand it, recuse yourself from the discussion. Stargate is just *one* fictional universe of hundreds and possibly thousands on Wikipedia. If you think you understand free content, then go back to Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and note that it says non-free media should be used "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Now pray tell how in hell can anyone...ANYONE...say that 180 images to depict every godblessed character in Stargate counts as "narrow"? You can't.
  • Nobody, not me, not you, not any editor here gets to usurp the Foundation's stance. Nobody.
  • What has been put in place is a compromise position, to allow *some* non-free content to allow people to understand the universe, using cast images and the like. In response, the fair use inclusionists take grave insult and force the issue over and over and over and over again on just about every article where these images are removed. No compromise. No offer of a middle position. Nothing. They go on to attack those removing the images, making all manner of threats and insults, and insist on having their way at any cost, any penalty. And this is the reward that the efforts of myself and others upholding the Foundation's dictums get.
  • Nothing is won here, and nothing is changed. The removals will continue. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This most certainly has not already been decided, and that is exactly where you are wrong. Again, you try to counter my examples of using a handfull of images with a Stargate example with 180 images. I repeat myself: "Editors on both sides of this debate, you are not allowed to write off everyone else as being image use extremists. Do not treat myself or others as if we completely disagree, or that we would argue for an image for every Pokemon or ewok."
  • You say, "response, the fair use inclusionists take grave insult and force the issue over and over and over and over again on just about every article where these images are removed. No compromise. No offer of a middle position. Nothing." Again, my response is

    "So as hard as it might, realize you are not talking to image use extremists, but are talking to rationale Wikipedians, who have points that are just as reasonable and logical as your own. I know it's a break from the norm, having to repeat ourselves to those who don't understand, but do try."
  • I fully understand our policies, our guidelines, and the Foundation's policy, and if you believe you understand them better than I, then you are very mistaken. -- Ned Scott 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Ned, but it already has been decided. This has been going on for months and months and months now. If these wikipedians are rational as you suggest, then why has there never been any quarter given, no offer of compromise, nothing? Instead, just an onslaught of attacks, edit wars, abuse, and any tool they think they can use to gain the upper hand? Why? Hmm? Explain that to me Ned. Then, when you're done explaining that to me explain to me why we absolutely MUST have images of "Minor Harry Potter characters". These are minor characters. Yet, an edit war has been going on there for days to force images on there. Please tell me Ned, since you are familiar with the policies and resolutions, how having images of minor characters counts as "narrow limits"? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, you apparently do not understand what I am saying. I am not someone who is defending images on Minor Harry Potter characters. I am not the users you are describing. And again, this has not already been decided, it is something that never had consensus in the first place. If you can't do me the simple courtesy of treating me as an individual, rather than a venting target for all the frustrating users you've dealt with, I won't bother talking to you at all. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Given your willingness to edit war to your preferred version, which I noted on your talk page, it's hard to view you as an impartial party. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a very difficult thing to judge, especially for fictional characters which are only ever mentioned in reference to the work they appear in (which makes it difficult to distinguish between a notable character and a non-notable character in a notable work). One of the main reasons minor characters don't have their own articles isn't one of notability, it's simply because there isn't enough to say about them. If there is only a couple of paragraphs worth of information about a character, there is no point having a whole article. In fact, if you have a whole article, people are tempted to expand it and you end up with the article paraphrasing every story the character takes part in, which is clearly not appropriate. Therefore, we collect these sub-articles together into one large article. It's possible for a character to be very important to the story without their being enough to say about them to warrant an article. They still warrant a picture, though. As for Harry Potter characters, however, they shouldn't have pictures. The pictures aren't of the characters, they are of the film-adaptations of the characters and are therefore much less significant. TV is a visual medium and images are very important, books are not. --Tango (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If you believe the Harry Potter characters do not deserve an image, try removing them from Hogwarts staff and/or Hogwarts students and watch what happens. Even on just the minor characters (Minor Harry Potter characters) an edit war errupted over image removal. You might be right Tango, that a character can be important without there being enough material to write much about that character (that seems logically inconsistent to me, but allowing it for the sake of discussion). If so, where do we draw the line in a way that people can understand and non-arbitrarily follow it?
  • One of the issues here is maintainability of the project. If people have no readily manageable and referenceable way to limit the amount of fair use on such articles, there will be unending arguments about the removals. The arguments render the policy non-applicable, since anyone attempting to uphold it will eventually be worn out and give up...and there are FAR more people who want the fair use images included than there are people willing to remove them (and no, that doesn't mean consensus is to keep them and overrides everything...see first line of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy)
  • Let me give you an analogous situation. Let's say we were attempting to remove fair use images of living people that were being used for depiction purposes, and every time we did so we ran into arguments against each removal, people insisting no consensus exists to remove them, edit warring, re-uploads of the images after they were deleted, and all manner of disruption against the upholding of policy. It's not a stretch. People have fought against those removals, just not quite as vociferously as in this case. Why? Because it's very easy to draw a line in the sand and say "This person is alive. You can get a free image". Whether the person is dead or alive is not arbitrary. We must have a similar non-arbitrary line to maintain minimal usage. Now the resolution specifically cites this case; "such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". But, the resolution can not and does not cite every single case that is covered by the resolution. Minimal usage is absolutely demanded by the resolution, and we can not ignore that through any wikilawyering by saying it doesn't apply because this particular case isn't mentioned. The resolution says "minimal" and "narrow limits" and that the resolution can not be eroded. Yet some in favor of the images insist the resolution doesn't apply to us, or that through their interpretation it allows the use of 180 images for characters of Harry Potter (and many other examples I've cited). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's my turn to speak up in this particular discussion.
So you think I am attacking you? Then you are very much mistaken. I had a genuine cause of concern there that was entirely seperate from this, fortunately, yes fortunately, I was wrong (that is a good thing in that particular case). Don't even attempt to bring WP:NFCC into that one. I have no interest in even getting into a personal quarrel with you. This only concerns the matter of images here. I have never threatened or insulted you for that matter.
I do not wish to provoke any form of "war", as you put it on AN. I do not wish for this to turn into a battleground. In fact I wish this whole situation never happened. You portray us, or mainly me actually, as image including extremists, which we are not. We too do not wish for excessive images, however we feel that a few images are necessary for the consistency and quality of the article. You say you are doing it in the name of the foundation. Indeed the foundation decrees that non-free images should be minimal use. They did NOT decree in any form that all images, apart from group shots, are forbidden in lists of characters. In fact that was never even consensus. The signpost article describes a similar situation, but for lists of episodes. However you need to consider that the usage is different for both types of articles. However the decision for the LoE case reported in the signpost is consensus, not policy. Consensus Can Change. I simply asked in the discussion somewhere right up above to begin a new discussion on the List of Characters debate and achieve consensus on the matter. You kept blocking this process, both in the discussion on List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and said discussion. You said that a compromise has been put in place, this is exactly what we discussed having on the aformented article, yet you kept preventing it. I repeatedly kept trying to steer discussion onto civil consensus building, but instead you just begun another heated rant.
In fact, now that I think about it I do have a personal problem with you. But it relates to this whole matter and is not intended to be an attack or insulting in any form. My problem with you is your "I'm right, you're wrong" stance. You keep repeating the same information about the foundation and site mission, but fail to consider other people's views on the matter. You also exaggerate what is happening (180 images anyone? I understand the Stargate articles, but for some of the others?) and have failed to notice that many of us are not "image including extremists" and actually partly agree but wish to make a compromise. In your post on AN, you mention that an "overwhelming" amount of people are against your actions and similar actions by other editors. The reason so many people oppose what is happening, is because there was never consensus for that particular decision. The list of episodes matter was different, as it was usage of many images in a table that was purely decorative and served absolutely no encyclopedic purpose or value whatsoever. This is different, as it is about images on an encyclopedic subject or topic. I also see no consensus for the argument of "They need to have their own article to have their own image". I personally believe that your actions almost fall under WP:POINT, but we won't get into that here, as I said I do not wish a quarrel with you but I do feel that being honest is important. If you wish to bring it up at AN or ANI then be my guest.
So please, hear our opinions and make an effort to achieve some sort of reasoning rather than repeatedly posting the same information you have posted before. Because that is not the answer we are looking for, or more importantly need.
.:Alex:. 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage you in discussion when you note you do have a personal problem with me and have ventured to violate my privacy. The best course of action is for me to ignore you, and vice versa. Thank you and good day, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, my problem relates to your attitude and actions in this dispute. I won't bring personal problems into this, if you want to continue on a user talk page then that is possible. But you can go ahead and ignore me if you wish, because we all know how ignoring things solves all of life's little problems. .:Alex:. 19:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on being a collaborative environment. I do not find your efforts with regards to me to be collaborative, but rather the opposite. Given that, I choose not to engage you in further debate. Further, there's no point to the debate as my stance agree with you now. I think the only way out of this is to liberally use fair use wherever we want on character lists. You should be happy. Unless of course you have some other purpose with regards to me? You did want me to give up on the fair use images issue, did you not? Was there something more? Perhaps you want me blocked? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original post in this section, I think he's completely right. The notion that non-free images are "usually unacceptable" in lists doesn't really seem compelling if the article is not really a "list" in the way a person would normally think about it. A lot of articles here are called "list of characters in X" when they do much, much more than list characters in X. The language in this guideline, it seems to me, really is meant to apply to lists that resemble List of dog breeds--the purpose there is to list dog breeds. The purpose of many "list of characters in X" articles is to centralize articles about characters in X, not list the characters. The purpose of that language in the guideline, to me, meant to say that there is no need to augment a list (in the list of dog breeds sense) with images. It's a very different story if there is significant prose content. Croctotheface (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Decorative use" vs Wikipedia's Mission

Bringing this out from a separate discussion above.

There seems to be consensus that in lists, when there are a "few" (being somewhere between 1 and 5) non-free images, preferably with those images being described constructively, are not a problem.

There seems (though not as strong) consensus that a long (more than 10?) list with non-free images at each entry is not appropriate at all, particularly when there are used simply to demonstrate what that item looks like without any additional comment in the text about it (aka "decorative use" as I see it)

Obviously there's some point between that consensus meets at. Here's my take on it (and unfortunately, I see this as an issue that runs smack into the middle of WP:FICT's rewrite so I'm seeing it from several ways.)

WP is not meant to be a guidebook for any field - we don't go into excessive details on certain elements but are meant to provide an overview of the topic at hand with appropriate references for those to learn more. We are serving the general reader - not the fan, not the tourist, etc, though we can help provide some resources internally (episode lists, links to external resources) for the more specialized reader to learn more.

Providing visual represents of items that do not demonstrate their own notability, and without commentary on how the pictures unique reflect/impact/demonstrate some necessary aspect of the main topic is a function that a guide would have but that is not necessarily appropriate for WP. Example: providing pictures of characters in a fictional work, if the characters individual or as a group do not have their own notability, is not key to helping the general reader understand what the impact of those characters are on the fictional topic at hand. The characters pictures in this case serve to help the people who will experience the fictional work, but is only a subset of the readers for that - such a case is acting as a guide, just the same as bird-watching guides work. But, this is not to say that no visual representation can be given at all; just like we allow brief music samples to allow the reader to understand the style of a musical work, non-free images can be used to provide the style of art or other aspects that certainly cannot easily be verbalized without introducing original research, and if identification can be done with minimal fair-use (group shots) or with multiple purposes, all the better.

If all images for a list were free-as-in-thought, there's no issue with loading up such a list with them; there's no issue with making the list work more like a guide by providing such - there's no impact on WP or the Foundation by the image inclusions. But when the images are non-free, then there's a conflict with the Foundation's request to keep the encyclopedia with as minimal free-use as possible while trying to provide guide-type information. In this case, we have to respect the wishes of the Foundation and avoiding going the route of "images for all items in a list" that would make the article more convenient but burdens it with excessive fair use.

