Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NFC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Fair use    (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Covers for multiple editions[edit]

What are others thoughts on including a cover image for each edition of a book in an article? Example case: Player's Handbook — JJMC89(T·C) 04:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I think such use is excessive when the cover art isn't discussed in the article. Using one for the primary identification, of course, isn't an issue. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope, not allowed, unless there is critical discussion of the newer cover in the prose. The first cover is generally only allowed per NFCI#1 for implicit marketing/branding, but no other version gets that. --Masem (t) 05:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a general comment about this type of non-free use. It seems to be based upon the rationale that a subsection in another article about a particlular topic, etc., is equivalent to a stand-alone article about the topic of the subsection, etc. So, no distinction is made between using the file (perhaps in an infobox) at the top of an article for primary identification purposes and using the file in the body of a section of an article (perhaps in an infobox) for "primary" identification purposes; the non-free files in Scouting in Pennsylvania seem to have been added for this very reason, but there are many other examples to be found.
    The only time I think this type of non-free use is really acceptable is when the individual sections could be actually be stand-alone articles, but are instead combined into a single article for encyclopedic purposes; for example, non-free cover art for cover-versions of songs when the cover song itself is considered notable per WP:NSONG, but the content related to the cover version is included in the article about the original song itself for encyclopedic reasons. Even with song articles though, some include non-free cover art for every cover version, even non-notable ones. Are, for example, the non-free uses of File:Blackbird (Dandy Warhols cover) single cover.jpeg in "Blackbird (Beatles song), File:Gimme Some Lovin' - Blues Bros.jpg in "Gimme Some Lovin'", and File:GoodLovin'GratefulDead.jpeg in "Good Lovin'" really justified?
    In some cases, files used this way seem to have been added as the result of a merge or redirect, i.e. there was a stand-alone article, but it was zapped for lack of notability; so, by default someone just moved the image (and infobox) to the "new" article and this seems to happen fairly often with character list articles or event articles. In other cases though, the files were simply uploaded to be added to a list article from the begining to "illustrate" each individual section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have argued that if editors have constructed a list article of what would otherwise be normally separate articles with their own notability, but for purposes of comprehension, have opted to merge into one, that additional cover images can be reasonable, since they would have been allowed on the separate articles, and we'd been penalizing the editors for trying to make a good article. This doesn't apply to these articles on the D&D books. --Masem (t) 02:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really disagreeing with you about the non-free use of these particular files or even about this type of non-free usage in general. I've just come across others who don't make the distinction you're making and really feel that the "primary indentification of the subject of a section" is equivalent to the "primary identification of the subject of an article" regardless of Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The key distinction is if that section could be expanded to a full article with proper sourcing. That places the image in the association with sourced commentary about the topic. That's the distinction here. --Masem (t) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of images are being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13 now. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Book cover on television article[edit]

At Men Against Fire, we are contemplating whether to include a non-free book cover of the book which inspired the episode, Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command. It is mentioned in the Conception and writing section and the book doesn't have its own article. Would it meet the NFCC, in particular criterion #8 (contextual significance)? (Talk page discussion happening at Talk:Men Against Fire#Nazi flag.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the cover specifically discussed in the context of the conception and writing? If no, then it does not meet NFCC#8. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing a really hard case to justify it per Inzo. If you are looking for visual stuff, we have a free image of Marshall that you could to illustrate, captioning it something like "Combat historian Marshall's non-fictional work "Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command" influenced the episode." --Masem (t) 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
No, the cover itself isn't discussed. The free image of S.L.A. Marshall is a good suggestion; thanks for that. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the book cover meets the contextual significance criterion per WP:NFC#CS; the book and its contents are indeed the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and the cover is the only image that can be used to "allow identification" of the object. The most important thing is that the title of the book, which is depicted on the cover in big letters, is a highlighted point in said section, as it gives the title to the episode "Men Against Fire". The author's image is an interesting alternative, but the cover of the book is a much more suitable illustrative aid. Radiphus (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
When we allow identification it is solely for topics with their own article. That is the majority reason that exception exists, with few exceptions to the exception. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I can accept that, but shouldn't something like that be mentioned in a WP page (unless i've missed it)? Could you please support what you've said? Radiphus (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:NFC#cite_note-3 helps clarify things a bit. When non-free cover art (e.g. a book cover) is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox about the work in question (i.e. a book), it's assumed that the context for non-free use will come from the entire article as a whole; so, the long-standing consensus has been that this is sufficient to meet NFCC#8. It's also assumed that if there were a specific sourced critical commentary about the work's cover art, then the best place for adding it would be in the article about the work itself. However, when non-free cover art is used in subsections of other articles or in other ways, then the consensus has been that sourced critical commentary about the work alone is not sufficient and that sourced critical commentary about the cover is needed to meet NFCC#8. There's nothing in the "Conception and writing" section for which the reader's understanding would be significantly improved by seeing the cover of the book Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command (if you think there is, then please clarify); so, omitting the cover is not going to be seen as being detrimental to the reader's understanding. Another book On Killing is also discussed in the same section, and adding File:OKBookCover.JPG to the section would be just as wrong for the same reasons. If the Marshall book meets WP:NBOOK, then a stand-alone article perhaps should be written about it and the cover art used there; I don't, however, see any justification for using it in the article about the TV episode even if it shares the name of the book. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I believe that the note (except for the sentence mentioning the three RfCs) should be moved to a more prominent position. Radiphus (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)