This template or project page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, a project that aims to monitor and reduce non-free content on Wikipedia, prevent copyright infringement, and further our free content mission. If you would like to help, please see the project page for more information.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Archives

Tangential comments in WP:NFCC#1

Currently WP:NFCC#1 contains this text:

As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.

The question "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" has nothing to do with C#1; if anything it falls under C#8. C#1 explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free images, not the removal of non-free images without replacement. Digressive comments of this sort not only make the criterion's description unnecessarily lengthy, they create confusion by blurring the scope of each criterion.

Hence I made what I expected to be an obvious and uncontroversial correction, but it was reverted. Anyway, if you think the clause in question is appropriate for inclusion under C#1, please opine here.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No free equivalent. covers more than just replacement images. if the subject can be covered with properly with the written word there is no need for a non-free image. thus it is replaceable with text. that is why that phrase is that way. β^_command 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with xDanielx. Policy clause #1 (No free equivalent), as he says, explicitly concerns replacing non-free images with free ones. This is incontestable given the title of the clause and its entire primary content preceding the parenthetical. As a matter of logic, science, and common sense, text can never be considered as "equivalent" to an image. The question of whether a (non-free) image contributes significantly to readers' understanding beyond what is conveyed via text is properly a consideration that falls under policy clause #8 (Significance). I support restoration of xDanielx's correction.—DCGeist (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably if am image could be replaced with text it could also be replaced with a freely licensed image (of text). :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether an image can be replaced by text depends greatly on the role ("encyclopedic purpose" in NFCC#1) of the image in the article. The criterion is not that the free replacement is equivalent in every respect, only that it serves the same purpose as the non-free material, and fulfills that purpose equally well. This is distinct from criterion #8, which applies to non-free images that cannot be replaced by text serving the same purpose, but might still be inappropriate because they don't directly increase the reader's understanding of the topic (in other words, their purpose is only tangential to the article). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a test that it's virtually impossible for text to pass in practice. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing someone's face and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of illustrating what that person looks like nearly as well as a photograph. You could expend five hundred words, a thousand, describing a piece of music and it would not fulfill the encyclopedic purpose of demonstrating what it sounds like nearly as well as an audio clip. Again, it defies both logic and common sense to subsume the question of textual sufficiency under the No free equivalent criterion. If we aim the criterion squarely at the issue that it logically addresses—whether free media equivalents are available or may be created to substitute for non-free media—we may find that the improved clarity and focus will actually make the criterion more effective.—DCGeist (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yet there are times when it can be replaced with text. We don't need a fair use image of a baseball bat in order to complete an article. Virtually everyone knows what one looks like. Saying "baseball bat" in an article is an adequate replacement for a fair use image of a bat. Yes, I'm using an extreme case to highlight the point, but so are you. Nobody's claimed that text can replace what a particular performance sounds like. This wording is highly important. Removing it erodes the free nature of the encyclopedia. Non free material must overcome very significant hurdles to exist her. This is one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think his argument is that that hurdle is not significant. It's basically impossible for any image to not pass this criterion the way it's written. Croctotheface (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) As I see it, #1 has always been intent to mean a free equivalent media. I simply do not regard text as equivalent. #1 is now being abused a lot to have images deleted with the rationale that it could be replaced with words. Many times I aksed nominators to describe the image, which often yields in description that do not match the image at all, or simply being told "that's not my job". I support XDanielx's edit. — Edokter • Talk • 21:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Examples please? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11 and down... — Edokter • Talk • 22:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually not the best example, but I can't find any others that quickly. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is difficult for me to evaluate those as the images are deleted and I can not view them. But, looking at least at the last two image discussions, it appears it's more to do with the images having little to do with the article, and being decorative. That's really not a NFCC #1 debate. I ran into a similar situation on Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) a while back. The that was on the article had nothing to do with it, except that the image was from the episode. Weak fair use claim at best. Now, the article has an image that directly relates to the narrative in the article. But, like I said, that's not a #1 debate, but a #8 debate. Can you cite specific #1 debates? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, that's the point -- C#8 is the pertinent criterion in cases of that sort. But when we publish statements like (to paraphrase) "If an image can be replaced with text, it fails C#1", it becomes both a C#8 issue and a C#1 issue. (That's not to say that they're mutually exclusive, but there's certainly overlap.) I don't think such statements extend C#1 in any useful way -- C#8 is more than adequate for dealing with images that can be replaced with text, and the conditions are essentially the same (albeit expressed with different rhetoric), so the extra comments just create overlap resulting in less clarity. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. #8 gets at all the cases, like Hammersoft's "baseball bat" example, that are genuinely "replaceable with text." Croctotheface (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Look, these are policy criteria--they shouldn't be grab bags for rhetoric and they shouldn't confuse matters between themselves. Addressing the problem here actually serves larger effort to bring more clarity and definition to the criteria. Each criteria is stronger the closer it gets to a bright-line test. Here, for the first criterion: Can your non-free image be replaced with a free image that serves the same encyclopedic purpose? If yes, it must be so replaced. If no, move on to the next criterion. All of these questions about whether an image really adds significantly to an article, or whether the relevant text alone does the job are--should be--really obviously matters that fall under criterion 8. Obviously, major work needs to be done to make the application of criterion 8 itself clearer and less subject to personal whims--let's make that next on the agenda. But let's clear this criterion up now.DocKino (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Fair use law in the U.S. is deliberately vague. Wikipedia's policies, even though a superset of that law and not the law itself, are no different. There is and will not be a bright line test. Conventions of usage develop, and that's how we have and will continue to handle these matters. For example, there's a convention now that album covers are not permitted on discographies. But, you're not going to find that in the policy. Neither are we going to have every single possible usage under discussion on the policy. And, really, there already is a bright line test. "Is it free?" If no, it detracts from our mission here. Try desperately hard to come up with an alternative that is free. It's a simple question. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's not really the dispute here. At risk of repeating my comments from below, could you give me a single image that "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and yet could be adequately replaced by text? Croctotheface (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've already cited an example. You don't need to show a fair use image of a baseball bat to convey what a baseball bat looks like. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But you believe that the baseball bat image you refer to would "significantly increase the reader's understanding" of whatever topic this took place at? I can't see that it would if it's just visually identifying an everyday object. I want a case where an image passes #8 but fails the "replaceable by text" part of #1. Croctotheface (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have setup a straw poll below to gauge the support for this language, feel free to broadcast the existence at VP. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please indicate if you support or oppose the language: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" being in NFCC #1:

Support

1. Text can be perfectly adequate without images. "So-and-so was chosen as Person of the Year by TIME Magazine for the year 2XXX" doesn't need an image of the cover to explain it. howcheng {chat} 21:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Text often isn't... but it can be. There are lots and lots of useless images of text out there, for example. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Per Howcheng, he sums up the way I feel about it. Kelly ^hi! 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Clearly text is a insufficient substitute for images, as any blind person will tell you. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I think that this rule can only be interpreted one of two ways. The first way is that "replaceable by text" means that all salient, discussion-worthy elements of the image can be described in the text. If this is true, every image is replaceable by text. How else do we have an encyclopedia article about an image other than by writing about it? The second way would hold "replaceable by text" to mean that readers lose nothing at all by reading the text rather than seeing the image. If this is true, no image is replaceable by text, at least unless the description is so thorough and contains the most minute detail that it would allow the reader to recreate the image perfectly. In practice, I think that we want this rule to mean something in between the two extremes, but that's a completely subjective standard. Furthermore, I don't think there could exist an image that "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" and yet "could be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all." The "replaceable by text" language does not get at anything that criterion 8 does not. Could someone who favors keeping "replaceable by text" give me a case that passes "significance" but fails "replaceable by text"? Croctotheface (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I agree with Greg and others images and text can be functionally similar in certain cases, but I think that misses the point. The question is, does the text replacement clause fit better under C#1 or C#8? I don't think it's unequivically incompatable with C#1, but as others have said, the combination is a bit obscure -- referring to images and text as equivalents is ambiguous at best. On the other hand, it fits under C#8 very nicely and intuitively -- so intuitively, in fact, that editors predominantly continue to allude to C#8 when discussing this even after editors added an explicit connection to C#1 and removed it from C#8. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   NFCC #1 is really the most important part of the policy (thats why it's number 1 :) ), and what it's asking us is "Is the use of a non-freely licensed thing really a last resort? Is there some other way we could address the need?" .. and, if some text really was a comparable replacement (not that it often is...), then we'd have to say no to #1. If people really find the text example confusing, I wouldn't oppose a carefully worded alternative, but it needs to be something which respects the broadness of the criteria: If you could provide the same education with something else, then you must. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Could you take a stab at my question above? Can you think of an image that passes criterion 8 but is still "replaceable by text"? Croctotheface (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   I was, apparently, being daft and misunderstanding the argument. It would be fine, preferable in fact, in #8. I'd prefer to restructure it to move #8 closer to the top.. but people refer to the numbers, so oh well. ;)--Gmaxwell (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

   Certainly #1 isn't appropriate for Visual Arts images...works must be seen to be understood..Modernist (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

   It's a conditional, it only applies when it's true. Only in cases where a work need not be seen does it apply, so your point, though it's quite valid, doesn't seem relevant to where the text is placed. There are cases where an image can be replaced w/ text, and thats what the test is asking you to consider. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps I didn't misunderstand: Dragon695 just removed entire text, now arguing that it violates WP:NOR of all things. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Is not germane to the "frre image available?" question. Madman (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Polls are evil

• Polls don't help resolve disputes, and a poll certainly can not erode Foundation policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is the case in many situations. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We obviously have a substantial disagreement above, thus I thought perhaps we could get a rough idea on consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's obvious there's no consensus to change the policy. That's your consensus, or lack thereof, not this straw poll. The poll serves no purpose. You yourself note there's substantial disagreement. You don't change policy without substantial agreement. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there even substantial disagreement or do we just have one person pushing a particular argument? --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
        • FWIW -- DCGeist, Edokter, Croctotheface, DocKino, Dragon695, Croctotheface and I make seven, actually. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Hello, There is a running debate in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. At issue is if the use of non-free images is appropriate for "major characters" that don't have their own page. One user maintains that doing so in this case violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. We were unable to come to a resolution on the talk page, and that user suggested I bring the issue here. I'm unsure where 3a comes into play, but my understanding of his arguments for 1 and 8 is that these images don't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I believe that most would agree that having an image (if one exists) of any given character, no matter if a game, movie or TV show, adds significant understanding by providing exactly what the character looks like. And as nearly every "good" article about a fictional or real person includes their image (if one exists) it seems this is generally accepted. I'm seeking some guidance from the community on this issue, and welcome others involved to comment... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This goes exactly to what we've been discussing in the thread above.

There is--there should be--absolutely no #1 question at all. As the images in question involve copyrighted video game characters, they are clearly irreplaceable by free images. No #1 issue. Move on to the next criterion.

Is there a #3a issue? Well yes, there might be. If there is an image that shows more than one of these major characters, #3a tells us that image must be used instead of separate images for each of the characters--the structure of the article might have to be adjusted to accommodate the requirements of #3a in this case.

Finally, #8. As usual, the toughest nut. Clearly, the images you describe do "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." There's really no rational argument otherwise. If there's a dispute, it can only be about whether the topic itself or the type of article (sort of list-y) is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of non-free images. On the "topic itself", the answer seems to be clear: there are lots of video game articles, and most of them have non-free images. The community view is clearly that the topic is significant enough. (And, of course, #8 does not in fact address the significance of topics themselves.) As for the type of article, that's a closer call. This one seems to me to have a lot of textual description and so--certainly for the major characters--doesn't feel at all like the sort of list article that non-free images have been being weeded out of. All in all, the usage you describe--limited to just the major characters--does pass muster under the guideline: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles.DocKino (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Irreplaceable" doesn't mean "irreplaceable by another image", it means "irreplaceable" by anything, including not being necessary at all - remember, WP:NFCC#1 says "before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself ... Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?"
• How do the images significantly increase the reader's understanding? What does a random image of (for example) Officer Tenpenny tell me that text couldn't?
• "There a lots of video games articles, and most of them have non-free images". Yes you are correct - video game articles are generally amongst the worst for violation of non-free image policies.
• Apart from failing the policy, I'd argue the article doesn't even pass the guidelines

• "Screenshots from software products (should be) for critical commentary"
• "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images."

