Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

File:Jedi Knights.png

Just to state the current situation, which, as I will conclude, there is no consensus to remove: the file in question is File:JediKnights.jpg, which is 450×290px and is used once, in Jedi. Discussion focussed on three criteria, #1, #3, and #8.

Concerning number 3, the consensus was the file as it currently stands is within 3b. Much of the discussion concerned various other versions, and I make no comment about the consensus over them, but in respect of the current version the size and quality of the file (total file size, 12kb) were considered minimal by a majority if not all editors.

Concerning number one, the most important objection was that images taken in the course of cosplay would provide a free alternative. There was no suggestion that such an image currently existed, but rather, one "could be created". At this point the #8 point merged in: the image was said to represent the "broad concept of a Jedi".

I would note that the Jedi article, considering the fan base of Star Wars, is lamentable and in-universe. However, regardless of this, as other editors expressed and as emerged from the discussion, the image does arguably more than illustrate the broad concept – it illustrates how Jedis appear in the most important film series they concern, and there is commentary to this effect, produced by George Lucas and LucasFilm's effects. Thus no consensus emerged on this point. I suggest that the editors concerned might like to improve the caption to make this clearer, noting the characters and the film appearance.

Those disagreeing with inclusion typically restricted the purpose rather than the link between a stronger purpose and inclusion and therefore the consensus among those effectively expressing an opinion was that the alternative purpose pointed to inclusion. Therefore the lack of consensus over that purpose led to a lack of consensus on outcomes. It is regrettable is that this is so obscured by the quality of the article rather hides this fact. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