I will also point out that very often, while it may not be the best picture or the like, other non-free images will have images within the list already, or worked such that this can be the case. An image of a unique monster on Doctor Who would likely be appropriate as a non-free use on the episode that monster appears in. Thus in a list of Doctor Who monsters, there's no need to include a picture again, referring back to the episode in the list.

There's also cases where once you've identified the art style and design that is used by one or two images, you can verbally provide enough details to allow other items to be visualized easily. A prime example is the movie Cars - once I've shown a picture of Lightning McQueen and Mater, to give how the cars have been anthropomorphized, I can then verbally state that Sally is a Porsche and that Doc Hudson is a Hudson Hornet, and the reader should at least get a basic idea what the character might look like.

We also should not be afraid to fall back to existing lists that might exist in other wikis that are appropriate to link to, where the nonfree burden is not present. There is no harm providing links to such sites off the list pages, possibly even referring directly to them in the text.

To summarize: It is not necessary to provide images of every item in a list when the images are burdened by non-free fair use: there are alternatives to this which include "cast images", referring to existing non-free images, offsite use, or appropriate verbal descriptions. Failing that, there is some maximum number "X" of non-free images (X seems to be "5", but this is in question) that can be used in such lists to meet NFCC#3a and #8, as well as Wikipedia is not a guide; preferrably images should be serving more use than just visual identification of said item. --MASEM 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that significance does play some part in the fair use rationale, and that, with the same idea as in WP:FICT, we're not a guide to cover everything. However, most of my examples so far don't go that far, and the same can be said for several other lists were users are indiscriminately removing images from. Those are my concern. Again, this goes back to the rationale to use an image, not a blanket ban on lists. (not to mention we also have other ways of dealing with disputed rationales.) -- Ned Scott 23:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a significance and non-replaceability requirement, of course, which translate to a requirement in some cases that there be prose commentary. Neither of those categorically preclude including images to show what something looks like in a list of those things, but on a case by case basis they may mean the images may be unnecessary. The only criterion that seems to apply to all of these cases is minimal use. I don't think the intent of WP:NOT#GUIDE is to preclude comprehensive coverage of any subject - we are all about comprehensiveness. The "decorative" analysis is rarely useful, and whatever it means, decorative is different than using an image to show what something looks like. That terminology is borrowed from copyright law where it means simply that there is no purpose other than to be ornamentation. Most images, and most non-free use here, is precisely to show what something looks like. That's pretty much the reason there are pictures of things in the first place (though other categories include use for identification, and use as evidence of something). Any maximum number, whether one, two, or five would be arbitrary. It would make some sense to prohibit non-free images in parent articles where the child articles have the identical picture - though I'm not sure what that accomplishes for our free content mission. What difference does an extra hyperlink really make? We do make arbitrary distinctions here because sometimes you just have to draw a line somewhere...So the bottom line, though I have different reasons for supporting it a policy like "five [or three, or any number] or fewer, but in any event no more than necessary" might be the best approach if a case-by-case judgment becomes too cumbersome, contentious, or inconsistent. I don't think we have to do it to keep up with the "free content" half of our mission, but we may reasonably choose to do it. Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested guideline language change

Ok, given Wikiedemo's comments above, I recommend the addition of this language to the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images:

  • Non-free content used to show what something looks like where no free alternative can be obtained is permitted.

Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Does anyone object to this? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't object, and this would have the side-effect of codifying the possible exception to non-free images of living people. If you need to show what a person looked like during their early career, or what a building looked like before it was altered (to use another example), then a free picture of them as an old person won't help show what they looked like back then, hence the non-free picture is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think it helps clarify an essential point.—DCGeist (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You all do understand that not objecting to this means that per character images is perfectly acceptable, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes. So you admit that all your posts over the last few days have been a giant exercise in WP:POINT? Add the proviso "except where such use would be excessive per 3a" if you like. And then actually help us come up with a workable interpretation of 3a. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
            • A little assumption of good faith please? I mean what I say, and say what I mean. My stance on this has changed. I just wanted to make it clear what people are agreeing too. If we make this change, it liberalizes fair use everywhere...even on discographies and episode lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm object. No, we should not have per character images, and no we should not be advocating Wikipedia turning into a giant image repository. That is not its purpose or function. For other reasons for objecting...read all the other discussion here. We need balance. We do not need the extreme of "free for all" any more than we need an extreme of "one per article" or "none at all." AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is the middle road has led to innumerable, unending arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope problems in fair use in lists

There's a zillion problem vectors in the raging discussion above about fair use images in character pages. I'd like to point out some of the slippery slope problems in some of the suggested "solutions".

  1. Have images for only major characters: "Major" is arbitrary. What is major to one editor may be minor to another. For example, there would be broad consensus that Jean-Luc Picard is a major character. From there, with each step down the line between major and minor becomes increasingly grey. There might be consensus (but not as strong) for Guinan being a major character, or there might not be because she appeared in only a small subset of episodes (30 0f 180, or 17% of episodes). We can keep going, continuing with Professor_Moriarty who appeared in just a few episodes. Any line we drew here would be arbitrary. There's no way to determine a line that can be held, no way to keep an article free of images of only 'major' characters.
  2. Have one image per X characters: Seems like a hard line that can be held to. The problem is, we get into situations where a fictional universe could have hundreds of characters (such as Stargate/SG-1), and we end up with images of characters who barely appeared in the series.
  3. Allow images for characters: Goes to the core of arguments. Either we're a free content encyclopedia or we are not. 180 images for Stargate/SG-1 characters is obviously, blatantly overdone. 66 images for the array of Harry Potter characters is also overdone. 37 images in List of O-Parts in 666 Satan. This goes on for a while. WP:NFCC 3a says "minimal usage", "As few ... uses as possible" and 8 says it must be significant. The Foundation's resolution states the images are allowed within "narrow limits".
  4. Not a character list, but collection of small articles: This is arbitrary again. What constitutes a small collection of articles as opposed to a list? Where do we draw the line? 3 sentences? 10? If we draw the line, it becomes easy to game. "I'll write a few more sentences just to make it possible to have an image". I readily grant there is a difference between Characters of The Neverending Story and List of Rome characters, but where do we draw the line? There isn't any way to draw a rational, logical line to delineate these two articles as one being a list and the other not. This is why the line was drawn at "if this character has an article of their own, a fair use image is appropriate there, not on the list". It offers a clear, readily understandable position that is non-arbitrary.

Something that is being overlooked in the arguments above is that the presence of fair use images is the exception, not the rule. To approach these problems from the view that we allow fair use images and then see if we can make a case to not allow them is the wrong approach, and fundamentally undermines our m:mission. The approach must be no fair use, and then see if we can make a case to permit the use. Simply because something is common practice does not make it right or inline with our policies and core principles. This has repeatedly been shown. For those that insist that consensus must exist to remove the images, you first need to point to a prior consensus that allowed the images. To my knowledge, there is none. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. On Stargate articles we don't use "Major" and "Minor", we use "Regular", "Recurring" and "One off". The line between Regular and Recurring is drawn by the studio.
  2. One image per X characters makes no sense at all. Either a character warrants a picture, or it doesn't, we shouldn't be rolling dice to decide.
  3. Be careful with the word "obvious". I'm not so sure 180 images is obviously overdone. It's significantly less than one image per episode. You have to remember that SG-1 is one of the longest running sci-fi series ever (second only to Dr Who), it makes sense for it to have more images than other shows.
  4. Yes, it's an arbitrary distinction, which is why lists should just be treated like any other article. We have rules for determining if an image is fair use or not, we should just use them, there's no need for adding extra rules for special cases. In fact, the wording of the policy under dispute doesn't add extra rules, it's just inferring something from them, it doesn't change anything, so let's forget about the whole list issue and go back to the standard rules for fair use. Is it impossible to replaceable the image by a free one? Is the image required for the article to be complete? (The rest are just technicalities.) For both questions, the answer is yes, so the images should stay. That's all there is to it.
--Tango (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If 180 images isn't overdone, then we might as well give up and declare Tango to be correct. This debate is over. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    If it's obvious, you should be able to give a reason for it. If there are 180 character that warrant an image, then 180 images are warranted. Whether or not an individual character warrants an image is far from obvious in many cases. If it were obvious, we wouldn't be having this debate. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Very well. You win. Please re-add per character images to every list on the project. They are all allowed now. Fair use is perfectly allowable everywhere, every time. Please ignore our m:mission supporting free content and please ignore Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy with it's call for minimal use and narrow limits on usage, and be sure to ignore where it says the resolution can not be ignored or eroded. Please modify WP:NFC #3a, and #8, and please modify WP:NFCC. Pleased modify WP:NOT to permit character guides for fictional universes. Your arguments are exceptionally compelling and I can find no fault with them. If you'd like assistance in this effort, I stand at your service for the betterment of the project since we are no longer interested in being a free content encyclopedia. Let me know how I can help. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    You are skewing the emphasis. free content encyclopedia, not free content encyclopedia. Both words need to be linked and emphasised. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, "character guides" are part of the mission of specialised encyclopaedias - consider the Star Trek Encyclopedia, for instance. WP:NOT#GUIDE is not referring to "character guides for fictional works", which is within the scope of (highly) specialised encyclopaedias - but then there's a wikispecies, which is entirely overlapped by our mission. WilyD 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) *::Tango has a point here, and so does Hammersoft. Minimal usage works in two directions. A single image shouldn't be overused on lots of different articles - this is addressed by asking people to justify each separate use, and rejecting weak claims for fair use in other articles, but supporting multiple uses if they are justified. However, there is also the case of overall minimal use in a set of articles. This should not be considered from the view of Wikipedia as a whole (deciding what is minimal in an encyclopedia with 2 million-plus articles is an exercise in futility - 500,000 non-free images, 100,000 non-free images, 100 non-free images, 10 non-free images?), but from the view of the topic under consideration and the copyright holder. In other words, there should be the option to have a "non-free quota" for a group of articles or topic. ie. "Per the minimal use requirement, we propose that topic X, which currently has 50 articles and 1452 KB of text, can have 20 non-free images, the details of which can be discussed and changed as needed". This could be reviewed if the number of articles significantly expanded, taking care to leave stubs out of the consideration (the reason I included the KB criterion above). Alternatively, a measure of the encyclopedic content might justify a non-free quota. The copyright holder should also be considered, as using most of, or a large proportion of, their work would be a breach of minimal use. Carcharoth (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Deciding on which 20 images to use (to use my above example) would really focus people's minds. They would have to chose the 20 most important images - the ones they can most easily justify. This would, I suspect, satisfy both sides. There would be a clear limit, and those wanting to include images could argue for their favorite image to be include, and it would be if they could justify it over other images. There is a hierarchy of images, like it or not. Some non-free uses "feel" more justified than others. Carcharoth (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it better to solve the argument in favor of the fair use inclusionists. The arguments would end. The people who are supporting the mission and resolution of the Foundation are in the minority, and allowing liberal use of fair use images provides a clear line of demarcation with little chance of arguing. "We allow it. Period. Wherever you want to use a fair use image, use it". There's no problem with that, and since so few people support the free content aspect of this anyways, the arguments evaporate instantly. Works for me. At least it would stop the charade of being a free content encyclopedia. Somebody needs to contact the Foundation and request they modify their mission. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think you could take my proposals seriously, instead of changing the subject to discuss your "idea" of going against the m:mission. You looking like you are attempting a reductio ad absurdum proof. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I seem to be casting that air. It's not intended. I earnestly believe this is the only way out of this. We must liberalize the use of fair use images if we have any hope of stopping these arguments. No compromise has been accepted or achieved in any of these disputes. The only thing that's worked is blunt force. If by no other measure, the dispute on this page is proof that blunt force is seriously annoying a lot of people. Since compromise isn't possible, and since blunt force has become too problematic, the only way out is to liberalize. I am not being facetious. The two other alternatives (blunt force, compromise) have been tried and failed. What hasn't been tried is liberalizing. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming an issue to basically WP:NOT#GUIDE - to what extent is Wikipedia not a guide? Fan guides are not listed explicitly on the NOT page, but can be inferred from the examples - but also can be argued are not covered. Providing pictures of every character, monster, and object in a work to purely allow for visual representation of these items is strictly material that belongs in such fan guides, particularly when these topics are not notable on their own. Yes, through WP:FICT and various AfDs, lists of characters and the like are reasonable to include without notability, but just like pictures, the extent to which some of these list articles are drawn out pushes the meaning of "WP is not a Guide."