• This summed it up quite well, I think - " If a character is not significant enough to have their own article, their status within the universe of the depicted series is minor, and it becomes exceptionally hard to justify violating our core m:Mission by having a fair use image for such a minor character." Black Kite 09:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus for that last point. I remember the discussion well. Many users including myself were opposed to that, and only a very small group of users such as yourself were in favour of such a thing compared to the larger majority who were not. Again, that point brings us to the "No images in lists" argument, notability and significance does not work that way. --.:Alex:. 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I said it was a good summing-up, not a consensus. In the end, the point is that Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. That core mission is not helped by plastering copyright abuses all over articles when they're not required per WP:NFCC (which is a policy). If it can be proved, for each image, that it passes each criterion of NFCC, then that image can be used. This is quite easy for some images in some articles, and impossible for others. It also depends on the article they're being used in (WP:NFCC#8 applies here). What we can't do is say that having vast swathes of non-free images in articles such as this is improving the encylopedia, because according to the Mission Statement it's not - it's degrading it. Yes, there are a lot of articles that are problematic - including some Good and Featured articles. That doesn't mean that we can't chip away at the problems where we find them. (Incidentally, if I were the regular editors of this article, I'd be worrying about the fact that it's full of original research and doesn't have a single third pary reference rather than the NF image issue). Black Kite 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds to me as if there isn't anything resembling consensus on this issue, and I intend on restoring those images unless there is significant objection from some other corner. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't; it'll save me the revert. Black Kite 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll restore the images if he/she doesn't. I tire of you and the rest of the boo-hoo brigade whining about degrading the encyclopedia. The fact of the matter is most only care about Wikipedia for this site and not for some idiot to be able to reuse the content. If they want to reuse, they are welcome to remove the fair use before doing so. Toodles! --Dragon695 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Limiting fair use is a mandate from the Foundation; we are required to follow it. This is not something that is open to consensus or the like. --MASEM 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Masem said it better than I probably would. You may "tire" of Foundation policies - it doesn't mean you can ignore them. I see you restored that image, without explaining how it passes NFCC. I have, of course, reverted. Black Kite 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well I did explain how it passed NFCC #8 on the talk page, so I have reverted your revert. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• It most certain is not, as WMF board member Anthere stated just two weeks ago:

That was a response directly to a WP:POINTy anti-fairuse troll who attempted to limit fairuse by trying to use the WMF said so card. Please, take your FUD somewhere else. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are bringing up a completely unrelated case. The Wikinews debate covers a case where the photo is of a copyrighted 3D work (FIFA statue), whereas this is about using copyrighted work in its entirety. Plus, if you're quoting Anthere, you might also be reminded that she also stated that we "should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines." howcheng {chat} 17:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. It isn't unrelated because the board has stated each project has a right to determine the level of fairuse allowed. Period. That's what she was saying and that is why the WMF said so line won't work. You can say it until you are blue in the face, but the WMF has delegated the decision to us. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But the resolution says that Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. That's the statement we have to work from. --MASEM 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy is we craft our own EDP, the language that follows can only be a suggested application since to do otherwise would risk running afoul of Section 230 safe harbour provisions. Getting back to the point, the Wikinews example is a practical application of that EDP requirement. That project not only allows liberal fairuse, it even allows grant of license! I see no reason why we can't be more mellow and laid back about it here, too. Having headshots of video game characters to illustrate their character sketches is well within the scope of this project. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The policy is that fair use usage must be minimal. That's the Foundation policy, and it can not be eroded. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a technical clarification here: section 230 doesn't have anything to do with copyright issues. There is a similar provision for it, OCILLA. But it does not say that WMF can't set down licensing rules; it says only that we're not liable for copyright infringment by users provided the procedures for handling it are followed. We have, in fact, set down licensing rules: that non-free content must be minimal and absolutely no wider than what would be considered fair use in the US—this is a policy that a local community can't override. (Some communities have chosen their own rules that are more restrictive or ban non-free content altogether -- Wikinews shouldn't be going outside this policy either and you may have just seen some old pages, or images that should be deleted, or things actually inside policy that someone was arguing was not, such as Anthere's example.) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's up to the local projects, then quoting Anthere on Wikinews is completely irrelevant. howcheng {chat} 21:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad you agree, since it is up to the local projects, then we have every right to have debates without the WMF says so canard. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Foundation's policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the WMF establishes a baseline, as Kat Walsh explained above. Beyond that, local projects get to decide, but we cannot go beneath that starting point (thus, "WMF says so" is valid to a point). howcheng {chat} 03:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was directly quoting Foundation policy. If you believe their policy is wrong, perhaps you should take it up with them. However, my quotation of it is precisely accurate. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That many images definitely fail #3a and #8, and #1 to an extent. As VC is set in a realistic world, the characters are all human, so it is possible to simply describe the bulk of their appearance in text; one or two group shots are otherwise ok. Remember, the "reader" is not necessary ever going to play the video game, so the question we have to ask, is it work the effort of allowing for non-free content if the material is not extending their understanding of the topic in a manner that text can do? Clearly not the case here. --MASEM 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK lots of issues here.

• First of all, you did notice that a single image added to the article was reverted also right? Does that too violate these guidelines in your opinion.
• Further, I believe that at most there was one for each major character (6 total?) Is that too many? Where is the limit?
• Your argument would seem to indicate that no video game should have non-free content for character images if those characters are human. I assume that would expand to movies and the like (the "reader" isn't necessarily ever going to see the movie either). As most game and movie articles do have such images, that obviously isn't consensus. So could you clarify what you mean?
• If you can find a group image that would work for this article, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't see how 3a applies here.
• Can you explain the difference in the use of images in Pauline Fowler (a featured article chosen more-or-less at random) and here? I'm not seeing that the images add more there than here.

Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no number on images - it is what is necessary and appropriate. The policy suggests zero if zero will do, though I'm not saying that; however, I would think that a picture showing at most Tony and Lance would be sufficient for the VC characters - it established the general style that's used for the characters and depicts two of the major ones. The Pauline article does need to be checked - without looking through it's FAC comments, on the surface it has too many. But the crux of the matter is the comment about human characters. If you are in a modern/historical setting with no odd sci-fi elements that a reader should reasonable able to understand in their head (if not through other WP articles on that matter), a visual picture is redundant to the text. When you start talking about elements that are not part of everyday life that may affect the appearance of human characters (say, Master Chief or Samus Aran, now it can be difficult to explain in words so pictures help, but they still need to be tied strongly to the text. --MASEM 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we want to interpret the policy as allowing images of, in the Vice City case, Tommy Vercetti and Lance Vance but no other characters, I'd be on board with that. However, I think it's worth saying that "necessary" is a matter of opinion, not fact. If we are directed to limit fair use to what is necessary but given no specific guidance about what "necessary" means in a case like this, then it's up to us to figure out how to interpret that. I could see a perfectly valid argument "zero will do" in literally every case. Even in a sci-fi work with non-human humanoid characters, it would not be impossible to have an encyclopedia article without a visual depiction of the characters. Even an article about a photograph could exist without depicting the photograph. Croctotheface (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of the Pauline Fowler images fail WP:NFCC as well - this isn't unusual on popular culture articles. To use an AFD term though, it's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's going to take hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to fix all the existing articles with problems, and meanwhile others pop up to take their place, partly because GA and FA scrutiny isn't stringent enough. Black Kite 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, if you really feel that these type of images are in violation, AND that Wikipedia consensus agrees, why are you going after back-water articles like this rather than a FA? My guess is because you don't think you'd get away with it there. Is that correct? If so, I'm guessing that consensus doesn't agree with your interpretation. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all - see Talk:Final_Fantasy_VI#Non-free_images or Talk:Final_Fantasy_IV#Non-free_images - both featured articles. As for the "getting away with it" comment - the only "getting away with it" here is by editors "getting away" with driving a coach and horses through a core Foundation policy (even if most of them don't realise they're doing it - and that's the real problem). Black Kite 17:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is now discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#non-free_article_discussion_and_3RR on related issues... Hobit (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a broad point here about the policy and foundation resolution and how they relate to the guideline. It's important to note that neither the foundation nor the policy make any reference at all to "list" or "characters" articles. They elucidate general principles about how to limit the amount of non-free content. The notion that all images have to go because "the foundation set the policy" or something of that nature is a serious overstatement that gives the misleading impression that the foundation said "no fair use in characters articles" when it did not. Deriving anything about specific cases requires interpretation. It's up to us to interpret and discuss policy and, hopefully, arrive at a consensus interpretation. It was my feeling that we did this back at the beginning of the year, and we got the resulting section added to the guideline. I fail to see how these articles were out of compliance with the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The guideline should get more specific