---

It was argued that this picture goes against WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, although I believe the justification I gave on both criteria is valid and helps user's understanding of the subject in question. LusoEditor (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out on Talk:Jedi, to visualize the general appearance of what Jedi are, there are plenty of free images of Jedi cosplayers that work as well as the non-free screenshot, and per NFCC#1, should be replaced with one of those. The article is not talking specifically about the two Jedi shown, only using them as examples, but so can any cosplay pictures with the same educational relevance. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, cosplay is just an attempt (never as accurate as a picture from the source material which is a visual representation of the author's vision) to replicate what is shown on the movies. I would agree that a cosplay picture could be used to represent fandom or pop culture, but not the subject itself. LusoEditor (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Within the films, there's so many different styles (due to species) that it's hard to talk about accuracy. It would be one thing if it was, say, a combat suit with a lot of fine details, but here we are talking robes, a lightsaber, and arguably a specific way to fashion a bit of hair. Yes, the robes do have a certain cut and tailoring on them, but the fan-efforts are as close enough to accurate as needed for an encyclopedic topic, and hence why non-free is replaceable here. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Film-wise, the robes are pretty much the same for the various species. And again, the fact that it's a picture of master and apprentice also conveys the relationship and ranking between the two. I still think that as far as fictional characters goes, a picture from the source material will always convey a more accurate representation to the readers while not contradicting any copyright law (since it fits under fair-use) and that a cosplay picture would be more appropriate to a fandom section. LusoEditor (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a copyright law issue, at least in the aspect that we need to worry about Lucas/Disney coming down and suing Wikipedia. Instead we have a free content mission that allows exceptional uses of non-free but only when free media can't serve the same purpose, as to encourage free content development. While I understand the need to be accurate, there is very little difference from a off-hand, out-of-universe discussion of the concept of a Jedi using non-free compared to free cosplay images. If we were talking specifically about these characters, that's a different issue but we're talking the broad concept of a Jedi, and we don't need to use them to show the general look and feel. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article as it's written is not about the broad concept of a Jedi, it's about the fictional organization in the fictional canon. In fact, is bordering WP:NOTPLOT. Even if it was rewritten to cover the broad concept, this image would still relevant at the section for fictional characters in the franchise for identification and depiction of its marketing characteristics as presented by LucasFilm+Disney. Diego (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just as we wouldn't use a picture of someone pretending to be a person to illustrate that person, we should not be using fan art to illustrate something from a movie. So meets NFCC#1 unless someone can find a free version of something from the movie (which isn't impossible, just unlikely). Clearly meets NFCC#8. Hobit (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not how our non-free policy works. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opinion is noted, but I'm not at all clear what basis you have for it. Care to explain? I am pretty sure we don't dress people up to look like someone else in biographical articles. Nor do we use fan art to (for example) illustrate what a power puff girl is. I'm not sure how what you are proposing is any different. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This is not an article about the specific characters of Obi-Wan Kanobi or Qui-Gon Jinn where it would be inappropriate to use a fan recreation to represent them, just as it would be inappropriate to use a person dressed as a famous person to represent that person. But we're talking about the general concept of a Jedi and since, even within the official media, numerous ways they are dressed and depicted, there is no reason that a well-done fan recreation in pose (photographed freely) can be used to do the same encyclopedic purpose of showing what a Jedi is typically dressed like and what they use as a weapon. It would be similar to using free photos of Civil War recreationists instead of non-free photos (well, if such existed, most should be free by now, but the point is there) to show what the Blues and the Grey were like in real life. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd hope that using recreationists wouldn't go well as the sole image for what the Blues and the Greys looked like (yes, assuming all that was copyrighted). Hobit (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But again, this is not just about apparel. The way they work, master and apprentice together, is also present (and weaponry of course). I still think that one "encyclopedic purpose" is to be as accurate as possible. And nothing like a picture from the source material to do so instead of cosplay. From my point of view, Jedi are part of a franchise that is non-free by default, therefore any visual representation of them (except fandom or pop culture) has to come from the source material, just like any fictional organization. LusoEditor (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • That picture (the non-free) gives no impression about the master-apprentice relationship (yes, I know it exists) nor do I think you can necessarily do that with any scene from the movie, the only thing that differentiates it from any possible fan made version is the visual effects, which are not part of the article. I shouldn't have to impress how big the Star Wars fandom is and from that , and to what extents those fans go for accuracy in their work; ergo, it's difficult