We need to decide, as appropriate to WP's mission, how much WP should or should not be a fan guide; this in turn affects notability and non-free image use. --MASEM 17:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The presumption here is that only fan write the stuff and only fans read it. That, I presume, is the essence of a fan guide. What evidence do you have that only fans read the material in question? Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That presumes that a fan guide is defined as things read only by fans. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How do you define a fan guide? Only written by fans? Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There's some page around Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that sets all this. Not a guide means really "not a manual", not "not a systematically organised collection of information on a topic". "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge" We should endevour to cover everything as well as it could be in a specialist encyclopaedia. There is a Star Trek Encyclopaedia which no doubt acts in some ways as a "character guide" - but this relates mostly to issues of style, not content (i.e. an "in universe" style is bad). WilyD 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
With no sarcasm intended, I think achieving such a decision is hopeless. This has been argued a huge number of times, with never there being an equitable solution. No such decision can be achieved. That's why I'm now advocating liberal use of free use images wherever and however we can in character lists (or whatever the type name is now...articles, collections, etc.). It's the easiest to understand, and the easiest to manage. Every single one of these arguments would vanish instantly. We wouldn't have to worry about this anymore, except that we'd need to contact the Foundation about the decision. They probably won't do anything about it (they never do; when was the last time the Foundation spoke up about this on this local project? Never) so we should be in the clear. It's a reasonable solution. It provides us a way forward. Once this decision is made, we need to revisit discographies and episode lists as well. It wouldn't make sense to liberalize fair use usage in character lists but not in those articles, and if we liberalize one without liberalizing the other we're just setting ourselves up for more arguments. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WilyD is right. WP:NOT#GUIDE needs correcting. Originally it refers to "not Wikihow". Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the contents of my Roger Tory Peterson guide to the Birds of Eastern North America are generally encyclopaedic and "guide-y". WilyD 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Not a guide" argument is not an argument against fair use images, it's an argument against the character lists themselves. There is an argument for deleting the lists entirely based on them not being encyclopaedic (it's not an argument I agree with, but it's definitely a valid argument). However, if the lists are going to stay, "not a guide" is not a good reason for not having the images. --Tango (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a "fiction guide" is really a restatement of WP:PLOT, rather than WP:NOT#GUIDE. Seriously, Hammersoft, the word guide has several different and nuanced meanings. A fiction guide is different from a "how to play this computer game" guide. One is something to be read, the other is something to be consulted for help. Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then modify WP:NOT to specifically exclude character lists. There's multiple ways of interpreting it. You say a character list is not consulted for help, but read. Would anyone actually *read* all of a character list? No, more likely they'd flip to the character they're curious about to get more information. I.e., a character guide. But for the sake of quelling these arguments, it'd be better to modify WP:NOT to specifically exclude character lists so there's no doubt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And you flip through Wikipedia to find the bird you want. ie. Wikipedia is a bird guide. Oops. We have to delete Wikipedia now. Cucumber error. Reboot universe. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not applicable. Images of birds are replaceable fair use, even if we did have fair use images for non-extinct birds (and I don't think we do). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Issues of fair use are unapplicable to the question of what "guide-y" things are appropriate for an encyclopaedia and which aren't. The point is that there's no reasonable doubt that "guides" are acceptable content in the "bird guide" or "rock guide" sense, but not in the "guide to installing your video card" sense. WilyD 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Then please modify WP:NOT to clarify that. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to bring up any potential clarifications you think are necessary at WT:NOT. WilyD 19:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that lies with you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You're completely missing my point. The guide issue has *nothing* to do with images, it has to do with articles (or sections of articles). If having lots of articles about birds makes us a bird guide, that is true regardless of whether or not they have images (if they don't have images, it just makes us a bad bird guide). If you want to delete the lists entirely, head over to AfD, otherwise, please drop the "Wikipedia is not a guide" argument and stick to the definition of acceptable non-free use which is given in the "Policy" section of this project page. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You know if I agreed with every fair use inclusionist person with respect to cited things, I'd have to agree that the following are irrelevent, wrong, or do not apply: Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, m:mission, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook, and Wikipedia:Image use policy. One of you, somewhere, somehow, is wrong. Fair use image usage doesn't exist in some notional vacuum where nothing applies. Or maybe that's the intent? To create such a vacuum to allow fair use period no matter what reason? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You are babbling. I have no idea what you're trying to say. I've made my argument, either present a counter argument, or shut up. --Tango (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with me, fine. But, this gives you no leave to accuse me of babbling and demanding I shut up. Tango, you're out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Err, the above is a little inelegant, but yes - presenting arguments that depend on factually incorrect assertions is unlikely to be convincing. What's actually acceptable is well in line with the policies and guidelines you cite, although obviously borderline cases can be called either way (and this will always be true, no matter where we set the border). This is always the case for borderline cases (and things like "short articles about a fictional character who only exists in copyrighted media, whether compressed as a bunch into a long article, or on their own" is a fairly borderline case. WilyD 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Coverage of fictional topics is different from any other aspect on WP (save for possibly WP:BLP) in that technically, it is also non-free content - summarizing and providing details of copyrighted fictional works is a derivative use of those works. Now, part of WP:PLOT and WP:NOTE (and what I'm trying to do with WP:FICT) is that fictional works should be accompanied by real-world notable information - development, reviews, etc; this provides justification for the fair use of the non-free plot summaries. A while ago, not here but I think on WP:VPP or WP:AN/I, someone made mention of two lawsuits against authors and publishers of fiction guide books (one was for Twin Peaks, can't remember the other), in which both cases the copyright owner won because the books merely summarized the works and did not provide additional analysis, discussion, or the like that were required for as much fair-use to be justified. Our notability and general WP:NOT guidelines help to protect this from likely happening here, and since we can't analysis, critique, or synthetize information of these fictional works, we resort to the academic/education presentation of such information, in that we require details of real-world aspects of the work. However, we still have a lot of non-notable material out there and more generated every day. WP can only be a "fan guide" in that there is notable information to include for all aspects of the subject at hand. We can do this for highly successful works like "The Simpsons" (where numerous characters and episodes have established notability), we can't likely due to niche works like "Stargate" (where the show may be notable, but individual episodes or characters don't appear to be). (And no, this is not to say we should be scared of copyright police - but that WP's mission is to include as little non-free content as possible to make a free content encyclopedia, and excess plot without real-world acknowledge fails this)
  • What this has to do with images is that for the same reason, we should be considering more that "if there's X images" or "we need to identify each character". Non-free images particularly when they come to fictional works should be, in conjunction with the text, doing more than simply reiterating the plot and the visual medium, just as we require more than just plot rehashing for the bodies of such articles. This is not to say that we ban images from lists, or that we have a maximum set limit, but the images used in such lists should be more than visual identification. If the image is a representation of a unique aspect of the work (eg a alien species), or identifies multiple characters at the same time, or gives a good idea of what the art/design style of the work is, we're golden. But in the case where we have lists of characters that lack their own notability, and the aim of including pictures is to identify many of them, we have to ask the question, not only if each image is necessary and notable, but also if it is necessary and notable to include as many characters and as much plot in that list as to meet other guidelines (WP:PLOT, WP:NOTE, and non-free concerns).
  • I will point out that we should not be scared of moving this type of content to a wiki (such as Wikia), where non-free use requirements are non-existent. There, every character can have an image, and their own page, and the like. We can refer to this wiki in WP articles without concern. It reduces the non-free use on WP while allowing those that wish to expand these guides more to do that to the fulliest, more than could ever be done on WP. --MASEM 19:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We tried the critical commentary aspect. It failed. I think every possible line of argument against/for fair use images on these articles has been tried. You're quite eloquent, and under my previous thinking I think you are correct. But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the project in this case) and in order to avoid these arguments (which never end) and avoid the hurt feelings over brute force application (which has been tried), we need to liberalize the use. From a user contentedness standpoint, we're far better of being Wikia. There's sooooo many that support fair use inclusion that we can't hope to achieve consensus limiting use. I know, because we tried. A number of the fair use proponents feel that since consensus does not exist to remove them, they're golden and the images must remain. I've pointed out there was no consensus to include them in violation of our principles in the first place, but to no avail. The fair use inclusionists won, and I am with them in so far as supporting their decision stops the arguments. I'm still philosophically against them, but there's no possible way to achieve consensus or to in any respect minimize use. They won't have it. If you minimize, they will argue forever. That's not a lack of assumption of good faith. There's plenty of proof to support that. They simply have more energy, and therefore this debate is over, with them winning in favor of liberal use of fair use images. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not a majority. Just like I'm dealing with in WP:FICT, for every one editor that feels we should keep as little in-universe information on WP, there (feels like) ten that want to keep it; yet, though discussion of the new version of WP:FICT and through AfD's and similar, we've come to a position where there is agreement. And I know the "critical commentary" issue was tried before and failed because there was no easy way to define it, but now we have more eyes on this - and judging by some of their remarks, people that would like images but understand the nature of the issue and thus want to work towards an appropriate solution.
We have something regarding "non-free images in lists" that is close but not yet full consensus. Editors seem to agree that cast/montage pictures are better than individuals. Editors seem to agree a few images are appropriate, as both help to meet #3a. We need to address #8, significant, and thus I propose we talk more on the "critical commentary" aspect of the use of the image with a lot more eyes on it. --MASEM 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think a lot of the issue here is that for people not quite into the entire point of free content and open source, WP looks /really silly/ limiting things that are popular over things that aren't. A biography of Gabriel Faure, who probably the majority of readers probably never even heard of has four pictures, where as one of the most famous an respected hollywood actors, Tom Hanks has one. To a person ignorant about WP's policies, that look stupid. It seems biased too. I know why, you know why, but the average reader sees "Free encyclopedia" thinking that it means gratis information. You may be right about the foundation's stance, but we still should consider trying to balence the scale between the 'Free content' side with the 'encyclopedia' side. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(de-indent) There's been heavy edit warring when cast images are used in replacement of individual images. There's no end to the wars, even with compromise positions. Believe me, the compromise positions have all been tried to no avail. Either it's include images for every character that you can find, or people will revert you and argue forever. As to consensus not being majority, you're absolutely right. But, when the fair use inclusionists speak louder and more often than anyone else, it's lost. I don't think discussion on the critical commentary aspect will get anywhere. You're welcome to try, but the fair use inclusionists already shot that to hell. Critical commentary is irrelevant and not needed. It's enough to display the appearance of a character. If you're using the image for that purpose, then depiction is enough. I think we should remove the critical commentary aspect from the guideline entirely, but one step at a time. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no compelling reason to remove a legally-permissible image of a fictional character. A mission to promote free content is immaterial if no free alternative is possible. It is impossible to make a totally-free alternative of a fictional character. If I draw a picture of Harry Potter, the picture is either so similar to the original that it is covered by the original copyright, or it is so different as to no longer by encyclopedic. Johntex\talk 00:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If the character is notable, it seems perfectly reasonable to have an image of that character, non-free or not. The problem become that in lists of characters that individual that lack notability, is it necessary for purposes of being an encyclopedia to demonstrate what that character looks like, making the exception of non-free fair use in order to do so? It is absolutely not necessary to have an image for every non-notable character in a work, because that puts the focus on the wrong aspect: the notable work is the work of fiction, explaining who the characters are is a reasonable extension of that, but the focus (and thus where non-free image use is appropriate) should be on the work itself and not the characters. A few images of characters chosen to help augment this is fine, but not every single character. --MASEM 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You'll never gain consensus for that approach. Since the fair use inclusionists insist that you must have consensus to de-permit fair use (as opposed to consensus to override the Foundation's mission and resolution first), this line of thinking will never gain traction, no matter how accurate it is. The Foundation's resolution, mission, our local EDP and guidelines are completely irrelevant and do not apply to character lists. What is of upmost importance is having an image of every character so nobody will be confused about which character is who. This trumps any other consideration. I'm not saying this with sarcasm. I'm saying this is the state of things and can not be changed without consensus to override it, unless people are willing to forge ahead against the masses. But, the blunt force effort's been tried already and we ended up where we are now on this talk page. I.e., it didn't work. So, as I've noted before, we need to modify the guideline and local EDP to permit liberal fair use to the extent that it is permissible by law since the EDP is completely inaccurate, or at least highly vague, in its statements. Since a weak case can be made that using 180 copyrighted images from a single copyrighted source is acceptable for depiction purposes only (ref Harry Potter characters), it's perfectly acceptable. The only way out of this, the only way to end these arguments, is to acknowledge the defeat of the Foundation's resolution and mission by absence of consensus to implement it. If you think there's another way out of this, I'm all ears. Unfortunately, everything else has been tried. We have to allow liberal fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"is this something we're ready to *pay* to go court over?"