The issue here is that the guideline lays out ways to reduce or limit images which are not freely licensed in list articles. Editors read this guideline in good faith and say, "OK, there's no group shot; we'll use images that are discussed in the text where possible; we'll use one representative rather than many if that comes up; we'll be sure to re-use images if they show up elsehwere; we'll, of course use a free image if possible." They're then left with the last bullet about limiting to major characters. The editors at the GTA Vice City characters article made a good faith consensus determination that they had limited the use to major characters. There's nothing in this guideline to suggest they didn't. We should reach a consensus here about how many characters are likely to be "major" in a given work. If Masem's comment above about the two main characters is something that a lot of people here agree with, we could amend the guideline so that it says something like, "Not more than two characters should be considered major." As it stands, editors can easily read this guideline in good faith and come to a different determination about how many images should go in. Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that I only suggested 2 above only because, as best I can remember the game, a shot of two, maybe three, characters at any time is doable without messing about in third-party software, and that was for a montage. Mind you, I don't think there's a problem with showing two individual shots of two main characters, but I dont know if we can nail down 2 as a hard number. --MASEM 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a single number for every case, just guidelines about numbers that could be within the range. I think it's fair to say that most everyone here would agree that one hundred separate characters images are very likely too many. Is there a similar consensus that two such images for two major characters is not too many? Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty is that is that trying to make more specific or qualitative uses means that you are going to have people start to play games to get more images in place. Say it said "only major characters can have images", then you'd have been classifying minor characters as major to get an image of them. Or "Only 5 images per page" - you'd have people splitting these lists to get more images. Really, this is a case of "I know it when I see it."; 5 pics of a page with 6 characters is probably excessive; 5 pics of a page with 100 characters is not - but it's just not that cut or dried.

The only statement I feel that could be made is that such list sections (whether standalone or in a larger article) can have 0, 1, or 2 non-free images without setting off any alarms (assuming FUR'd and copyright licensing on the images are correct). That's any non-free image, not just character head shot, which is why cast shots are better if at all possible. This doesn't mean 3 or more can't be allowed, but were I to be reviewing the page, I would need to consider if the third and beyond image helps the reader understand the work. --MASEM 13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with "I know it when I see it" is that it doesn't help editors all that much. Do you disagree that the editors at the Vice City characters article were operating in good faith when they reached the consensus that there were seven major characters and that those seven should get images? (If it were up to me, I'd probably identify more like two to four major characters, but reasonable people can disagree.) As far as they were concerned, the page passed their "I know it when I see it" test, but your test might be different. I'm asking for some change to the guideline that says something like, "Images of two major characters are likely acceptable. More than five images will likely raise concerns." We could then list factors that might be a legitimate reason to deviate from these numbers. As it stands, I don't think an editor who reads this guideline and operates in good faith is all that likely to reach a conclusion that everyone here would agree is acceptable. Croctotheface (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the "I know it when I see it" is a really bad metric, but I think we're going to have to be aware that fair use assessment is that through both US copyright law and the Foundation's resolution. I think the biggest issue with putting any number is that people will use up to exactly that number regardless of the page, and because this page now says so, they may have in their mind there's no fair use issues anymore. Any non-free image can potentially be questions; no policy or guideline can say that one use is always acceptable. That said, I think that if the preamble is there to explain this issue, setting a number as, say, 2 images being reasonable, 4-5 may be acceptable, but any more images need strong justification. However, we always need to encourage such users to review why they need that many; for lists of characters, I would hope that editors do consider some of the points brought up in these discussions (verbal descriptions can replace images in some cases, for example). --MASEM 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just think the guideline needs to provide more guidance. I think your concerns are valid; if we say "two," some people will wrongly assume that two images are automatically acceptable regardless of whether they pose other problems. However, as it stands, I don't think the guideline provides enough guidance for those editors I spoke of. A group of editors read what it says in good faith and conclude that some number of images can go in. Then another comes along and removes them because "the foundation mandated it." Who is right? We need to provide more help here. Croctotheface (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) So, in the section about list articles (following the given points), the following may help? While there is no maximum number of allowable non-free images for list articles, editors are urged to keep the number to as few as necessary (including zero). In general, lists with zero, one, or two non-free images is generally acceptable, while having more than five images requires strong justification for the use of each image. However, editors are cautioned to only use images when they will significant enhance the reader's understanding of the topic; a list with a single image used for decorative purposes or to provide a visual image of an element of the list that can be easily replaced with a text description may still be challenged as to the need for the image. --MASEM 20:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have there, but I think we could say it a little more briefly. Do we basically agree that the issue about limiting fair use to one or two major characters is mostly about criteria 3a and 8? The reason we don't allow images for all characters, assuming they pass every other standard, is that we want to limit non-free use (per 3a) and we want to ensure that each element adds significantly to the reader's understanding (8)? Here's my shot at wording for bullet 6 in the "list" section: Images that are used primarily to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. In general, zero, one, or two images of major characters is likely acceptable, while more more than five is likely unacceptable. Editors must also recall that every image must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria and no images that fail any of these criteria should be used. Croctotheface (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me - I think it accurately captures some baseline to prevent problems. But let's see what others say before adding it to avoid edit warring over it :-) --MASEM 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with that language. Very helpful actually. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At last, something that I can understand 100% without having to re-read it again. Fine by me. --.:Alex:. 10:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My only objection is this: why does it matter if it is one or ten? I think limiting us to specific numbers is arbitrary and makes no sense. I would support one image per character, if the character has a biographical sketch entry and plays a role in the story. The issue I have is that for most series, like Naruto, you have the primary characters with their own seperate biographical pages. The rest, even if they are notable but not primary characters, usually get pushed on to these "lists" by the "mergists" editors. They still are notable enough and have enough of a biographical sketch to warrant an image. That is my point. The numbers game is just not relevant, each situation is different and we should not limit ourselves by arbitrary "boundries" or similar. I guess what annoys me is that many people here are too overly concerned about being rules lawyers and have lost the ability to make common sense decisions. Of course if the character is an "extra" they shouldn't get an image. This is common sense and is not antithetical to our principles since "free" images will never exist for these series until such time they enter the public domain which is decades from now. It also does not prevent a well written biographical sketch, either. So what's the point other then ideological principles? I argue there is none.