to argue that we need the movie still to be accurate. I realize none of the Jedi-related images at commons are of them same quality to be used for this article currently, but as Star Wars remains a popular franchise it remains completely possible that a free image of high quality cosplays is possible. (Now, to throw a different angle, I *could* see a screenshot from .. oh, let's say late in the Phantom Menace when Anakin and/or Obi-Wan is facing the Jedi council as a means of showing several facets of Jedi that cannot be captured by fans - the variety of species, the Council itself, and possibly (Can't recall if there is such a scene) the appearance of Anakin and Obi-Wan in the same scene together in front of the Council as to show the master/apprentice better. And of course, the outfits.) --MASEM (t) 13:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• The reason to have this image is the same one we include images for any other copyrighted media (be it movies, comic book characters and album covers): for identification and display of its marketing characteristics. A cosplay image may be adequate for Jediism, which is about its influences in the real world, and also at Jedi#In popular culture which should deal with fan reactions. But this article is mainly about the fictional characters from the movie franchise, therefore the same rules apply as any other copyrighted media, and the same reasons why we don't find a fan art substitute adequate are at play here. Diego (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have no clear-cut allowances for images for identification of fictional characters, however, unlike the NFCI for cover arts, so that same logic does not apply. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That still wouldn't make reasonable to replace this with [1]. The reasons to display the franchise's characterization are sound and stand on their own. Diego (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You can't replace a cartoon character with a real-life photo, obviously. But when we have something that exists in a physical manner and that can be recreated relatively accurately by fans, then yes, we need to consider. Note that I'm talking about the concept of the Jedi - I would not be saying the same if we were talking about Obi-Wan Kanobi, where no matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it wouldn't be the same as either Alec Guinness or Ewan McGreggor's version. As there is not one Jedi in the films, we're not in the same position. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How does having more than one Jedi change anything? No matter how detailed the person cosplaying got it, it will not be equal to any of the Jedis in the films. Diego (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You're trying to show what a Jedi looks like, right? There's nothing in the article talking about the cinematic details of the Jedi or their design or the like, ergo, a fan-made (high quality) Jedi costume is just as good as a movie shot to show what a Jedi looks like - a person typically wearing heavy earthen-tone robes. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Homer example is completely different as Homer Simpson is a character, Jedi is not. Homer Simpson has an iconic look represented by a very specific drawing; Jedi is an entire group of fictional characters that span multiple formats and vary wildly in appearance, and the distinctive traits which are usually associated with Jedi (typically robes and a lightsaber) can easily be demonstrated by a free equivalent (NFCC #1) or with a description (NFCC #8). If "Jedi" was a character played by a specific actor then that would be an apt comparison, but Jedi have been represented by numerous actors and depicted in countless media in too many ways to count and there is no "the Jedi", there are Jedi. There are no Homer Simpsons, there is the Homer Simpson. That's quite different. A better comparison would be comparing Jedi to Stormtrooper (Star Wars), which has a free image. - SudoGhost 05:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe fictional characters and organizations should have picture from the source material as primary visual representation, not only to not mislead the reader but to present a more accurate representation. Free images of stormtroopers should be used for pop culture section of the article, for example, because it indeed shows how these fictional characters are being represented by fandom. We are talking about fictional characters, therefore there can't be free equivalents. All there is are fan made attempts to replicate the source. An article of Jedi or stormtroopers should have pictures of Jedi and stormtroopers as presented on the source material, and not pictures of people dressed as them. Again, it's misleading to the reader. LusoEditor (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Your belief is inconsistent with WP:NFCC. You're saying there can't be a free equivalent when there already is. We're not talking about a fictional character, we're talking about a fictional group, that's the key difference and why most of these comparisons (Homer Simpson) are irrelevant. There is no way a free image, which conveys identical information can be misleading when the only difference between that one and the non-free image is WP:NFCC #1. Both would equally serve the same purpose on an encyclopedia, so to claim that it would be misleading is itself misleading and again, inconsistent with WP:NFCC. - SudoGhost 16:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have been reading through the discussion, the image and the article. This is not an article about the film or even a specific character, but of a characteristic or trait found in a fictional story. This, if wide in scope and encyclopedic, would cover all the genres where this trait is found such as film, television, novels, comic books etc. If that is the case, and there is no discussion of the specific costumes, characters or situation and how the depiction relates to the subject, it isn't even needed in the article and is just decorative. Now, having said that...the article might be improved by having a section on the film versions of Jedi characters (from a real world perspective). Is this file needed for that depiction or is there an existing non free image depicting Jedi that could be used.