Mike Godwin on the [foundation-l] Fair use being badly abused on en.wikipedia thread. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-07t20:18z

Great quote, thanks. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think his statment

it's reasonable to conclude that a conservative policy is best for now

says it all. We need to enforce stronger standards for non-free content. I am not ant-fair use. there are times when fair use is called for and I completely support that. What I do not support is the massive abuse that is currently happening. the fact that I have removed 345 images on a single page is un-called for, and should never have been allowed to happen. My personal opinion is, when using non-free content make a solid case for the image. why do you need that image on whatever page your using it on. If you cannot defend that image for that use without using a generic rationale you probably should not be using that image. there are a few exceptions to that rule. Logos being one of them. βcommand 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The defense is that the use of the images is to depict the character. Thus, the 345 images you note were (I'm assuming it was a character list) entirely acceptable. That's what the fair use inclusionists are maintaining. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Mike didn't give any indication of whether he felt our current policy was conservative enough. It is already much more restrictive than legally required, for exactly the reasons Mike gives. --Tango (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The rest of the thread should be read as well. The above quote is by no means representative of the overall views. The big argument is that it is far more likely that we will miss some incorrect licensing (someone claiming that a non-free picture is free) and get sued that way. In that sense, some of the effort spent on non-free images should be spent checking the sources of free images and making sure everything is bona fide with those images. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How about this quote from Gregory Maxwell's post? "I am quite convinced that the worst of the issues have greatly improved over time, and that the average cases are not spiralling out of control. Please take a breath and relax. Then thank the people around you who have been working on these issues, no matter what 'side' they appear to be arguing today." That seems more applicable to this situation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's rather funny, given the huge number of character images all over the place. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that certainly explains why two years ago, Jimbo felt he was an extreme exclusionist because he opposed the use of celebrity publicity shots to show their appearence via fair use. WilyD 23:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

sort of arbitrary section break

Who says we're going to court? That's a funny discussion with a lot of people talking past each other on different subjects. There are several simultaneous issues:

  • Due to abuse, ignorance of policy, disputes over ownership, etc., there will always be some copyright infringement. That's true whether we allow fair use or prohibit it entirely - though a tighter policy will make it easier to spot and act on abuse.
  • People earnestly following policy infringe when they do not mean to due to their own mistake or mistakes by others.
  • Due to the uncertain and changing nature of the law even cases where we think there is no infringement and there there is no mistake, we may turn out to be wrong and permit infringement.
  • We may get sued even when there is no infringement. We cannot avoid this even by banning fair use - but the more we avoid the close cases the less likely a suit will be and the less troubling if it arises.
  • Even if an image is infringing, the Foundation may be protected if it follows the notice and take-down rule
  • Even if not formally protected, there is a de-facto protection because most aggrieved copyright holders either lack the resources to sue or are content enough that the content is removed
  • Where liability exists, in most cases the damages are too small to have a significant efect on the Foundation
  • The Foundation does not have deep pockets; knowing this, most plaintiffs would not find it worthwhile to sue even where potential damages are high
  • A suit that bankrupts the foundation would not be the end of Wikipedia, the Mediawiki software, or any of the other projects. They are GDFL and they could simply pick up whether they left off under a new foundation.
  • Much of non-free media policy is for our own purposes having to do with the free content prong of the mission, not for avoiding liability. Discographies are a case in point - they are almost certainly fair use, the copyright holders would like us to host them, and a license would be ours for the asking. We reject them because the linense is not a free one. Same thing with publicity photos and noncommercial licenses. The "minimal use" criterion is another case in point. It is quite unlikely that there is a list article where eight images is illegay yet three is legal, simply because of the number of images. Similarly, if it's illegal to use an image two places for an identical purpose, it's almost certainly illegal to use it one place but not the other for that purpose. In fact, that seems to be what this email fuss was about, the language I added to try to put a limit on characters in "list of" articles. I see a big difference between allowing one image for each section where there is commentary about the character and allowing no images at all. But I don't see much difference beteween allowing them all and creating an arbitrary limit, whether that is one or two or five. The argument for using them is exactly the same - commentary and transformative use. The whole notion of minimizing the number, the significance test, etc., that's all internal Wikipedia stuff for trying to limit the overall amount of fair use, not about avoiding liability.

-- Wikidemo (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If we think less about exactly the number, and focus more on the purposes that each image in such lists is serving, just like we do with any other non-free content in non-list articles, we start to head towards something that both reduces the amount of fair-use while still allowing appropriate images in lists. I don't see anyone saying that an image that is used as part of commentary is not appropriate, so we have a starting point here. But this gets back into what "critical commentary" means that Hammersoft pointed to before, a road that we couldn't get consensus on. I think the focus of the discuss should be what it means to be "critical commentary", what is "decorative use", and thus to what extent non-free images can be present based on the role that they are serving and how the article is serving those images. If we can agree on what those terms are and what that means to any image on WP (not just those in lists) we will get some degree of consensus on how to deal with images in lists that conform to how we deal with images period as to not make it a special case. --MASEM 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Anyone want to start us off? --Tango (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In the case of lists, the case-by-case analysis creates contentiousness and inconsistent outcomes. That's particularly true with character articles, where people are extra passionate about the article subject and perhaps a little less contemplative about the finer points of Wikipedia policy and the law. In those cases, even if we could nail down the definition precvisely may simply be too much trouble in the application, and easier to simply create an upper limit or ban the images entirely. That may mean a less informative article, but at the risk of being dismissive there are more important articles to worry about and possibly more welcoming places than Wikipedia to write about films and anime if one wants to include lots of pictures.
Regarding the definitions, as far as I know "decorative" = "without any purpose other than to look pretty" and "critical commentary" = "commentary." That's probably not what people want to hear but these are legal terms and I would caution against re-defining them to mean something unique on Wikipedia that they don't mean anywhere else. Wikidemo (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What is commentary, again? I still have no clue how what we do is commentary. Croctotheface (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It is something more than just stating, with the image "Here is a picture of X". But how much more is something we need to determine to have a reasonable definition. --MASEM 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I'm sure that the sentence "here is a picture" does not qualify as any form of commentary. My issue, which I don't feel has ever been answered adequately, is that there are certain classes of images that this guideline says we only use for "critical commentary". The definition I would use for "commentary" would basically be someone's personal take on an issue. If I said that I'm writing commentary about subject X, I would think that the resulting content would violate WP:NOR. By contrast, the definitions I've heard here in previous discussions basically define "commentary" as any informative content. If we accept this definition, then basically any article here qualifies. Croctotheface (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you'll excuse the slightly off-topic observation I think it's kind of cute how each of us has our persistent pet issues and idiosyncrasies regarding terminology (I'm the first to admit it). It would be useful to study CCTF's understanding is correct as to the legal usage of "commentary" in the statute and in case law. The reason that's important is that if CCTF is right, then even if we understand the qualifier "critical" to mean extra-serious or detailed, that still doesn't make it a matter of personal exposition or judgment. Dry factual exposition of the sort we encourage here is neither criticism nor commentary in the sense CCTF describes, so we would be resting on a misreading of copyright law. Wikidemo (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures not allowed on lists makes no sense at all.

Lists are still articles. I think pictures SHOULD be allowed on lists. Because without that lists are pretty useless. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me a list that is pretty useless without images. And don't tell me "people needs to know the character's picture" because, if they are major characters, they will have their own article, and if they are minor, they aren't important. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. I recognise some of the aliens, but for many I struggle to make sense of the text without a picture. Someone made the fair point that many of the episode articles include pictures of the aliens, but I can equally understand that clicking back and forth between the list and the episode articles can get tiresome. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You miss the point (again?) that many so-called list articles aren't really that. They are articles that simple don't have enough so-called real world content to fill out a single page, while still being notable enough for an article. Let's give a good non-fiction example -- Piano Concertos Nos 1-4 (Mozart). This article is about a few separate pieces of music, all of them very notable, but they are combined to make a nice and much fuller article, including info that would otherwise be repeated across four separate ones were they not combined. Granted it could use more work, but I think the point is there. Many character list articles are much more similar to that than to, as given above, List of dog breeds. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What probably needs to happen is for such "character lists" to be renamed and rewritten as overviews of the characters or cast of a particular series. In other words, keep a list in there somewhere, but flesh it out with overview and commentary sections. A bit like how 1345 was created from 1345 timeline, or how the Ent article contains a subsection Ent#Named Ents, or how Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is an overview with a list stuck on the end. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I can't understand why everyone keeps fussing over images in lists. I thought it was quite straight-cut; WP:FUC policy, criteria 3a says we cannot use lots of images in articles and cannot have many uses of one image all over wikipedia. So why is this being disputed? I geninuely can't understand o_0... Seraphim Whipp 12:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand why people are ignoring Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Different approach to minimising non-free images? It is plain to me that minimising non-free content means different things at different scales. The reasons for minimsing use are different when you consider an individual image, a group of related images, an individual article, a group of related articles, and Wikipedia as a whole. It also means different things when you consider an individual copyright holder (ie. images related by copyright holder, rather than topic), the specific overuse complaint, as opposed to all copyright holders everywhere, the nebulous general overuse complaint. But if people want to keep oversimplifying things regarding minimal use (not the other aspects of non-free use), they will get the good-faith misunderstandings and arguments they deserve. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Is your last comment specifically directed at me? Seraphim Whipp 13:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. My proposed quota system for specific areas would actually help reduce the overall amount of non-free use on Wikipedia, and encourage more thought on which images are really essential for a topic area. So it is disheartening to see people take the easy option of trotting out the same tired old arguments time and time again. I'm trying to make progress here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You have forgotten one crucial thing here. I asked my question in sincere good faith...and you treat me in a bad faith way that I don't dserve. I haven't read this talk page recently, but I did see this section name come up on my watchlist and so asked a genuine good faith question...I'm not sure why I bother here sometimes. Seraphim Whipp 13:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for that. I assumed, wrongly, that you were aware of the rest of the posts to the page. I hope you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it is offered, and will take the time to read that section and the new proposal below. Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Seraphim Whipp 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree in principal with the view that images are banned from any list or group article regarding characters, otherwise there will be a problem with image galleries being created. I believe the current concensus it that they are not allowed, and I can't think of a reason why they should.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Non-free image galleries are (very rarely) allowed if the layout of the section or article is helped by arranging the image in a gallery rather, than aligned left or right. This is why the wording was changed from "unacceptable" to "usually unacceptable". The canonical example here is the gallery at the bottom of Padmé Amidala#Costumes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And as just another example of what people seem to be missing -- a lot of times, we often split out content that would normally go into an article because it's too big otherwise -- take a good example of jazz (word) split off of jazz. Many of these so-called list articles are basically the opposite - the content is too small, so they are put together. There's a number of "Music of..." articles that are used instead of seperate pages for each album -- in fact, here's the PERFECT example I think. Most people seem to agree that a singular album page can have a picture of the album. If a bunch of them are combined into a single page (say, Music of Final Fantasy VI), that's not really different in how we present the pics than if they were separate pages. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the sentiment of this section header. There are instances where pictures can be used per fair use in list articles. Therefore it is not helping to write the encyclopedia to state that list articles may not have images in them. Hiding T 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Replacable fair use process: constructive or disruptive?