Why not compromise, we could create a notice template for pages that use such fairuse but where no reasonable attempt has been made to get permission to create free versions? That way, there is still a sufficient motivational factor to get free images, but without the drawback of having to wait until then. It still keeps in the spirit of the community in that the ultimate goal is to contribute free images for these articles. How does that sound? --Dragon695 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

m:Mission is the point. If said character is not notable enough for their own article they are not notable enough for a non-free image. If some thing is truly notable and not just in-universe important it will have third party notability. there are reasons that the policy is not specific, if the policy says 1 image per character, users would say that they MUST have one image of every character irregardless of how non-notable they are. when in reality the character probably shouldnt even be brought up. in the List of... pages the current compromise is to allow one or two group shots. but other than that we dont need 500 pictures of worthless non-notable characters. β^_command 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard that I have seen anywhere that says the subject of all images must pass notability guidelines. If there is consensus behind that, could you show me where that consensus developed? The current compromise is also not to allow one or two group shots; based on my understanding of this discussion and the previous one back in December and January, the current consensus is that free images are best, group shots come next, and if group shots don't exist, use of non-free images should not exceed a small number of images of major characters. Some people advocated a more restrictive standard, but it was not adopted, as the language that's in the guideline (about major characters) indicates. Croctotheface (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this consensus, as well, considering Betacommand's recent sweep of mass-removing images from list articles. Black Kite leaves, BetaCommand comes back and picks up right where he left off. SashaNein (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and added the wording above (one small grammar fix) as a replacement for #6 so that there is a number to shoot for - I don't think there's any major objections to it. Yes, I realize Beta's going all-or-none, but at least this way, we can point people to say that there are practical limits here. --MASEM 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not helpful. Beta is just using the numbers as justification for deleting all fair use images if an article has more than 5 images (not just fair use images), rather than applying a rationality test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

its the same practice that has been going on for a year. ask Durin or BlackKite. those who have been harassed off the project. I have been targeting pages that abuse NFC (10-20+ images) with little or no critical analysis. β^_command 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to develop a cleanup tag for pages with too many images? This would certainly be a better first-pass solution than removing all pictures without discussion (which should only happen if the page has been tagged for a while (7 days per other NFC guidelines) and no attempt to cut down the number of images has been addressed.) --MASEM 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There already is one - {{non-free}}. Kelly ^hi! 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly agree on different numbers, but the guideline needs to say something about something that editors can go on. Otherwise, there will be those like Black Kite who say that there can't be any images at all for any reason. It is NOT appropriate to delete ALL images because there are more than five, especially without giving the editors who actually work on the page notice that you believe there are too many. Reducing the use to five images may be appropriate; editors can reach the consensus that there are more than five major characters that deserve images, but that would need to be a very compelling case. Most of the time, there really are too many images in these articles, but removing all of them is not the best faith practice to solve it. Croctotheface (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary, etc.