As for the argument that a cosplay image could be used in this article to depict Jedi, that is not actually accurate is it? It is in reality not a primary source where the characteristic or trait/subject is relevant but is a "reaction" to the primary source material. Coplay Costumes could well be used to depict costumes in general (depending on quality), but can cosplay be used to depict the actual character? No, as that would indeed be inaccurate as cosplay is not the subject as seen in the primary source. This is important when you stop and think about the possibilities of having a non free image of William Shatner removed only because there are now non free images of cosplay and fan films available. Should non notable fans begin uploading images of themselves for Wikipedia articles. No, these things cannot replace the original primary source. An image of a fan dressed for The Rocky Horror Picture Show may have encyclopedic value in The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following but since there are so many professional depictions that are available of the character and free we would use something of that nature, not a fan made cosplay image.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You're still using the comparison to specific characters, which do not apply to this article. William Shatner plays a specific character, a person cosplaying that specific character would not illustrate that character in a way that conveys the same information as the actual actor. This article is not about a character. In no way would a non-free image of William Shatner be removed just because Jedi has a free equivilent, the two are in no way comparable. Shatner has a specific look, Jedi do not. Given the extreme variance in appearance and traits that Jedi have, what would a non-free image convey that a free image could not? Nothing. That is what is important. The article is not Specific Jedi or even Jedi in Films, where a non-free image would make more sense. Luke Skywalker is a specific character, and in no way should that image be replaced with a free equivalent, as none would serve the same purpose. The Jedi article is not the same in any way, however. Even if an image is required given the only common aspects of Jedi can be explained in text (WP:NFCC #8), a free image provides exactly the same information as a non-free one. No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate. - SudoGhost 17:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I used a character as an example in a potion of my comments as this article is referring to a characteristic. It isn't about an object or a person, but a fictitious position or title, a Jedi Knight. Even being non specific, you don't address the encyclopedic issue of scope or any of what I addressed about use depending of relevance. You just focused on the Character analogy, which is a possibility and where this leads by saying that amateur cosplay can take the place of non free images of the primary work in non specific articles only because there is no assumption of...what....originality in the subject. Or is it the assumption that the character is so broad it can be my dog in a costume?--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"No specific actor plays "Jedi", so no specific actor is required to illustrate" Uh, I am afraid that is just not accurate. Specific actors have played specific roles. Jedi, as a fictional title or position is portrayed by VERY specific actors in very specific roles. If the article discusses the two actor's portrayal of the specific Jedi characters in this specific film...it most certainly does pass NFCC#8 and as cannot be replaced with a free image and deleting it would effect that understanding.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all, who portrays Jedi? Can you provide a list that is shorter than 50? I'm almost positive that more than that many actors and voice actors alone have portrayed Jedi, so how are they "very" specific, when Jedi have been portrayed by so many people? That is the opposite of specific, so no specific actor is required to portray something that has such a varied appearance. The article is about Jedi, not two specific ones out of countless others, so the image most certainly does not meet NFCC #8 by any means, as what is being illustrated there is far from critical to improve the understanding of the topic. Maybe for those specific characters at their respective articles, but certainly not this one. - SudoGhost 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Cosplay is short for "Costume play". If the contention is that these images can be used for generic characterizations in general, I would dispute that as not only not the primary source, but not the intention of any cosplay image which depicts people "at play" in a costume, which has limited encyclopedic value as relevant to any primary subject.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since the subject of the article is a fictional organization, a picture from the source material which gives a visual representation of such organization or its elements will always help increase the readers understanding of the topic. What I can agree with, is to change the text that accompanies the thumbnail in order to make it more relevant to a specific part of the article. LusoEditor (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• What the text says is irrelevant, the image itself is the issue. There is nothing this image conveys that a free image could not, that's the problem and why it fails WP:NFCC. That it is from "the source material" does not make it more informative when the elements of the image common to the article's subject are very basic and can be conveyed with a free image or even in the text itself. - SudoGhost 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That a cosplay picture can be used and convey the same information and accuracy as one from the source material is your opinion, not a fact (thus the discussion). I (and apparently others) happen to disagree and have justified my opinion more than once. LusoEditor (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But there's no contextual significance in the article to explain why the accurate film film is necessary to see over the nearly accurate cosplay versions. For a reader who has no idea what a Jedi is coming into the article, the fan image does as good a job of showcasing their appearance as the non-free, which means we have a free equivalent per NFCC#1 and non-free may not be used. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But again, how can a cosplay picture be as accurate or present a more valid representation of the subject than one from the source material? Specially when we're talking about fictional characters. And this is not just about apparel. This picture represents an example of two individuals with fictional weapons, of different ranks, from that same fictional organization, working together. I still don't understand how can a cosplay convey the same. Not to mention the precedence that logic would open. LusoEditor (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article. The only difference between a free and non-free image is just that, the license. How can they not convey the same information? The only thing different between the free and non-free would be the specific individuals which, again, does not matter since the article is not about any individuals. - SudoGhost 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"Because you're not talking about specific characters, you're talking some people in robes with lightsabers. It doesn't matter which people, as those specific characters are not the subject of the article." Look, a lot of this is about the real world perspective and encyclopedic value. No, we are not talking about anyone who can slap on a Don Post mask, pose with their light sabre collectable and call themselves "Jedi". That may well be relevant for Jedi cosply but not for Jedi knight.