Regarding removal of NF images for free replacements, as per this removal [4], all that seems to happen is a tag is placed on the uploaders talk page [5] and the image categorised as such.

The question is, does there not exist any other more positive group / process / project for this kind of work? If the uploader never returns, who else knows which article this image was deleted from? The image page loses the link to the articles it was used in, so even for people who routinely view the image replace categories and are not possibly involved directly in the subject matter, how are they supposed to know where it came from, even if they are able to find a free use version in the just 7 days allowed before it disappears completely?

Anyway, I was able to find a free use version already on WP in a matter of seconds, something the remover was seemingly unable or uninterested in doing. It seems to me from this, and past experience, that the whole image deletion policy is generally disruptive, rather than constructive, as there is no onus on the people who love to remove these images and just place tags to actually try and fix the situation, or more importantly inform other interested parties of the situation so they can fix it, or help the constructive but not necessary involved people to fix it either. I only found out as the article is on my watchlist, but it may well not have been, it is already too large as it is. Apologies if there are other processes or groups, or a more appropriate place for this question, but I am not aware of them, not for want of looking. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the process itself is neutral. The way it's applied can be anywhere from disruptive and contentious to constructive and collaborative. To my mind the best results come when people who are actively interested in a specific subect get together actively to improve the article and bounce ideas off each other. It's a real pleasure to work with a good editor, tweaking each other's contributions, adding things, coming up with better and better content. When you do that you don't even think of it as deletion or a policy matter, it's just editorial discretion. If I'm working on Anita Ekberg and someone finds a great free image that completes the article, I'm happy they replaced the old non-free one. The other approach I sometimes liken to dive bombing. People who have no history with an article or the people who wrote it come in, find something amiss, and attach a bunch of tags and/or boldly edit the piece. That can work too, and sometimes things need that kind of correction. Often everyone appreciates the guidance. But that's probably what you're thinking about. Sometimes people don't like being dive bombed, and sometimes the bomber misses the target.Wikidemo (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The process itself may be theoretically neutral, but it is often applied in a disruptive manner. We should encourage editors who are deleting images to at least make a brief effort to replace the image. Too many people get into a one-track operation of simply trying to delete images. Johntex\talk 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Checking back I think this belongs in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, so I'm moving it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal proposal to change non-free content criterion 3a

Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Different approach to minimising non-free images. The following is a formal proposal to change non-free content criterion 3a to lay the groundwork for incorporating minimal usage within topic areas.

Old wording: 3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - WP:NFCC#3a

The proposal is to change this to cover the middle ground between individual articles and Wikipedia as a whole (a huge gulf exists between these two extremes). One posssible new wording is the following:

New wording (version 1): 3(a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in: (i) each article; (ii) topic areas covered by related articles; and (iii) Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. - WP:NFCC#3a

This is intended to address the perennial problem of lots of images being used in fictional topic areas. It won't address precisely what overuse is for cases (i), (ii), and (iii), but it will at least move towards framing the debate that needs to take place about such areas. Now, first, is there any support for this at all here? If so, where shall we advertise this change to the wider community? Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should be making policy changes to frame a debate. I'd rather see an RFC first. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you possibly say a little bit more? It is hard to gauge opinion when comments are as short as this. :-( I think it is a legitimate issue to point out that there is a large gulf between deciding what is overuse for a single article or image, and what is overuse for the whole of Wikipedia. For one thing, if every article for which no non-free images are available had a non-free image (ie. ignore the articles that can and should have free images), would that be overuse? What percentage of "non-free image articles" should be allowed to have non-free images on them? At what point does it become "overuse within the fictional articles on Wikipedia" and at what point does it become "overuse within Wikipedia"? These are legitimate questions that need answering. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am against this proposal because I think the phrase "only if necessary" will have the effect of opening the flood gates for lots of disputes, and has the potential to allow the creation of image galleries. The term "necessary" is too broad and too open to subjective interpretation to be used in a Wikipedia guideline. For instance, if we assume that the article Star Trek has too many images of starships in it, how can you say which are "necessary" and which are dispensible? In my view, the rule of thumb is "one is enough", and the choice should be a matter of concensus between the article's editors as to which one is best. Otherwise, every editor will add an image since in their view their choice of image will not only be "necessary" but "essential". Better to stay with existing wording in my view, and apply the guideline consistently and without exception so that there can be no doubt as to its meaning and application. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Both versions use the word "necessary". If you want to discuss "necessary", please start a new section. Now, to take your example of Star Trek, what this change would eventually lead to there is all the Star Trek articles (which are all covered by the same ultimate copyright holder) having a quota decided. Say there are 500 Star Trek articles (annoying, the WikiProject doesn't have an assessment system and article stats) - would 500 non-free images be overuse or not? Maybe a quota of 1 image per article could be agreed, but that could be flexible so that some articles could have no image, and some could have more than one? Or a quota of 300 images could be agreed. Stubs would have to be discounted from this. It might sound unworkable, but for areas where the articles are mature and well-organised, such quotas for topic areas could work. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(ANOTHER EC...damn this fast page) But one is enough of what? One per article? One per IP? One per seperate topic (and if 'lists' are a bunch of seperate topics is part of the debate)? Etc. etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, ok I'll say a bit more. I don't think we should be attempting to change policy as a tool to frame the debate. I think it's pretty clear precisely what the debate is at this point. I don't think this will yield anything positive. Even with the current policy, which makes a very strong case why such usage is not permitted, it does not matter. The EDP policy simply doesn't apply to character articles and it isn't going to apply because there are far too many people from those articles opposed to the EDP to apply the policy. There's no hope of consensus on this issue. The point at which it becomes overuse for an article is never. The people supporting fair use inclusionistism have made that abundantly clear. It's perfectly acceptable to have images for every character that ever appeared in a fictional universe, even if that appearance was fleeting. The EDP simply doesn't apply, most especially since it doesn't explicitly state character (lists,articles,collections,pick one) and neither does the resolution, mission, or guideline. This class of articles is not mentioned anywhere, so the policies simply do not apply. At a bare, bare minimum you're going to have to frame this specific case directly in order to have any hope of this modification to policy ever being applied. But, that's hopeless as well since such a modification to policy will never gain acceptance. Cordially, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I was hoping for something new, but thanks anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If we accept the premise that this is a good idea, it still needs much more discussion and an implementation scheme before we approve or disapprove the wording. The two big problems I see are that a "topic area" is not clearly defined. Some topic areas clearly are deserving of more non-free images than others. But exactly what does it mean for a group of articles to be related or on a single topic? One can certainly come up with examples, of course, but what is the standard for judging? It would have to be a clear and universally accepted standard, easy to apply, or else we will have no end of arguments on the subject. That may dovetail with Hammersoft's comment that if we mean this to apply to character articles we might just need to say so - in which case it is a guideline issue, not a policy issue. Second, as per the discussion on the subject (which is very early at this point) there would need to be some system for editors to decide when there are too many images in a subject area and start paring them back. However, some people would say they should be deleted from one article, and other people would want them deleted from a different article. We have very little precedent for taking discussions, decisions, dispute resolution, etc., on a subject-matter basis. Sure there are portals, projects, mass AfDs, mass RfCs, etc., but not really any good mechanism for bringing together people from a variety of articles to all make a collective decision. Not saying it's impossible, but it is clearly a bigger issue than simply changing the wording of 3a. Again, a series of character articles from a single series may be an exception because (presumably) they share a common pool of editors. That would not be the case, say, in an article about different teams in the same sports league or even different players on the same team. Wikidemo (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I'd love it if we could modify policy to quell these debates. That's why I'm now advocating the approach of liberalizing fair use, because such an approach would have the best chance of gaining consensus. As it stands now, the current policy has caused the expenditure of more electrons than exist :) I'd love to see it all end. Philosophically, I despise the idea of liberalizing fair use. It's free content be damned. But, pragmatically I realize now that it's hopeless, futile and depressingly difficult to keep the project focused on it's mission. So, I give up on applying the philosophy and now am working just to see the arguments end, permanently if possible. I think the best approach for that is to allow fair use as liberally as possible. To that end, I'd like to see 3a modified as follows:

3a) Liberal usage. Non-free content is permissible to use wherever a case can be made for fair use under United States law.

Further, we need to modify 8 to read something like:

8) Significance. Non-free content is used wherever its presence would increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

These modifications would stop the debates. It wouldn't satisfy everyone, but since the vast, vast majority would be in favor of such changes, the sheer weight of the majority would stop existing arguments and cause any new arguments to never gain traction. Agreed? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Except it won't satisfy the Foundation. We need to find a better middle ground. --MASEM 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't exist. The fair use inclusionists have already stated that the resolution doesn't apply. There's far, far more of them than there are people who would uphold the Foundation's dictums, and they have considerably more energy. This is the best way out. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Besides, I asked the Foundation to step in and they've done nothing. By their inaction, it's obvious this doesn't matter. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, counter to all indications the sky may not be falling. We have 2 million articles and a total of about 300,000 to 320,000 non-free images. Of those images the majority are in well-defined categories like album covers, logos, film posters, and book covers. Perhaps 50,000 images will be deleted by the Foundation's compliance date in March. Most of the problem images are in a few specific areas we know about. The project is in the top 10 of all Internet sites yet has not had a serious copyright dispute - I doubt the other top 9 or top 99 could say that. The content is free. It is GDFL licensed, mirrored on dozens of sites already, and anyone who wants to re-use it can decide for themselves quite easily whether or not to import any non-free images and, if so, which categories. In fact, the Foundation has not been making the images available for many months so the whole free content issue has been moot vis-a-vis re-use of our articles. I just don't see that this is such a big deal. Worth working on, yes. Worth stressing over, no. Wikidemo (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why our EDP needs to be modified to support free as in gratis, as opposed to the current vague attempt at free as in libre. Since we don't have to worry about downstream use, so long as it's free to use, we're golden. Liberal use up to the point of the limitation of law is the best way to go. From your wording it sounds like you might be in support of my suggested changes? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Some sense at last. :-) Gregory Maxwell said something similar on the mailing list. Maybe some stats could go at the top of this page (or even on the main page?) or allow people to assess for themselves how "free" or "unfree" Wikipedia is? Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hard to track, because we don't label unfree text as unfree (although we should). WilyD 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that the least negotiable principle is that we don't invoke fair use where we can using existing or creatable free media. WilyD 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't really apply in this case since character images can not possibly have free media. :/ --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Nitpick. Old fiction does fall into the public domain. As well as the example I linked in the previous sentence, we have Beowulf (character). Admittedly, these are bad examples as they are non-visual media. Are there any films or visual works of fiction that have fallen into the public domain yet? Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why character/tv/movie/music articles make up most of the fair use. But they certain can - Superman has supersecret public domain media Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg as do many others - and you can always talk the owner into licensing them under a free licence. In any event, your proposals don't specific context (which is good, as much of our "most necessary" fair use applies to artistic or scientific contexts). WilyD 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Superman example. I found Category:Public domain films. Didn't know there were so many! Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The public domain nature of the Superman image is disputable, since Superman's likeness is a trademark and the copyright on the character holds as well. The cartoons are public domain, but I'd want an expert to say that applied to screenshots and the like. Hiding T 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we want to make this guideline strictly based on some quota of images (X per article, X per project topic) - first people will game the system and will fill up X images because it's quoted like that, and then if someone comes along with a very valid non-free image to use, they might not be able to convince others of removing any of the existing ones to include it. I believe that any change has to look at the use of the image instead of counting images.