To Dragon695's point, the difference between 1 and 10 images is the Foundation's statement that we must keep non-free use minimal. Free images of contemporary characters will pretty much never occur due to copyright extensions (though it is possible to have the copyright company to grant WP request for use, but they have to that through OTRS). In most cases, the use of character images falls into the same bucket as images on discographies and episode lists: they are there for identification of works, but do not serve to aid in assisting the reader to gain understanding from critical commentary in the body of the text. However, because editors can't let these go, its understandable to allow for minimal use, and two seems like a reasonable number for most contemporary works. Remember, we can explain characters' appearances in text. --MASEM 23:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First, what is "critical commentary"? I still don't know what that is. Should Wikipedia articles criticize things? Should I post my personal commentary? I don't think the reason we include some images is that "editors can't let go." I think that the reason to include such images is that it's not possible to have a full understanding of the characters in a visual storytelling medium without knowing what they look like. We shouldn't have images for every single character because once you get past the major ones, diminishing returns start setting in fast. By the end, adding an image for the most minor of minor characters helps the reader in a negligible way, if at all, so our general principle of limiting fair use tells us not to put the image in. Croctotheface (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We're stuck with a non-definition of "critical commentary" from US copyright law; it's given in the allowance for fair use, but does not expand what it is looking for, so we're going on what generally is considered fair use. Just giving an image without tying the text to the image and/or vice versa is not critical commentary; the more the image helps to support the text in a way the text cannot to, the better. But again, it's not well defined, which is why getting rid of all images on characters pages is hard to justify, but certainly some limits are in order. Which again, I see nothing wrong in a couple images to establish a visual style as then text descriptions can extend to the rest. --MASEM 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's exactly so. My understanding is that commentary and criticism are distinct from each other, and either is considered transformative. I don't think the notion of "criticism" applies to what we do here at all, so if it were up to me, I'd strike that word from the policy altogether. After having given it a lot of thought, I think that "commentary" likely does apply in the sense of a "discourse on a subject," which would mean that basically all our articles are commentaries. So long as the subject of the image is covered ("commented on") within the article, I don't think "lack of commentary" is a problem for any of the images that we're talking about. The "image as image" standard is not, I think, what the term commentary gets at. Consider, for example, a science lecturer who quotes from a copyrighted magazine article on some new technology. It's not necessary for her to comment on the specific words or syntax the article's author used, in the sense of some "text as text" standard. Rather, the point of quoting is to enhance her commentary on the technology described by those words. Likewise, the images of major characters enhance our commentary about the character depicted by the image. The article is enhanced in several ways: as you've said, it gives a sense of the artistic style of the character models. I'd also argue that in a visual medium such as a video game, appearance is a major way that characters are characterized, and there are many elements of a character's appearance that, taken together, serve to give the viewer a certain impression. It would take OR to extract those impressions and put them into the text, but by including an image, we let the reader make that decision. Croctotheface (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why there's some much confusion in applying fair use concerns overall - the existing law and case law have results so broad that its impossible to define exactly what the law means with respect to fair use. However, I will note that in the Foundation's resolution, we do have this to go by: Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. (emphasis mine). I can see a character image or two complementing a list of character articles, even if its purely decoration (though, again, I hope more can be said), but beyond two, that's pushing the within narrow limits aspect of the resolution. That still gives leeway to using more images if needed, but there should be good reason to do so. But again, we shouldn't be saying "absolutely no images" on such lists, but we should engage them to get "as few as possible, including zero".. Thus , a soft limit of 2 gives us at least some number for editors to aim for instead of the vagueness it is now. --MASEM 12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree about the notion that the images are used "purely for decoration" in the scenario you're alluding to. If the argument for including the images were just that "the page looks better with pretty pictures," I would not support including any. The reader's understanding is significantly enhanced by such images in the ways you and I have described: they show the general visual style of the game, appearance is a major way that characters are characterized in visual media, and the images convey all the subjective visual elements that can't adequately be rendered in text without resorting to OR. There are likely other good reasons, too. Croctotheface (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your point, but there is another issue that is coming into play right now, and that is presently related to fictional works and notability (no, I'm not trying to say that pictures can only be for notable topics). The question that is being debated heavily at WP:NOTE is exactly how deep do we cover fictional universes. Or a larger question is basically, can WP write to the casual fan of the show in addition to the non-informed reader? I don't know what the answer is (there's too much bickering on either side with no attempt to compromise), but the point related to NFC is that if the above question is yes, that we are serving causal fans of the show, then I agree that more images may be helpful, still keeping in mind the Resolution. However, if it is true that we aren't serving those fans, then it makes little sense to provide pictures for characters beyond one or two to establish the art style. Again, right now, the answer to that question is yet to be determined, but the safer answer is to encourage the use of fewer images; if the answer does turn out we are writing towards the causal fan, then maybe we can allow more but it is more appropriate to assume that this will not be the case as to satisfy the Resolution in the interim. --MASEM 05:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of what you've said, but WP:N is just a guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That guideline doesn't really get at anything we're talking about here, unless, of course, it turns out that all "characters" articles get deleted as non-notable, in which case the question of what kind of images we should have for them would disappear entirely. In general, my argument is that seeing images of characters in a visual medium provides readers with important information about the characters that can't really come from just describing their appearance in text. Plenty of subjective information that the author/artist/designer is impossible to describe, at least without resorting to OR interpretations. That's not to say that we should not limit the number of images used, but there is more at work here than just showing the style of art. Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding but I understand why. I again am not trying to connect, on specific use of images, that things have to be notable. As you say, NFC and NOTE are two different areas. I'm looking at the more overall picture which, being involved in the discussions at NOTE, know things are still very much in flux, but in general we are trying to figure out exactly what is WP's role in handling fictional works; there's a level of detail inclusionists want, and there's a level of detail deletionists want. We have no idea which has consensus, but the key point is that in the case of the latter, this level of detail is meant to be very high level and aimed at the reader that has and may never read/watch the work of fiction. In this case, the goal is to serve the need of that general reader, which means starting from the point that they will have no interest in identifying specific characters but only will want to see art style; those that want more detail would have to turn to a alternative wiki which is not under WP's NFC. That is, if ultimately we approach the coverage of fictional works at a very high level with minimal discourse on the fictional aspects themselves, nearly any character picture used within lists is going to have to be used towards this very high level understanding - pictures used for art styling or overall cast montages are fine, but more than a few pictures would be hard to justify by this rationale. If we aren't covering fictional works in extreme detail, then having pictures outside a few extreme cases is inappropriate; alternate wikis of course can provide the more detailed approach. In the other case, if we ultimately decide that we cover works of fiction to the level of detail for a casual reader, then having more pictures (but not one for one) becomes more reasonable. --MASEM 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't think that it's within the power of WP:N to set guidelines about that. WP:N just deals with what subjects can and can't go in the encyclopedia, not what we can do once we put them in. We would not somehow be obligated to, if that guideline were changed with respect to what kind of articles on fiction could and couldn't go in, change this one. However, setting all that aside and assuming for the sake of argument that they could do that, I'm not sure that the two scenarios you describe are very different. I don't think that "more than a few" images are necessary in either case, and I don't think that the only interest that someone unfamiliar with the fiction could have is "art style." If someone wants to educate themselves about a topic, detailed coverage will help them do that. Croctotheface (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's agreement to that, then I think it satisfies the suggested language change. I think the case I'm talking about is too far off to tell if it will impact. Back to the point, we can set "2" as a generally unquestionable limit, but any more really should be well-reasoned in rationale or when brought for debate, and using fewer should be encouraged if at all possible. --MASEM 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we read the text in question a little bit differently. It's my view that two or fewer images for major characters are fine all the time, provided that they satisfy the NFCC criteria and the situation doesn't fit into the other numbered points in the "list" section here (that is, no group shot exists, etc.) I think that three, four, or five images can be fine, provided they are genuinely for major characters and, again, that they satisfy all the other criteria. More than five raises concerns and is likely excessive use. The main concern there is with spurious determinations that certain characters are "major," which is why it's prudent to say that five is a somewhat hard limit. It's unlikely that there are more than five major characters in most works of fiction. (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, for instance, does not have more than five major characters.) Would I be right to say that our point of disagreement is over the notion of "decorative" or "identification" use? Did you bring up the notion of "writing for the casual fan" because you think that the main way that these photos help readers is by "identifying" characters they've seen already? That is certainly a benefit to readers, but I contend that there are others, the most important of which is that in a visual medium, artists seek to convey information about characters with visual cues. Photos allow readers to form a subjective impression based on these, while any attempt to replicate such subjective information in the text would require OR. Croctotheface (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the subtle issues I'm talking about are not to be worried about at the present; only if this approach becomes abused (every char list gets 5 images, or people do massive list splitting to create lists of only 5 characters so they can get every character pictured) should we need to reconsider it. I completely agree with your assessment: we prefer no more than 2, a very hard max of 5 barring any extreme circumstances, and should be group/montages and other points identified already for selecting pictures. In like of the problems people are having with Beta's actions today, I think let's make sure there's no problems with this and set it on the page so that there's at least something for editors to aim for. --MASEM 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My dispute with Masem is what does limited use mean? Limited to me means a soft limit of 5 and a hard limit of 10. Again, we are arguing over use of fair use in articles where there is little to no chance of getting a free alternative. If that is the case, what difference does it make other then satisfying some purist ideology? Again, downstream redistributors can remove the fair use if they want to. This is not about the law, since the law does not stipulate a numerical fair use count. The real question is what impact does 5 or 10 fair use images do? Does it discourage the contribution of free images? Does it make the project worse? Or does it actually improve the quality of the article? Remember, our first priority is to write high-quality encyclopedia articles. The free comes second, since I believe that reader experience trumps redistribution experience. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The mission is both a high-quality and free (as in speech) encyclopedia. Non-free images burden this, so we need to limit their use to, as the guideline currently says, the reader's understanding of the topic is sufficiently advanced by its inclusion. The Foundation resolution also spells this out in particular for contemporary published works and asks we minimize their use. Yes, there are no numbers, and yes, most of these can never be replaced by free works, but we have to do what we can. For most contemporary works, it is possible to cut down the number of images on these types of lists by finding ones that group characters, that use text when that sufficiently gets the image across (particularly for live actors appearing without makeup) and so forth. I am quite confident if, given a work and having full assess to the media for that work, a list that uses 10 images could be cut down to less than 5 without losing content for the reader. Again, basically, we need to get out of this mentality that "one image per character" is appropriate for the same reasoning we don't have images in discographies and episodes lists. --MASEM 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it does not limit or burden the project at all. Fair use is a right and a freedom enjoyed by many citizens around the world that should not be denied because of limited ideology. Also, as was pointed out above, technically we aren't allowed to describe things in images using text replacements since that is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. I don't think the mentality is not going away, if anything it is growing. Why not worry about actual threats to the project like blatant copyright violation as opposed to questionable fair use? One is a legal issue that is a definite threat to the project while the latter is just wankery over ideological purism. I think that is my point. For the record I do not disagree with the foundation's purpose in providing free content, but I do believe that Wikipedia and Commons have different goals and needs. I feel that some are coming from commons with the notion that we must take their hard-line on content freedom, which is just not the case. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair use is a right, but remember, what the Foundation has stated is stricter than the real law. Technically, most of the uses of images on WP probably don't need licensing info or fair use rationales - clearly their use is grounded in standard copyright law for being used as part of education principles. However, the Foundation requires us to include this information, thus nullifying the normal methods of fair use. Are there any legal threats against WP for image overuse? I'm sure Mike Godwin would have said something, but again, this policy is not written based on US/Florida law, but on the Foundation's mandate. However, they also realize that to write an encyclopedia of this scope without any fair use is a nearly impossible task, and thus have allowed it, but requested that we track its use and keep its use to a minimum. That is what we have to achieve via this policy. And given they have specifically called out minimizing non-free images in coverage of contemporary culture via the Resolution, we need to enforce that more - not to zero, but certain not at the level that some articles show today.