By the way.....I should probably point out that a cosplay image of the copyrighted costume design of Jedi Knights are in fact in violation of Commons standards on the subject which can be reviewed at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter under "Costumes and cosplay"[2]. The costume is original, not in the public domain or suitable license. The issue is far too complicated for this proposal to be acceptable in the argument. Cosplay images cannot be used in this manner and uploading of copyright reproductions are a violation of Commons guidelines in most instances.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to add that it does matter which people are in the picture because they are an example of characters that represent Jedi. Cosplay pictures can only represent cosplay, because that's what that is. To show it as an example of Jedi is misleading to the reader and goes against any encyclopedic purpose. LusoEditor (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A Jedi is not a specific person or a small specific group of people, it is a very large fictional organization with countless members, at least hundreds of which have been portrayed in media, so there's no need to present a specific person as to exclude them would not be a detriment to the understanding of what a Jedi is. So no, it doesn't matter which person is in the picture since Jedi is not defined as a specific individual. - SudoGhost 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For comparison sake: To represent soldiers in an article, you would use a picture of actual soldiers, instead of kid or someone (who isn't a soldier) wearing a soldiers suit/cammo/whatever. Since pictures of actual Jedi don't exist due to their fictional nature, we have to go to the source material because that's as accurate as it can get. You argue that those two don't represent Jedi due to that organization having thousands of elements. But to go back to the soldier analogy, you can use a picture of two bald soldiers to represent them, although soldiers with brown/blonde/etc hair exist within the army. The ones on the picture don't represent all Jedi, but do represent elements of the order thus making it an accurate representation. LusoEditor (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We also have free images of soldiers, so that's a moot point. I didn't say those two don't represent Jedi, I said those two individuals are not the only representation of Jedi, their presence in the article is not critical as there is nothing at all that image illustrates that a free image could not. Your argument would make sense if WP:NFCC wasn't a policy, but Wikipedia looks at it through the scope of NFCC, not through "we should only use official images if we at all can". Official does not equal more accurate, both convey the same information in the same way in the ways that matter. - SudoGhost 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

But we don't have free images of Jedi. My point is that the same way we don't use people dressed as soldiers to represent real soldiers, we don't use people dressed as Jedi to represent Jedi. Just because it's non-free, doesn't mean cosplay and related fan attempts can replace it. Wikipedia doesn't forbid the use of non-free media. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to make a case of it, and looking at it from a non-WP:NFCC point of view, and nobody said Wikipedia forbids the use of non-free media, but it's not necessary here by any stretch. - SudoGhost 17:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as I read it and with the examples given (particularly given the examples provided as argued to be kept by former WMF lawyer Mike Godwin). Particularly with the case of the Jedi costume which is very non-distinct, and that most cosplayers are using their own variations that keep the common look. I would at least say that cosplay of Jedi is not a cut and dried case given how it is handled at Commons. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Those examples of what were kept are being used as examples of what not to upload and why costumes images are sometimes kept. Non distinct isn't a factor here unless you can provide a cosplay image to discuss that is an actual derivative of the costume to determine just how non distinct the specific image would be. The Jedi costume is copyrightable as a unique design with very specific pattern, material etc. Variations don't really matter since they are derivatives themselves of the design and are still covered by Commons guidelines. But this really does demonstrate that the idea was not to policy or guidelines as even on Wikipedia it is a copyright violation to upload images or copyrightable designs you make yourself. I'm not talking out of my butt by the way. I am a replica costumer. I can take images of my costumes that are based on public domain designs like the replica costumes from Horatio Hornblower films and television shows. The designs are in the public domain. I cannot make replicas of copyright characters or the copyright designs, but I can make the individual pieces that are public domain. Put them together and try to sell them as a character costume and you are in violation of copyright. How can we begin to make claims about costume images we know nothing about aside from the face value we perceive. It isn't a spiderman costume unless it was officially sold as a "Spiderman" costume. Make it yourself and no, you cannot call it a spiderman costume. At most it is similar to the style of spiderman (again, unless an official depiction/costume). So, I can upload images I took of Planet of the Apes characters as they toured as long as the costumes are only secondary in nature and not the full aspect of the image, I cannot reproduce the costume designs and take a picture for Wikimedia Commons as that violates copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the language of the "KEEP" discussions for both examples and its clear that Godwin says that as long as photographer is making the image under a free license, there's no copyvio involved "It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful." Given that commons has 1300+ images of people in costume, including, off the bat, 3 images of near-perfect Star Wars characters representations, I believe you have misread the intent there. I do agree that there may not be worldwide allowances for their use, hence the warning in the Costume template there, but the US here, we're good. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are reading the deletion discussion of a specific image but your reading does not take into consideration that the taking of that image was secondary in nature (spiderman with girl) where the other image of the Pirate was not considered original enough of a design to be copyrightable. There is always copyright involved when taking images of copyrightable characters, it is how the image is used and what it is of as the main subject or subjects that are considered. You believe I misread the intent given the number of images, regardless of whether any of those are outright copyright violations even for commons? That is a very weak argument Masem and has no logic other than raw numbers that can only support sheer volume and not adherence to guidelines and policy or a correct assessment of those polices.