I'm going to flip the thought around and propose something like this (wording not perfect, but a point for discussion):

Non-free images in lists/enumerations articles and article sections should be used very conservatively. It is typically not appropriate to have a separate image for each element of a large majority of such elements on the list, as this fails NFCC#3a/#8. However, images can be used to help enhance the reader's understanding of the overall content of the list as follows:
  • Group shot/montages (created by copyright holder) are preferred over individual images.
  • Images that provide notable information for elements of the list are acceptable.
  • An image that provide a representative visual reference for other elements in the list are preferred, instead of providing a picture of each of those elements in the list. (Here is what one Klingon looks like, no need to provide the rest)
  • If another non-free image of that element is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, the user should be directed to that use instead of providing a new use (do we want to make a "See 'article' for an image of X" template to help?
  • For live actor television shows where the appearence of the character does not vary much from the appearance of the actor: consider not using an image in the list in this case if the actor's page has an appropriate picture of the actor. (see WP:BLP).
  • If images of the elements can be obtained by using one of the available consensus-agreed external links (including wikis), that is preferable than including a picture in the list.
  • Barring the above, images that are used only to identify elements in the list should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters or elements or those that cannot be described easily in text.

This is not perfect, but if we come the otherway, instead of saying images in lists are bad, but instead they can be used but please consider all ways to reduce images, then we may have a better shot at resolving this. --MASEM 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A laudable effort. But, the last point (in fact really all of the points, but focusing on one) has been argued to death. In short, there's no clear line of what is a "major" character, and it's been heavily argued that trying to describe characters in text is (a) next to impossible and (b) undermines the usability of the character list. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe - but I think we're seeing the result of backlash that removal of all images from lists, by the statement that "all items in a list need pictures"; a basic response by human nature when you are threatened. One extreme (even though the added text didn't state that) to the other. But now reversing it, saying "ok, you can have images but please do as much as you can to reduce fair use", and giving suggested routes to doing so, we can (hopefully) achieve a consensus. --MASEM 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Already been tried, already failed. One of the problems is that the line is arbitrary. Who gets to decide what is appropriate and what isn't? Once it's decided, where is it codified? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You first assume good faith that editors of these pages will reflect the ideals listed out. Barring that, we create/reuse a template warning tag for "excessive non-free use/approaching media gallery", and hope editors work it out there. If then and only then the editors refuse to budge and there's an obvious problem, maybe we create a RfNFCR (request for Non-free content reduction) which would work just like an AfD or the like - where the issue is taken to the community at large and an admin uses the consensus to work out the problem. While we never would want RfNFCRs to occur, we can then use the results of RfNFCRs to help clean up the suggested approaches for image reduction.
  • It is still subjective, unfortunately, but so are many other areas beyond non-free use. But it puts into place an accepted process for dealing with subjective concerns on articles used elsewhere. --MASEM 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In removing images from discographies and episode lists, we provided a bright line. It was heavily controversial, resulted in a bazillion arguments, but ultimately brute force made it happen and now there's virtually no arguments about the removals. Rather than have so many steps to rectify a given article, it'd be far preferable to have a situation akin to the examples I just noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be great to have a bright line for these, but I don't believe it exists - discographies and episodes guides are clearly bright as the text of these provides no additional context for the picture; the same is not always true of other lists. That's why I'm saying that the onus on reducing free-use in lists should not be on free-use image watchers, but on the editors of the article - let them decide best how to do it, with the understanding that it needs to be done, and resorting to community-wide consensus if the editors cannot or refuse to do so. --MASEM 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • <de indent> There is a bright line. It was already in use before the latest bruhaha. It was notability. If a character is notable enough to warrant their own article, they warrant a fair use image. Easy to follow, easy to implement. The fair use inclusionists hate it, and they've won. The standard is no different than episode lists or discographies. We don't allow fair use album covers on discographies, even if we don't have sub-articles on the albums. Same for episode lists. But, it has always been ok to have an album cover on the album's article or the episode's article. This bright line is identical. But, it's been overturned.
  • This is why I think we need to overturn not having album covers on discographies and episode lists. Those lists are no different than character lists. Some are very extensive info sets on the albums and episodes, some are bulleted lists. But regardless we do not permit fair use images on them. That's logically inconsistent with the now current stance that fair use images may liberally be used on character lists. A similar logical inconsistency would be allowing logos on articles about sports teams but not allowing logos on retail stores.
  • In short, we need to unify the stance with regards to all types of lists/collections/whatever you want to call them. We already have a bright line. It's been used over and over and over again across thousands of articles. Unfortunately, it doesn't work anymore. So, we need to get rid of it and re-introduce album covers and episode screen shots in lists, just as we have per character images on character lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So let's make an easy bright line here too. One, countem, one, nonfree image in the main parent article on the work of fiction, to show its artistic style. No, countem, no nonfree images in splitoff articles from that, list or otherwise. (As an added benefit, that will reduce incentive to create excessive subarticles on fictional works, and encourage condensing to a single article rather than these silly articles on people that never existed and are not the subject of academic study or literary criticism, and are basically in-universe trivia.) And start a "Fanpedia" somewhere else, where that type of thing is allowable. The parent article is linkable to show artistic style, and this minimizes use (minimal, anyone?) while still allowing a single shot to show artistic style. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you put Padmé Amidala in the Fanpedia? What about Romeo Montague? have a look at Template:Romeo and Juliet - that involves a wide spectrum of articles across the range from articles on free, public domain material (the original Shakespeare play) all the way through to modern adaptations (very much non-free material). Don't you see how restricting or removing the non-free images affects those writing about the modern adaptations? Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Padme Amidala and Romeo Montague are clear cases of where character subarticles should be allowed, for the precise reason that the characters themselves are the subject of significant study and commentary in reliable secondary sources. In the case of good old Romeo, it's pretty clear that public domain material will be available; for Padme, why do we need the illustration? (Actually, in the case of Amidala, there were a couple of nonfree images in a gallery, right next to two free images, illustrating the problem.) So, no, I wouldn't put those in our hypothetical Fanpedia. I think a case could even be made that in the case of such articles (Superman, Padme Amidala, James T. Kirk, James Bond), where the character itself is the subject of significant commentary, an exception could be made and an (one) illustration image allowed. But the vast majority of character articles are not Romeo, or Superman, or Padme, and the character itself is not notable, even if its parent work is. Bad enough to have those, worse yet to have them full of nonfree images. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I reverted your removal of those non-free images. For my reasons, see the discussion at the FAC review, the image rationales, and the points I made here and here. Galleries are not just for displaying lots of images together. Sometimes they are a way to achieve a better layout - if the images were arranged in a table, or as a montage, would the same knee-jerk reaction against galleries be observed? Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with gallery or not. The images are replaceable (and indeed, replaced) by free images. Presumably, free versions of the artistic works could be made, free releases could be sought, or free photos taken, so even the contemporary versions are replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The non-free images are not replaceable. The non-free images are screenshots depicting copyrighted works (here the design and look of some of the dresses worn in the films by the character Padmé Amidala). The free images are real-world photos of royalty: (1) Image:MongolianRoyalty.jpg - a picture of a Mongolian royal (undated); and (2) Image:Xenia.jpg - a picture from 1903 of a Russsian royal in a 17th century dress. The point here is that the pictures are showing how the costume designers (as sourced in the article) were inspired by the real-world designs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, not all works of fiction are the same. Let's take a popular and culturally significant film. Yes, we would want a screenshot that exemplifies its artistic style. We would also want the poster as the lead image, not only as an overarching illustration but also to help the reader understand how the film was marketed. The film may have one, two, or several scenes that are famous and/or have attracted substantial critical attention. It's important to see screenshots of those, to elucidate the critical commentary. Your "easy bright line" concept might serve us well with some carefully defined article types, but is unnecessary and counterproductive for many others.—DCGeist (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at our featured lists I think it may be that the consensus is that the only place a non-free image tends to be used is in the lead of the list. That's generally the only place serious discussion takes place in a list too. But I would want to see some sort of exception for where an item in a list discusses an image to the extent that the point can only be made with the image displayed. That woul be the best fair use (as in law, not policy) possible anyway. Hiding T 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Overuse: single article vs Wikipedia

OK, the above probably was premature, but can we at least agree on the following:

  • As regards the following quote from WP:NFCC#3a: "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole." - there is a wide gulf between "each article" and "Wikipedia as a whole". It is clearly impractical to define what counts as overuse for Wikipedia as a whole, but it is possible that some easily identifiable middle ground exists, possibly in the form of clearly defined areas of Wikipedia. For example, articles about contemporary fiction and films (ie. still in copyright) are clearly definable, thus we can begin to tackle the question "what counts as overuse when you look at fictional areas as a whole?", and see how that relates to "overuse for Wikipedia as a whole". Agreed? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with 'quota' per se is that there will always be an ebb and flow of what gets created, merged, deleted, etc...but in general the trend will get toward there being more, simply as more stuff is created and more and more obscure but still notible stuff gets put on WP. So the WP as a whole thing...outside of some sort of percentage, probably is a very bad road to go down making hard limits. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To avoid this problem, I propose sticking stricly to the guidelines, by using the rule of thumb that there should only be one image per article's on fictional topics. I can understand why you might want more than one image in a technical subject, but for works of fiction, I can't think of a reason to have more than one. If there is an argument for more than one image per article, then that is perhaps a good argument to split articles into sub-articles where notability of both topics is proven. Again, Star Trek is a good example: if starships are notable, then their image will be feature there, not plastered on every related article as they are at the moment. The best rules are simple ones: "one is enough"--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Proponents of fair use per character loudly defend the need to have images for every character, regardless of context. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that fails the fair use guidelines, as this would provide the opportunity to convert Wikipedia into a picture album, which it is not. I think it is good discipline to have one picture per article, as it forces concensus and selective editing.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I philosophically agree with you, but it's impossible to implement. Almost every time it's tried, it produces loud arguments, and periodic mass flareups (witness this current talk page). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the WP:MERGE impetus behind keeping fictional content by merging together to form list articles, brings lots of images together in one article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
For some topics, like discussion of an individual book, a just one policy makes excellent sense. But other topics (a) simply call for more illustration and (b) by their nature do not allow for substitution of free images for fair use. The cinema is a perfect example. Do the five fair-use images in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial constitute excess? I don't believe so. Given the size and scope of the article, and the specific use of each image, it looks to me very much like the right amount. How about Science fiction film? Five fair-use images. Is that too much? Given the breadth of the topic, I think a couple more images in specific areas of the article would actually be very helpful for readers.—DCGeist (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What would be wrong for creating character lists for all movies, such as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial? We could have descriptions of each character, age, plot development around that character, an image of the character to allow people to readily identify the character, and etc. This would be an enhancement to the project, would it not? I'm thinking of E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#Cast, and adding a link to a subpage showing the characters, like Characters of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see the downside to allowing only one image per fiction-related article, but how can you justify more than one if the fair use guidelines don't really allow more than one? If you read Amount & substantiality in US law, the only way to definitely prove that editors are not overstepping the mark is a one image limitation. Having an image gallery of E.T. characters is definetly overstepping this legal restriction, as having more than one image can be interpred as a series of images intended to make the article more attractive at the expense of the copyright holder, unless they are paid a fee. A similar argument applies to images themselves: thumbnail size reproductions are only allowed otherwise the copyright holder can claim fair use infringement. Remember, there are no technical reasons for having more than one image, as they are used to illustrate rather than elucidate fictional topics. However, there are copyright problems associated with allowing image galleries. I have yet to hear an argument for having more than one images in a fiction-related article using a technical justification for doing so, but the copyright arguements for restricting the number to just one seems to me to override any proposal for more. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Too contextual - it'd just force people to break up good articles the require multiple instances of unfree materials to be complete. A single image can be purely decorative, or several images can be necessary for readability and comprehension - straightjacket approaches are unlikely to ever work. WilyD 16:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Gavin, are you sure you provided the right link? Because there's simply nothing there at all that bears on a "one image limitation." In the context of a 120-minute movie, which contains approximately 172,800 individual frames of film (i.e., individual pictures) and anywhere from 500 to 1,200 clearly distinguishable shots, are five individual screenshots excessive "in relation to the whole", especially in the context of an institution such as Wikipedia? I don't believe so--either under law or common sense.
On your second point, indeed, one image is all that is necessary to illustrate certain article topics (like E.T.), but is clearly insufficient for others (like science fiction film). And aside from that, images certainly can and often should be used to elucidate.—DCGeist (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I think the "1000s of images in any one film" bit gets overdone. If that is really the case, why can't people use 100 still pictures? The real point for films, I think, is not using a collection of still photos to tell the story (ie. replacing the original use). As long as the stills have a clear purpose, and are not being used to tell the story, then it should be OK. The ET article is a very good example. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my essential point. The import of the "1000s of images in any one film" is simply to underscore that when stills are used judiciously and encyclopedically--as they are in E.T.--we may end up with a number of fair-use images that, from a certain perspective, are much greater than just one but still very, very far from "excessive"--again in either legal or common-sense terms.
Let's turn to a film article I've worked a great deal on: Pulp Fiction. This has nine free-use images. To someone who advocates a limit guideline or hard cap, this may seem like an appallingly large amount. I would say that consideration of the article's length and individual examination of the images and the accompanying text shows that--as you put it--each image has a clear purpose and has been selected judiciously to enhance readers' understanding of the discussion.—DCGeist (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
While I disagree with having one image per article, I would also say that article has too many images. I counted 4-5 that really do not do much, if anything, to enhance the discussion. That, of course, is the other part of the problem. What one person thinks enhances or aids the article, another would see as just being decoration.AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the legal point, the best protection against legal action against breaches of Amount & substantiality in US law is to apply the following de minimus rule: "one is enough". It is simple to remember, easy to administer and can't be contested. As regards existing articles with lots of images, I still remain unconvinced any of these have technical justification for allowing more than one image; for example the editors of Science fiction film or Pulp Fiction could form their own portal (like Portal:Film) and rotate a representative picture evry month if they were that keen on film images. I disagree with the view that having losts of images provides any purpose, as it is unless an image is notable (in which case it should have its own article), then you get into the debate "how much is enough?".Neither do I believe any fictional article needs to be broken up to accomodate extra images - that is an example of the tail wagging the dog. My argument here is that any fiction-related article can't legally have more than one picture per article. You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes one is not enough, other times it's too much. Depends on what information you're trying to convey. Beyond that, we're trying to write an encyclopaedia that consists of articles - portals are ... navigation aids - they're like Project namespace or Userpages - they're here to help write, but a "finished" product wouldn't include them. Presumably it would include information of Science Fiction films ... WilyD 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as stated--"any fiction-related article can't legally have more than one picture per article"--your argument is obviously wrong, Gavin. Perhaps you meant to say, "We are on safer legal ground if no fiction-related article has more than one picture." True enough. And we're even safer if we have no fair-use pictures at all (as legal precedence informs and Wily D reminds us, even one can sometimes be too much). Let it be noted, I too disagree with the view that "Having lots of images provides any purpose." But I do believe that specific images, judiciously selected, serve important purposes indeed. Let's be careful not to conflate one view with the other.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pulp Fiction example was brave. I disagree with three of those images. Specifically, Image:PulpFictionMedieval.jpg (you need a quote of what he is saying, not a still shot - the article doesn't even quote what happens here), Image:PulpFictionToilet.jpg (you can describe someone sitting on a toilet reading a book without needing the image), and Image:Pulp Fiction-Bible.jpg (what is needed here is a quote [which you have], a sound clip, or a video clip - a still clip does next to nothing here). The other six images look fine to me. Maybe this is more a case of needing outside views to get the right perspective? Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Outside perspective is always helpful. I'll stay specific for a moment before returning to the general topic of this thread.
The Bible image is the one I was closest to being on the fence about--it's justifiable primarily (though not exclusively) on the basis of the fame of the verbal content of the illustrated moment. You've raised doubts about it too, and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if it was cut.
Your point about the Toilet image is fair enough. My opinion remains different--I think it is visually distinctive and informative enough that it significantly helps the reader understand the discussion, understand the importance of there being multiple scenes in which characters spend time in bathrooms, spend time on toilets.
I'm not sure what happened with your consideration of the Medieval image. What Marsellus is saying is quoted in the caption directly below the image. And it is explicitly commented on in the main text directly to the left of the image.
Back to the broader point. Here we have an article on an individual film where there appears to be a strong case for, shall we say, six to eight fair-use images. The factors I wish to underscore are (first) the specificity of the images and their encyclopedic application and thus (second) the significant distinction between (a) using substantially more than just one (or just three or...) fair-use images in a judicious fashion and (b) using dozens of images in a manner that may still be legally defensible but is likely nonencyclopedic.—DCGeist (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, what is the technical reason for having the other images, other than "they look fine"? My point here that this is a work of fiction, it only needs the one. If the image is notable, then have a seperate article, say on the posters of Pulp Fiction (I beleive they are highly collectable). On the legal point, I agree with DCGeist that my position is basically "We are on safer legal ground if no fiction-related article has more than one picture." However, I need to make the point that Wikipedia would not only on safer from the risk of legal action because of this rule, but we are also on safer ground because it is the only rule that can be enforced effectively. Can anyone think of a technical reason why you need more than one image per fiction-related article other than on aesthetic grounds? --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's unclear what you mean by "technical" in this context - there seems to be reasonable agreement here that most of the images in the Pulp Fiction article represent valid uses of nonfree media under this policy. Now, we could divide the article into multiple subarticles, although I suspect this would have little if any effect on our legal exposure, and might well make the article less readable. Obviously we'd be on safer legal ground if we reduced our us of unfree media to zero, though we'd be on unsafer "encyclopaedic" ground. Is there any particular reason to believe "one" is a magic number in this context? Or that "fiction" is a magic subarea in this context? I.e. should a documentary movie be any different from a fiction movie with respect to this policy? WilyD 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the screenshots in the articles being discussed (E.T. and Pulp Fiction) are not there because they "look fine"; they have been included because they help the reader understand the article's detailed discussion of the respective films, their themes, their motifs, their broader cultural impact. (Note--only one image of a poster is used in either article, in each case as the primary infobox illustration.) The discussion of the "Mysterious briefcase" in Pulp Fiction, for example, is clearly significant within the context of the article, but--no--by its nature is not deserving of its own article. In sum, not all works of fiction are the same. One fair-use image may be sufficient for an article on an important book or musical recording, but is very likely to be insufficient for a detailed article on an important film or television show. Such considerations apply in law just as they do in common sense.—DCGeist (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"One is enough" is easily enforceable is the main criteria for this rule, but also there does not seem to be a technical reason for having more other than one, even though everybody (including me) wants more. The reader can obtain facts and analysis from the text of the article, but thumbnail pictures provide limited emotional impressions. I therefore disagree that themes, their motifs, their broader cultural impact can be discerned from thumbnail images; you need to go to an image gallery to get this type of visual input. In the case of the image in Pulp Fiction entitled "Vincent gazes into the glowing case", I don't see it as a notable or significant image: the briefcase in question is just a prop; there are plenty of other images and stills from the film that are better, and if the choice is just one, then use the poster: it is the most recognisable to fans and non-fans alike. If images have to be restricted, then using just one per article is the easiest guideline to enforce from an administrative viewpoint. The restictions are a bitch, but once you realise that editors will make great efforts to justify exceptions, then applying a simple rule saves a lot of argument and administative effort. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will say that "easily enforceable" as a "main criteria" violates the very soul of WP:IAR, one of our cornerstones. There are many different ways to characterize our mission, but "sav[ing] a lot of argument and administative effort" is surely not one of them.

As a side point, Gavin, what's important is not whether you or I personally might think of, say, the image of Vincent staring into the briefcase as notable or significant. The verifiable fact is that multiple scholars and other published observers of the film do. Again, the images are not there because they "look fine"; they are there to support the well-sourced content of the article and readers' understanding of it. Which does go the heart of our mission.—DCGeist (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this image is notable, then I must reiterate my earlier point that it should have its own article, rather than having to piggy back on the article Pulp Fiction. I think this example does not negate my argument that "one is enough". --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You're continuing to prioritize administrative ease over a central aspect of the Wikipedia mission itself, to provide a quality encyclopedia. Let's turn again to a specific example, the article on E.T., on which there is general consensus that the employment of fair-use images meets our best standards. According to your logic, either the article should be stripped of virtually all its fair-use images, no matter how significant they are to understanding the topic, or:
  • Treatment of the famous image in which E.T. and Elliott fly a bike "across" the moon should be taken out of the article on the movie and given its own.
  • Discussion of the film as a possible religious parable should be taken out of the article on the movie and given its own.
  • Discussion of CGI changes to reissues of the film should be taken out of the article on the movie and given its own.
I hope you can see that is (a) an insensible approach to encyclopedic structure and that (b) either application of your logic clearly diminishes the quality of the encyclopedia. In no way are these elements of discussion or the images that accompany them "piggy backing" on the article. Quite the opposite: they are integral to the article topic.
Our image policy exists in order to help us balance our objectives of creating an encyclopedia as free as possible and as excellent as possible. Administrative effort serves those objectives and is valuable in that service, but it should never become the point of what we do here.—DCGeist (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with on the E.T. example: if each article were limited to one image then I would choose the "bike accross the moon image", and dispense with other images as I see no technical reason for more. My argument "one is enough" is tough, but you must admit that it does address the fair use issue, even if it is more restrictive. As regards you point about administrative ease, I think having simpler rules that can be easily enforced is a really good idea: you can see how long the discussions here are already, and if we can disagree at length here, imagine what it will be like when lots of images come up for review. Unless you want to assign lots of admins to image review, then the best guidelines are the ones that are easiest to enforce - better to spend our time writing ariticles than going through long image reviews. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I know WilyD asked you this before; we didn't get an answer then, but maybe now: What do you mean when you say you see no "technical" reason for the images of, say, E.T.'s glowing heart (implying a Christological analogy) and the differences between the original and the CGI-ed reissue version? They aren't in the article for "technical" reasons by any definition of that word I'm familiar with. Per policy, they are in the article because they significantly add to readers' understanding of the topic and they cannot be replaced by free imagery.
An important point: Your just one notion would actually resolve nothing. In the event that it was ever applied, arguments would just as likely be more ferocious than ever over which one of all possible images would be appropriate for each article.
Finally, I wholeheartedly disagree with the opinion that "the best guidelines are the ones that are easiest to enforce." That's a bureaucratic point of view, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The best guidelines are the ones that best help our editors contribute to our mission: creating an encyclopedia that productively balances the goals of being as free as possible and as excellent as possible.
To return to my initial query, the primary impetus for this message: What do you mean by the word "technical" in this context?—DCGeist (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
To answer for myself, obviously, not for Gavin: "During $SCENE, E.T.'s heart glows. $SOURCE interprets this as $THING..." works fine. The image is unnecessary to make that point, text does fine. "Replaceable by free content" includes "Text could adequately make the point." For the bike-across-the-moon image, that's not really the case. For the glowing heart, it certainly is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Image Reduction in Lists

Here's something I presented earlier, but spelling it out more.

For purposes of this area, we consider articles that are groupings of common items that do not have demonstrated notability on their own, but otherwise are appropriate to include, and include additional body text beyond data; for purposes of reference, these are called "lists". (this excludes discographies and episode lists).

Wikipedia's m:mission is to create a free content encyclopedia; to that end it is necessary to use a minimal amount free-use in any article, regardless of the type of article. List articles, by nature, tend to use a large number of non-free images. While there is no technical limit on the number of non-free images, non-free image use should be reduced to the smallest number of non-free, non-replaceable images that provide appropriate context for the information contained in the list.