I also disagree that images cannot be replaced by text. Not all images can and thus that's why its reasonable for sci-fi and other genres where this crops up a lot, but most descriptions of human-like characters can be written in a non-OR fashion because, well, by default, we assume that the reader knows what a human looks like (maybe if there's sentient life on Alpha Centuri, we'll find out when they start adding fact tags in 2012 or something like that...) There's a certain level of intelligence and knowledge we expect readers to bring to WP, and knowing the difference between tall and short, thin and fat, light- and dark-haired, and the like should be completely reasonable to assume. Thus, we should be avoiding any pictures of human characters that lack significant makeup/prosthesis that would make a regular (free, per WP:BLP) photo of them sufficient to understand the appearance of the character in the work itself, because we have a free replacement: either the free photo, or the free non-OR description. Does this mean all non-free images can be replaced by text? Of course not, but there is a good sized subset that can be. --MASEM 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that "replaceable by text" is really a relevant standard when we already have criterion 8, which is more restrictive. I don't think that there can exist an image that "significantly enhances the reader's understanding" and yet could be "replaced by text." Could you help me out by giving me an example? Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The NFC criteria are not mutually exclusive; all 10 points have to be met, so saying #8 is more restrictive really isn't true; even if you can go to ends to explain why an image meets #8 but a free version exists, it fails from #1. As to an example, while it is not a list element, it is possible to describe Gregory House as a character played by Hugh Laurie, with a brief discussion of his physical traits. The reader can picture what Laurie looks like (there's a free image on his page) to a point where the reader can then watch the show and identify the character by looks only, and thus there's no need for a non-free image of the character. --MASEM 11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, in your view, the image would significantly enhance the reader's understanding and yet could be replaced by a few lines of text? I don't see how it could be both. For what it's worth, I don't agree with you about the notion of "he looks basically like Hugh Laurie" being sufficient to replace an image. To give a different example, compare this image of Dan Conner with this one of Glen Allen Walken. I see so much communicated in both these images, much of it is too subjective to describe in text without resorting to OR, that goes beyond what John Goodman looks like. I can't see how we could say that an image of John Goodman would suffice for both of them. Croctotheface (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, the point of providing some visual appearance of a character (whether through words or pictures) is always going to help someone gain understanding. "John is a doctor that does blah blah blah" without additional text or image to give an idea of what John looks like makes the reader try to figure this out in his head; whether to do it visually or textually is where the issue of non-free use comes into play. As to your particular examples, (and I may be wrong on the West Wing character, I don't watch the show) but if you showed me a picture of John Goodman, and then had "Dan Conner is played by John Goodman on 'Rosanne'; he is the happy working-class father of the family..." and "Glen Allen Walken is played by John Goodman on 'The West Wing', and is a somber, stoic Representative...", then I can reasonably recreate (at least to me) what those pictures show. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, though I think we still agree on the middle point of somewhere in the range of 0 to 5 images seems about appropriate. --MASEM 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If your first sentence there is correct, why do we have #8 at all? To the latter part, I don't think we could describe characters with those kinds of adjectives and not run afoul of WP:NOR. That also doesn't allow for any other subjective impression ("mean" instead of "somber," for instance) that different people will draw from those images. Agreeing to disagree is fine; I don't object to the current guideline. Even though I don't like "use a free picture of the actor," it doesn't bother me much because it's so easy to argue that such a photo is not equivalent. Croctotheface (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are subjective terms here, yes, but it's up to us to reach a consensus about how they should be defined. I'd be willing to move the numbers a bit to set the bar higher than five, but I basically hold the opinion that the reader's understanding is enhanced significantly by seeing images of major characters and not by seeing images of non-major ones. In general, I think it's unlikely that a work has more than five major characters, which is why I picked that number. However, I can think of several that do, and those would be cases where more than five would be OK. Croctotheface (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that one or two sentences is enough for a picture. I expect robust paragraphs or concise infoboxes. The point is, if it gets shunted to a list because there isn't enough to write a separate article, I don't think that should disqualify it from being displayed. As mentioned above, text replacement for images is arguably a violation of WP:NOR. --Dragon695 (talk)