The issue here is whether or not a cosplay image can be used as a deletion argument for a non free image just because of a design element within said image that may well be a copyright violation using a derivative work.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Jedi" costume with a specific pattern though (or even a vague idea of a pattern), so that doesn't really apply here. You're still talking about specific characters whereas this is not. What you said would most certainly apply to Luke Skywalker, but not so much to Jedi. What you're saying also seems at odds with what's already at commons, since there's an entire category of Stormtroopers on Commons and they have a very, very specific appearance whereas Jedi would not. I'm not saying that should be justification as I don't know if those images have been discussed on commons, but I know that Stormtrooper (Star Wars) has had such an image up for years. - SudoGhost 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Were you aware of the copyright issue that was decided about the storm trooper costume specifically? It is considered functionary in the UK but have intellectual property protection in the US. Commons (not Wikipedia) allows source country copyright.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, it's still free to use on en.wiki if there are country restriction codes - as long as commons has argued to keep the image, en.wiki will treat those as free, but just like any other free image, reusers of our content need to verify they can reuse commons images in their country. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a pattern for a Jedi costume. Simplicity sells it and has the "right" to copy the design.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not using the pattern, we're using the result (akin to the difference between sheet music and the performance of that music both which can be copyrighted). But that's assuming the design started from the pattern, and I would suspect in many images this is not the case. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if true that would still mean this image fails WP:NFCC as it would still be a freer alternative than this image. Both would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, both would convey the same information, so there's no reason to use the non-free image, which might be appropriate in Jedi in film but not Jedi. - SudoGhost 20:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A clothing design cannot be copyrighted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but a lightsaber might be more likely to be (although I doubt it would be inappropriate for Commons, as there's an entire category of them there). - SudoGhost 20:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not accurate. Clothing designs may be copyrightable. In this case we are not talking about functional clothing but artistic costumes meant to create a character. And I suggest you mention your theory, that clothing cannot be copyrighted to the Simplicity pattern company, as they would beg to differ.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before on the article's talk page, I feel that the cosplay images are not an free equivalent so I feel that WP:NFCC#1 is met, but I am not sure about WP:NFCC#8 and I wish more of the discussion was focused on that aspect so I could accurately form an opinion about the image. Since Stormtrooper was brought, I thought I would search some of the other Star universe, Klingon has two non-free images, Romulan has one non-free image, Vulcan (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image to represent the blessing gesture and Borg (Star Trek) has one non-free image and one free image of an official prop display at a museum. Maybe Borg is a good example in that we might be able to find some official museum display that we could use as a free image for the article. Aspects (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should be discussing the NFCC#8 issue and that while this discussion is ongoing the relevant prose could be added to strengthen the NFCC criteria. I also thought about museum pieces and the issue still is whether such images still violate the copyright of costumes. For example on the article about Star Fleet uniforms I was going to upload a few images from flickr from the official costumes on display and the same issue arises, copyright of a creative work of William Ware Theiss, the original intellectual property holder. We have to wait 75 years form his death for his copyright to be released to public domain even if the costumes are only trademarked by Paramount (unless this falls within the non re registered period for older copyright works up to the mid 1970's, and Theiss failed to register copyright). This may also apply to props if they are completely original designs that have more than a functionary purpose. It isn't an easy issue. It depends on the individual situation and the work in question.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have argued that there is a better non-free image to use here if one is talking about the Jedi, similar to this that shows the Jedi Council with young Anakin in the center. This only only shows how they are dressed, but the variation in species, and the ranking concept , achieving several purposes at the same time. The only facet not shown that the above non-free gives are lightsabers, but that's not the core of this article (and we have what appears to be a free user-rendering of one on that article). Mind you, discussion of the Jedi order in additional non-primary sources would likely strengthen the rationale for an image. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded this picture because, not only was a copy with better quality of the one the article had for a long time, but it also shows the Jedi on the field, instead of the "ruling" council that merely gives directives and appoints missions. LusoEditor (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's yet another reason this specific image is inappropriate; you replaced a jpg with a png, which is completely contrary to WP:IUP#FORMAT and WP:NFCC #3, because I guarantee you that the image you uploaded is of a higher (or as you say "better") quality/resolution. I'm certain of this because this instance is far from the only time you've done this, and the reason you've done it is specifically the reason why you shouldn't. - SudoGhost 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I used PNG because it was the original format of the picture, but also for no compression artifacts. Second, the picture I uploaded was of lower resolution but of better quality when compared to the previous one (which was full of macroblocking). WP:NFCC #3 asks for lower resolution/bitrate when compared to the original file, not another copy. And third, you didn't even know why I did this in the first place, therefore you can't claim that I should or shouldn't have done so. If I've done anything similar in the past (which I rarely do unless I see a necessity for), doesn't explain any future uploads I do. Baseless assumptions are unnecessary and completely off-topic. And if it's decided that the problem is the format of the picture, then I'll gladly upload a JPG version of it. But first I'll wait for a consensus on the rest. LusoEditor (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The format of the photo is far from the only issue, it's just another drop in the pond as to why this picture has no place in the article. I can most certainly claim you shouldn't have done so, when Wikipedia policy says to use png and you specifically replace those with another format because you feel it is a better quality. The reason Wikipedia uses png for film screenshots is exactly the opposite of the reason you've been replacing them, so I most certainly can say you shouldn't have. So this image fails WP:NGCC #1, 3, and 8 and WP:IUP. The format is a surmountable problem, but the others most certainly are not. - SudoGhost 23:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I found the original image that you replaced mirrored on another site and reuploaded it, since it was at least the correct format. I can say for certain that using "480 × 310 pixels, file size: 240 KB" as opposed to "450 × 290 pixels, file size: 12 KB" is quite inappropriate; increasing the size and resolution is not appropriate and not in keeping with WP:NFCC #3 by any means. Please stop uploading higher resolution images in png format just because you think the image looks better; it's supposed to be minimal usage and in jpeg format (for films). - SudoGhost 23:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just Wikilawyering using any and all policy or guidelines to argue any manner of reason to find fault. Look, he can upsize any image he finds on an internet site found off wiki as long as it is still small enough to pass minimal use guidelines on Wikipedia. He CANNOT upsize them on Wikipedia above the original upload size. The policy is: "If the image is copyrighted and used under fair use, the uploaded image must be as low-resolution as possible, and not be a substitute for the original work, because to be fair use, it must be minimal." To be clear, this says nothing about uploading the image in a higher resolution than the original file found. It just says it must not be not be a substitute for the original work. If it is a screenshot from the original work (the video or film itself) it must not be upsized as it is the size from the "original work" (that being the video or film). A site on the internet is NOT the original work and therefore cannot be claimed to be a substitute for the original work. By the way the language about formatting says "Should" not "must" or "is required".--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to chill out with the "wikilawyering" bit, as that accusation doesn't even make sense with what I've said. If I was "wikilawyering", I wouldn't upload a version that didn't have that problem and reinsert it into the article myself. Someone "wikilawyering" wouldn't fix the problem he's pointing out, since that problem is no longer a justification to remove the image (not that it was in the first place). The reason I brought that up is because this isn't the first time the png format has been an issue. Please be more conservative with your use of "wikilawyer" in the future, given that it isn't applicable here. - SudoGhost 00:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the (incorrectly dated) orphaned fair use from this image? Since it is being discussed here, it should not be deleted until the discussion is closed. SudoGhost is edit warring to replace the orphaned fair use template to get it deleted from Wikipedia, instead of letting this discussion come to a consensus. He claims that the image is no longer being discussed here and that admins do not close discussions here. Also with this edit, [3], he incorrectly changed the date so that the image would be deleted after being tagged for two days (7th to 9th) instead of seven days (7th to 14th) against WP:SPEEDY. Aspects (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That image in particular is no longer being discussed here as the one below is instead, and the image has been tagged for far more than two days, and you keep persistently edit-warring to remove the template any time it is added, so how could it possibly be there consistently for seven days? If you believe the image should stay "until an admin closes the discussion", perhaps you should look at the discussions at the top of this page and explain why those have not been closed; do you believe those discussions are "ongoing"? That admins "can" close a discussion does not mean there should be any expectation that a discussion will be formally closed by an administrator, so it is unrealistic to expect an image that is not being discussed and has no chance of actually being used in an article to stay just because an admin hasn't closed the discussion, and it is inappropriate to remove a template from an orphaned on such a flimsy basis. - SudoGhost 18:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