Editors are urged to review non-free image use in articles and attempted to reduce the number present. Ways of reducing the number of non-free images in an article include the following:

  1. Group shot/montages (created by copyright holder) are preferred over individual images.
  2. Images that provide notable information for elements of the list are acceptable.
  3. An image that provide a representative visual reference for other elements in the list are preferred, instead of providing a picture of each of those elements in the list. (Here is what one Klingon looks like, no need to provide the rest)
  4. If another non-free image of that element is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, the user should be directed to that use instead of providing a new use (do we want to make a "See 'article' for an image of X" template to help?)
  5. For live actor television shows where the appearence of the character does not vary much from the appearance of the actor: consider not using an image in the list in this case if the actor's page has an appropriate picture of the actor. (see WP:BLP).
  6. If images of the elements can be obtained by using one of the available consensus-agreed external links (including wikis), that is preferable than including a picture in the list.
  7. Barring the above, images that are used only to identify elements in the list should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters or elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.

Should an editor find that the number of images in a list article is excessive and cannot resolve the issue with other editors, a resolution process (possibly a RfNFCR: Request for non-free content reduction) should be initiated to get other uninvolved editors to help review and suggest further ways to reduce image use.

This approach makes this a good faith effort to get editors to reduce non-free use, which may not be a bright line, but I think much of this discussion states that there is no bright line for non-free fair use inclusion. --MASEM 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this well-thought out proposal. Allowing for minor changes of wording (hopefully others will discuss this), I think it should be made part of the non-free content guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I find a lot to agree with here, though I don't think it gets it exactly right. To start, I think that in some cases, elements within a "list" article may have notability but just make more sense to include in the aggregate "list" form than in individual stubs. Regarding the bulleted recommendations:
  • I think the first one is a bit too expansive. That kind of rule would fit better on true "list" articles than the kinds of cases I've been discussing.
  • For the second, I don't think we should get into evaluating information based on WP:N. There is probably different language we could use for this idea that I would agree with.
  • Agree with the third.
  • The fourth...I don't think we should get into the business of directing people to different articles strictly to view images. If a "for more information" or "main article" link is not appropriate, then I don't like the idea of creating a new class of link introduction for people who just want to see images.
  • Agree with the fifth.
  • I don't like this rule for major elements, but I like it for minor ones.
  • The last one is the kind of rule I really like, and I would move it up rather than use it only if the prior guidelines fail. If certain elements in the "list" might actually be notable enough for an article, or if their coverage is worthy of an article but notability is questionable, then I think those are valid reasons to use a non-free image. I would base my test on the depth of coverage within the article and the significance of the individual element to the overall topic of the article, i.e. a major character is important relative to a "characters in" article. Croctotheface (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've numbered the points above to make discussion easier.
For 1) that's an "in general". It does not mean "only one group shot" can be used, just that , in general, if you can get a group shot, use that over individual pictures. That can apply to any type of article.
For 2) Notability may be the wrong term, but basically this goes to the ET/Pulp Fiction picture discussion - images are being used in conjunction with the text to describe real-world aspects of the work
For 4) I don't know if we absolutely need a "see also" link , as long as the text clearly states "This character appeared in X" as part of the typical prose. Alternatively, this could be reworded to state that non-free images that already exist can be reused instead of creating a new image.
For 6), this follows with 7 - understandable consensus-agreed major characters or elements shouldn't be shuffled off, but whenever possible, minor ones that don't fit any of the previous suggestions can be put there. --MASEM 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I really like this. It's a great way of wording what I (and I think several others) have been interpreting our policy to say all along. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems a lot more reasonable from all sides than what we've seen so far. I would point out that, aside from grammatical issues, one thing should be changed: number 2 should be reworded to make it clear that "notable" covers information which is vital to understanding the element depicted, e.g. if it's something which cannot be described easily. How that would be done, I don't know, but the last thing I want is someone deleting (extreme, non-applicable example here) all pictures in the article Möbius strip because "notability doesn't cover what it looks like, you can replace it with a text description". -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I will add that regardless of the conversation below, tidied-up versions of this advice should be added to WP:NFCC as methods to suggest reducing non-free image use. --MASEM 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
These are good general principles. The only one I don't like is number 6, I think the fact that Wikipedia is largely self-contained is a very good thing. Remember, not everyone reading Wikipedia will be doing so online. People should be able to get as much out of Wikipedia in other media as they can online, wherever possible. Linking to official sites containing images might be a good idea in some circumstances, but linking to other wikis (presumably Wikia ones, for them most part) just for the sake of images is a bad idea, IMO. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with this proposal and would support after final tweaking. For the specific items:
  1. 1 - agree with completely, and would change preferred to strongly preferred
  2. 2 - mostly agree but not sure on the wording
  3. 3 - also agreed, where applicable
  4. 4 - disagree with the current wording. It's one thinng if the item on the list has its own article with an image (then no need to put the image in the list), but otherwise, listing in two articles should be acceptable where a fair use and valid reasoning can be provided for use in both articles.
  5. 5 - agreed, no need to have 20 pics of Tom Hanks looking like Tom Hanks :-P
  6. 6 - disagree, sounds like an attempt to cirvumvent Wikipedia copyright policy and far too easy for someone to use it as a case for linking to fansites and other inappropriate links (or worse, the less watched articles with direct links to copyrighted images *shudder*)
  7. 7 - mostly agree, though wording needs a little work
AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually quite like this proposal, as it's very well thought out. There are a few things I'm not entirely sure about however, so I'll issue my concerns and recommendations:
  • For 1 - Agree. "In general" but "preferred" is the right way to go, as in some cases it will be impossible to obtain a group image.
  • For 2 - Agree, but it's quite vague. The wording needs to be a little clearer.
  • For 3 - Agree.
  • For 4 - Disagree. I don't think it is appropriate to be redirecting people around Wikipedia just to see an image. There will be cases where more than one use is necessary but for other images, the information about an alternative image should be incorporated into either the prose of the article or not at all (but make sure that a link to the article with the image does exist in the list)
  • For 5 - Agree. Unless the appearance is drastically different then there is absolutely no point in having tons of images of what is pretty much the exact same thing. I notice that many of the characters from EastEnders end up having their character images used for the article on the actors. In these cases it really is pointless to have the same image repeated like this.
  • For 6 - Not sure. I actually think this could be highly abused to provide inappropriate links in articles.
  • For 7 - Strongly agree.
I also like the idea of RfNFCR (could we abbreviate it as simply RfN?) in extreme cases where lists contain excessive images and editors cannot resolve the issue and need external assistance and resolution to reduce conflict and help reach consensus on what is appropriate for the article. (phew that's a long sentence!) Having a guidance process to editors on this rather complicated matter is a highly useful idea indeed. .:Alex:. 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


1- Agree. While many of us disagree about some of the issues here, at the very least these discussions will help to encourage group shots over individual shots, which will decrease non-free image usage greatly.
2- Agree
3- Agree
4- Somewhat agree. It would depend on the situation. Once an editor wanted to add a logo of a show to a list of episodes, and my rationale for removing it was that they could see the logo in the main article. Although, if we're dealing with a sub-topic that is independently notable from the other article, I could see using the same or similar image in two places.
5- Agree.
6- Not sure about this one. It might work for some situations. I once proposed that Wikia host mirrors of our lists of episodes, but render them with screen shots. Edits would be synced by bots, so that both projects would benefit from the time and effort. But, for myself, I'd have to think about it some more.
7- Agree. I do believe there is some level where identification on its own is a reasonable rationale, but a rationale that should be limited, like what Masem described.
-- Ned Scott 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The premise of the proposal is flawed. There is no advantage to reducing the the number of images in lists. If a given image is legally permissible, if there is no free alternative, then it is up to the editors of the article to decide to use the image or not. The editors of the article are the best judges as to what will enhance the article.
There is no benefit to trying to remove images of fictional characters since it is not possible to create a free alternative to the image. That is true whether the article is about one character, or whether it is a list of 10 characters.
The proposal is trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and it is therefore a bad case of instruction-creep. Johntex\talk 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I believe it's trying to solve the problem of articles (mainly lists) not following minimal usage of non-free images. Obviously this needs to be complied (it's foundation policy), but many users (including myself) oppose simply barring images from prose-style list articles. .:Alex:. 20:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation has asked us, the editors, to keep non-free fair use images to a minimum, in a manner that is more restrictive than US Law; doesn't matter if it's legal to use that many image, we have the privilege of using the Foundation's servers freely, so we need to respect their concerns. There has to be a compromise between the stance "every item gets a picture" and "no fair use, period"; this gets us part of the way there. It is also not necessary to illustrate every aspect on WP. --MASEM 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Rewriting the above based on comments:

  1. Group shots/montages (created by copyright holder) are strongly preferred over individual images.
  2. Images which are discussed in context of the article body (e.g. representing the art style, a critically notable scene, or a contentious element of the work) of the list are acceptable.
  3. An image that provide a representative visual reference for other elements in the list are preferred, instead of providing a picture of each of those elements in the list. (Here is what one Klingon looks like, no need to provide the rest)
  4. If another non-free image of that element is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferrably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a separate non-free image. If repeating its use, please be aware that a new non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image. (Coordination between, say, individual episode pages and a character page such that a single image that does double-duty representing both well, would be highly encouraged.
  5. For live actor television shows where the appearance of the character does not vary much from the appearance of the actor: consider not using an image in the list in this case if the actor's page has an appropriate picture of the actor. (see WP:BLP). If there is a significant difference (due to age, makeup, or the like) a separate picture is appropriate, though again, in very limited cases, it may be possible to create a double-duty picture both for the actor's page and the character page. (again see WP:BLP).
  6. (there is no rule 6, as strongly suggested that offsite unloading is not a Good Thing)
  7. Barring the above, images that are used only to identify elements in the list should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters or elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus.

Nixed #6, reworded #2 and #4. --MASEM 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I like it. I still don't like the reference in 2 to WP:N, since I really think it's important that we not evaluate information within articles according to notability guidelines. If something passes WP:N notability muster, then it can have its own article. That's not the kind of stuff we're really talking about here. I also think the language in 2 should be a little more specific, since by nature everything that might get an image is likely to be discussed in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any improvements in language for #2 is appreciated. I don't want to say "constructive criticism" since that's a term we can't easily agree on, but if we give enough examples of positive use, it will be readily self-apparent. --MASEM 06:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mostly, this is a step in the right direction. The problem I see is that we've had all manner of guideline and policy essentially ignored for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that people find all sorts of wiggle room in them. This introduces a lot of wiggle room. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused about why "wiggle room" is such a bad thing, especially considering that you've acknowledged that cases aren't always clear-cut. The purpose of Masem's proposal is to provide a framework that helps editors evaluate how to handle difficult cases, such as those you mention above. It seems that most editors here agree that because it's difficult to establish criteria that will work for 100% of cases and 100% of editors' sensibilities, the best we can do is develop clear and enforceable recommendations, such as these. Croctotheface (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that wiggle room has been badly abused to mean "it's always allowed". --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way we can get the Foundation to give us a clearer statement of what they want for non-free use besides "minimal"? Unlike other policies and guidelines that only have the strength of the consensus they are built on, non-free use is something mandated by the Foundation, but unfortunately in vague enough terms to allow wiggle room. A stronger statement from them would go a long way to make a brighter line for image use.
Until then, while my above recommendations do not provide bright lines for easy determination if an image is appropriate or not, they are easy to follow voluntary guidelines to help cut down image use. They have wiggle room for exactly that reason - they are voluntary. It's a step towards a bright line, it may not work, but my gut tells me it will and will be better accepted to make way for more ways of reducing non-free use than if we set what could be seen as an arbitrary line for non-free use. --MASEM 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but that's no more of a problem here than it is with every other guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_32&oldid=1136057932"