I'm not sure why you mentioned "replacement by text" in response to anything I said, as that has never been my argument. My argument is that we have a principle of limiting non-free image use. Having images for each character at a "characters" article, in my view, is not sufficiently limited use. Also, we have a principle of using non-free images only when they significantly help the reader. Images for minor characters do not, in my view, significantly help the reader, especially if you already have images of the major ones. I don't think the standard of "one image per infobox or 'robust paragraph'" is a good one. It would invite too much use. Croctotheface (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have to be careful. As I understand it, BC's push for this clause was driven by a desire to apply it to List of Torchwood monsters and aliens. But that is not a list of characters; and arguably, it is a list where showing the individual visual characteristics of monsters is particularly helpful to understanding. That's why I'm reluctant to see normative limits written into the guideline, because I think there are articles like this, and I imagine others, which quite probably do justify more than 5-10 non-free images. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you make the case that that example is different from the general cases the guideline is meant to address. If enough people agree, you have a consensus and should be fine. Croctotheface (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding how List of Torchwood monsters and aliens, which is categorized in Category:Torchwood characters, Category:Torchwood lists and Category:Lists of television characters isn't a list of characters. The article authors themselves identify it as such! Even the intro text says "This is a list of monsters and aliens ..." It's a list of 41 different characters (whether you want to call them monsters or aliens, they are still characters), not an article in abstract with certain examples regarding the monsters and aliens of Torchwood. I fail to see how this article is any different than innumerable other lists such as we find Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. Why is this article so different that we should be swayed into thinking that 41 fair use images on this article alone is justifiable use? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the notion that "if someone calls something a list, it is one" is flawed. By that logic, all I would need to do is remove "list" from the title and lead and it stops being one. I've explained elsewhere about the differences between a real list and an article that has an entry on multiple elements that have something in common. Think about a shopping list, for instance: it should just list every item a person intends to buy. If it had several paragraphs about each of them, it would serve a different function than listing items to purchase at the store. Regarding the specific case, I never said that Jheald was correct that the article needs every image he's talking about, just that we don't need to change the guideline if he comes across an article that he thinks merits an exception from it. Rather, he should make his case that the guideline isn't meant to get at that article for whatever reason, and if his view is the consensus, there's no problem. Croctotheface (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) What I'm getting it is the authors of that article themselves call it a list and have categorized it as a list. Waving a wand and calling it a non-list because it's a collection of small articles changes nothing. Use that argument, and people can call anything that's a list a non-list by just saying "Hey, it's a collection of super stubs!" It's a silly argument on the face of it. We've had similar debates about this before in discographies, with the result that discographies (no matter how detailed, no matter whether they are a collection of small articles) do not have album covers. The same applies to this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My argument is neither "silly" nor mistaken. Articles with significant prose content are more than lists according to any definition of "list" you want to use. That was the consensus we reached here back in January. Discographies are different cases because they tend to exist alongside standaline articles on the individual albums. It makes sense that the album cover should go in the individual article, and there's no need to repeat the non-free use elsewhere. Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• If there was a conclusion that lists aren't actually lists, then by all means please show me where in the guidelines this is supported. The very authors of this article feel it's a list. It's not *me* saying it's a list. It's the people who actually edit the dang thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can look the discussion up for yourself. You participated in it. The guideline was changed from saying "no non-free images in lists" to what we have now, which acknowledges that there is a difference between something like List of dog breeds and lists with significant prose content. Again, "what the authors say" is not a good test to use; they can't be wrong? A list can't start off looking like a list and be expanded into something more? That said, I'd advocate removing "list" from the titles of these articles to avoid confusion. Croctotheface (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I was involved in it. The outcome? Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, which provides little guidance on how to tell the difference between what you call a list and a non-list. How come you get to be the final arbiter on List of Torchwood monsters and aliens not actually being a list? So we're to use the Croctotheface litmus test on whether something is a list or not? I certainly hope you're infallible. Of course, you wouldn't be human if you were. So, that won't work, will it? Since the guideline doesn't describe the line in the sand, would you please describe the Croctotheface litmus test for the difference between a list and a non-list are since we're going to be using this litmus test from now on? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the Torchwood article is exactly the sort of article that Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles was written for, and exactly the sort of article where it justifies more than five non-free images. Jheald (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll ask the same question of you, since Croctotheface seems unwilling to answer. If we are to use the Jheald litmus test of what is and what is not a list, what are the criteria in that test? You say List of Torchwood monsters and aliens isn't a list. How does the Jheald litmus test identify that? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You misread me. I said that IMO that Torchwood article is exactly the sort of article that Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles was written to apply to. And I think it is exactly the sort of article where, per the logic of that guideline, more than 5-10 images are justified. Jheald (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Which to me reads highly contradictory. The guideline is written to limit fair use, and you say it's written to permit more than 5-10 images for this article. The guideline says "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible." How in heck can we justify 41 images on the the Torchwood article, one for each character? Answer: We can't. But, according to you and Croctotheface, we can. We're at an impasse, with no middle ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But read on to the following sentence in the guideline: Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. I am not suggesting that all 41 items need an image. But I am suggesting that this is a case where the number of major elements that cannot be described easily in text is perhaps particularly likely to be more than 5-10. Jheald (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• And just how do you determine that? There's 41 items. Which ones are major? Which ones are minor? Which ones are more central and less central? There's no possible way to draw a line in the sand that people could agree to. I think a montage image, per the guideline, would work fine. You probably don't. Why do we need more than one image to even convey the style of the artistry in the work? If you're doing more than style of artistry, you're doing identification. If you do identification, there's no stopping until you identify all of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The people who edit the page, and know the subject, are the ones who can fully come to consensus which ones they think are more major, and which ones they think are more minor; and know full well that "all of them" would be too many. We're encouraging people to show restraint. If they do, but nevertheless there are more than five images, and those are "significantly increasing understanding", does it matter? After all, the Foundation's Vision is about people being able to share in knowledge. Jheald (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're using the Foundation's vision to support increased non-free content? I'm absolutely astonished. You do see the part where it says "freely share", yes? Non-free content is just that; non-free. How can you possibly conclude that the Foundation's vision supports more non-free content? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge

So your taking access to some of that knowledge away gets us closer to the Foundation vision precisely... how? Jheald (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• With due respect, and I mean that, are we even talking the same language? Non-free content isn't free. It can not be freely shared. It's tightly restricted. You can just willy-nilly go and use and use and use copyrighted images whenever and however you feel. Every bit of non-free content in this project detracts from our mission and vision. It does not enhance it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Taking access to particular knowledge away from people gets us closer to the Foundation vision precisely... how? Jheald (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• See what I mean? We're not speaking the same language. I don't think we can intelligently discuss this anymore. You seem to be advocating a position whereby all knowledge is freely available. This is patently false. I can't mentally understand your position, because it's illegal in almost all jurisdictions in the world. If you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding what "free" means in this context, we have nothing further to discuss. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can have understood my position, which certainly doesn't involve illegality.

It seems to me we get closest to the Foundation's vision by creating as much good new material as we can, and making it available no-strings-attached. Other irreplaceable non-free material, that is permitted under fair use, we make available as we can, without in any way testing the legal envelope, even though we cannot make it available no-strings-attached.

Anyone can publish material and incorporate fair-use content to the extent allowed by law. But what makes Wikipedia special is our commitment that what we contribute ourselves we make available free to reuse. That is our distinctiveness, our Mission.

The non-free content is orthogonal to that distinctiveness, that Mission; it's not our priority, but it doesn't take away from what we do. WP has never been a free-content-only encyclopedia; nor have I yet seen a Foundation statement that such a thing would be in any way desirable.

In short: I have yet to see any evidence that the Found