JediKnights.jpg

First, minimal usage doesn't mean poor quality. And I've uploaded a better quality copy in order for the picture and respective subject to be more clearer to the reader. And second, "Minimal extent of use" per WP:NFCC #3 refers to the source material (i.e: the image must have lower resolution/bitrate than its source, not another copy. And third, I find it ironic and a big hipocrisy on your part that you went through all this "trouble" just so you could upload and insert in the article a bad quality copy in JPG (not that the format is at fault). And you are indeed Wikilawyering so that, for some odd reason, you can have your way on this matter. Where did all your arguments go before you uploaded your copy of the picture? Now it can suddenly stay in the article? LusoEditor (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The JPG is of completely acceptable quality for the encyclopedic use here. It is also of lower resolution (lossy vs lossless) than the PNG but without sacrificing what the picture is representing. It is not a bad quality copy as you say, from the encyclopedic point of view (though I certainly can tell the different from a film buff's POV). SudoGhost is not Wikilaywering, he is trying to bring the image into compliance. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing JPGs acceptability, that's a strawman. What's being argued is that the picture I've uploaded, according to SudoGhost, goes against various WP:NFCC criteria. If my copy goes against it, then so does his (and vice versa). I asked before if this was just about format, he said it wasn't, thus my surprise to see him re-insert his uploaded picture on the article without any WP:NFCC contradiction (like mine, in his opinion). And it is a bad quality picture full of macroblocking, but that can easily be fixed with a new upload (I'll take care of it once this issue is settled). LusoEditor (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing otherwise, both fail to meet WP:NFCC. However, if you're so insistent on having it in the image regardless of any discussion, it should at the minimum meet WP:IUP. There's nothing wrong with this version of the image (NFCC notwithstanding), so there's no need for you to "fix" what is not "broken". Your persistent edit-warring to keep this image when it's not being used is completely against Wikipedia policy, so stop. If it belongs, an admin can restore it, but the discussion had died on August 3 and only you appear to have any objection to this specific image being removed. If it belongs, an admin can decide that at the pertinent time. - SudoGhost 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No macroblocking is always preferable in order for the reader to have a clearer picture of the subject, and that's all I'll "fix". And again, why leave the picture in the article this time, instead of before (or even not sending it to deletion)? You argued that it went against WP:NFCC, even if that was still under discussion (where it's advised to stay in order to give editors a better analysis and judgement of the situation). I would understand if you had uploaded it if a consensus was reached to leave this image in the article, where the only "problem" would be the advised format. Also, the picture is under discussion/review, therefore it can't be sent to deletion until a consensus is reached. The fact that you've uploaded a JPG version doesn't deny that fact. After all, this review case was opened because you insisted that it should be deleted. So you stop. LusoEditor (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not, but that's irrelevant at this point. The discussion died on August 3, so that image was tagged for deletion (for at least the third time), and you are trying to stall that yet again by edit warring to remove any template. The image does no good sitting there unused; it's not going to be used in the article and it isn't being discussed. Therefore, it needs to go per WP:NFCC. Stalling will not keep the image, and there is no discussion outside of you stalling. "Why leave the picture in?" Because you're edit warring to keep it; making sure it meets WP:IUP if not WP:NFCC is a compromise, even though the discussion has quite clearly died, judging from the last comment regarding this before I tagged this particular one for deletion. - SudoGhost 00:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion didn't die. I merely wasn't able to participate since then until today. But if your intent with the JPG upload was to reach a compromise, why didn't you say so when I asked before to upload a JPG version of it in the first place? Wouldn't it help to mention it then and save us all this time? LusoEditor (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion died, you not being able to participate until immediately after the image was tagged doesn't matter. You should also provide a diff of what you're saying, because I certainly can't recall it (and I doubt you'll do so). I've also reverted your change to the jpg image per WP:NFCC #3. I told you it would be reverted if you tried to increase the resolution, so I don't know why you decided to do it anyways. The image is fine as it is, if you disagree you are more than welcome to get a consensus per WP:BRD. The original image is currently being discussed; per your own reasoning you shouldn't change it while there is a discussion about it. - SudoGhost 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody increased the resolution of the image. My upload has lower resolution than yours (not that it's required, since WP:NFCC #3 is referring to the source material) and no macroblocks. I ask again, why are you reverting it? LusoEditor (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, #3b? "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". --MASEM (t) 13:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's related to the original source material, not another copy. An again, mine has lower resolution than the existing copy (not that's it's obliged to have, but still) and no macroblocks, making it easier for reader to see the subject of the picture. LusoEditor (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. We require editors to re-encode audio and video material to low bitrates, and we would expect that when the possibility exists for images, we do the same (use lossy JPG over lossless PNG for example). You are completely misreading policy to your desires. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong? What's wrong in what I said? Nobody is arguing about JPG vs PNG. We are talking about two versions of File:JediKnights.jpg. I provided a copy with lower resolution and no macroblocks (which the previous copy was full of) in a lossy format (JPG). Where exactly does it ago against WP:NFCC? LusoEditor (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing the macroblocks makes the image more refined, where refinement is not needed to see what is in the picture. (The fact the file size goes up by a factor of 10 is a sign of this). The version containing macroblocks works just as well with lower resolution/bit-rate factors. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I say it's needed in order to give a clearer representation, and thus understanding, to the reader (to say that it "works just as well" is simply not true otherwise there wouldn't be any problem with the upload), not to mention (once again) that it's also of lower resolution than the current version. LusoEditor (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no discussion on how fine the cut of their robes are or the impecably styling of the hair or other such details that would necessitate a clearly picture, the macroblock JPG is more than sufficient to show what this picture's only reason to be here (the concept of Jedi master and student). Remember - the image as shown in text will be a reduced size thumb and all that extra detail in the macroblock-free version will be lost. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree that it doesn't contradict WP:NFCC #3, I see no reason to revert the version I've uploaded. It's of lower resolution than the current version, compressed, it doesn't have as much macroblocks (which are always present even as a thumbnail) and only benefits the reader. I see no disadvantages. LusoEditor (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If we could agree then sure, but there is no agreement since changing the image in such a way doesn't meet WP:NFCC #3 and serves no purpose. There are no relevant advantages of doing so and the downside is that it fails to meet WP:NFCC. - SudoGhost 19:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You can say that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC #3 as many times as you want, but that doesn't make it a fact. You still haven't explained how it contradicts that criteria, specially when mine is of lower resolution than yours. LusoEditor (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to read this discussion again if you've missed the explanation. - SudoGhost 15:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not a justification. WP:NFCC#3 states: An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used. Mine has higher bitrate and yours has higher resolution, therefore you are not more right than I am. Not to mention that this is refering to the source material. If no other argument is presented, I'll revert it to the version I've uploaded since your reasoning applies to your version as well. LusoEditor (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1. 3 refers to the media file as stored on WP. You are absolutely wrong about source material - we demand editors downgrade source material for appropriate inclusion in WP. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it refers to the uploaded file, but always in comparison to the original from where the copy was made. It needs to have lower resolution, bitrate, etc than its source. LusoEditor (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

And at a lowest reasonable resolution/bit-rate/quality that still allows the image to do its purpose. Since there's zero discuss about how fine the garments are, we do not need an image that completely avoids JPG macroblocks to improve the quality; macroblocks or not, the image gives the same purpose. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You not agreeing with the reasoning does not mean it's not a justification, just that it's a justification you don't like. If you restore that image without a consensus for your change it'll be reverted, since that rationale still applies. - SudoGhost 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To say "read the discussion again" is not a justification, since you haven't explained how my image contradicts WP:NFCC#3 while yours has higher resolution than mine. Not to mention that per the non-consensus tag: "In the absence of clear consensus, the image may be used".LusoEditor (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You disagreeing with others in the discussion does not mean there is no justification, and whatever "non-consensus tag" you're quoting isn't justification, as in that case the image that was originally used would be used. "The image may be used" means nothing when it's not a question of using an image or not (in this particular instance). - SudoGhost 21:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

File:JediKnights.jpg

This version of this file is for some reason being claimed to go against WP:NFCC #3. Even though it's of lower resolution/bitrate/fidelity than the source material. When compared to the current version, it not only has lower resolution (which doesn't go against WP:NFCC #3), but it's also provides clearer representation of the subject to the reader (which doesn't contradict any WP:NFCC criteria either). I see no reason to revert it to this version, which has no advantage whatsoever. LusoEditor (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this exact image above. - SudoGhost 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It's being discussed here per {{Non-free review}} template. The other discussion was about the PNG version. And why are you reverting the version I've uploaded when it doesn't contradict any WP:NFCC criteria? LusoEditor (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not fragment the discussion, as it's already being discussed above. There is no reason to have two discussions going on at the same time, both discussing the same thing. - SudoGhost 09:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That discussion was over, you yourself said it. It's no longer about File:Jedi Knights.png. And nobody is fragmenting it since this is a different matter: a revert of a new version of the picture with no macroblocks and lower resolution (not that the latter is relevant since WP:NFCC #3 refers to the source material). What's your reason for reverting it? LusoEditor (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above. -SudoGhost 09:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that both of the images are well within what is allowed per WP:NFCC#3b. The entire work is a film (over two hours long) and this is a single screenshot in a very reduced resolution. Also, the image isn't much bigger than the copy used in the article. The colours are slightly different in the different articles. Not sure if this is relevant for the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Then there is no problem on the version I've uploaded. LusoEditor (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Stefan2.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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