Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5

[edit]

File:HammersmithPalais London 1970.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:HammersmithPalais London 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LFdoR (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This is a non-free image of the Hammersmith Palais being used for identification in the infobox. It has a non-free usage rationale, however it is sourced to commercial photo agencies Mirrorpix and Alamy Stock Photo so this is questionable woith respect to adherence to WP:NFCC#2. These images would normally be speedily deleted however a speedy deletion was declined by User:DMacks. As a popular historic building, I would expect that photos of it that are not from a photo agency could be found. Whpq (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On looking more closely, I agree with this deletion. The image is cited to a what seems like a publication or news website (not an image company), which would make it viable for NFC use (the subject of the image no longer exists, so cannot create new free). But looking at a place it's used on that publication,[1] it's there cited to Mirrorpix (only, not the other two), which would make it clearly a case of item #7 at WP:NFC#UUI. So we could have a non-free image for this use, but this specific image is not "iconic" enough to overcome that detail. DMacks (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:James "Clubber" Lang.png

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James "Clubber" Lang.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lutontownfc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fictional character created for a film - not free. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cyclone Debbie's effect on Lismore.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyclone Debbie's effect on Lismore.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zesty Lakes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Media being used to illustrate the scale of a natural disaster, in article not about the disaster itself – Train2104 (t • c) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delelete - lacks the significant context required for use in any sort of article. As an illustration of the effect of Cyclone Debbie, it is also replaceable with a free image which is already in the cyclone article. --Whpq (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:DFO Plane Crash.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFO Plane Crash.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zesty Lakes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Media being used to illustrate the scale of an accident, in article not about the accident itself – Train2104 (t • c) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sinhalese of India, Mumbai, India, 1897.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 July 15.  Sandstein  15:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinhalese of India, Mumbai, India, 1897.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus seems to be in favour of the notion that the additional image does not add enough to justify its existence Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chasewc91 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Violates both Wikipedia:NFCC#3a and Wikipedia:NFCC#8, and has an invalid WP:Fair use rationale—in that the FUR states that the image will be used "as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" which isn't accurate, since there are two covers included in the infobox. The grey cover with ropes around her face serves as the album's primary visual identification, and there is no contextual significance given for the additional image, as only the grey one is discussed through prose in the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Neglected to mention that this file was discussed here 14 months ago, which was fairly... confused, resulting in no consensus, with numerous editors merely spending the duration quibbling back and forth over the intent of NFCC. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. NFCC#3 is met as described by the FUR: "additional cover is needed for readers who may only be able to recognize the artwork for the album's standard version." Secondary artwork is for CD copies of the the standard (main) version of the album. NFCC#8 is also met per the FUR: "to serve as a means of visual identification" (I've removed the word "primary" even though this was supplied by the uploading wizard and is really a minor squabble). NFCC#8 says that non-free content is used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" – having visual identification for both of the 2 main album covers (one used digitally, the other physically) is a necessity. There is also precedent for inclusion of additional primary artworks: Revival (Selena Gomez album), ...Baby One More Time (album), and The Remix (Lady Gaga album), to name a few. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the FUR say "additional cover is needed for readers who may only be able to recognize the artwork for the album's standard version", because I don't see it. And even if was there, it would need to be removed for being a gross violation of WP:NFCC. And removing the word "primary" from the description is also a violation of NFCC and, regardless, still doesn't solve the issues. Wikipedia is not here to include images of every single artwork used for all different editions of an album—if we were, Hesitation Marks would have 5 different covers in its infobox; Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album) would have 6. If people want to see additional covers, they can access them via Discogs. Additional covers are only used when proper contextual significance is provided by the article, which is not the case at Rebel Heart. The Britney album – on the other hand – does have cited prose explaining how the EU edition uses a different, "more angelic" image; the other two don't, and those images should be nominated here too. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which NFCC#3? "Minimal number of items" or "Minimal extent of use", because neither support your argument. Why don't we upload the third cover as well, since it's one of the "official covers"? Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is the "Deluxe and digital standard edition artwork" the main image in the infobox and the "Physical standard edition artwork" the alternative image? I know the first one was used in the article first, but usually deluxe editions are the alternative images. I cannot think of too many album that use different covers for physical and digital versions. Is the reason that more digital copies are sold than physical copies? If so, for other articles, is there a certain year where digital versions should take preference over physical versions? Aspects (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer Because the "deluxe and digital standard edition artwork" was widely used artwork during the time of the record's release, and made sense to include it at the top of the article. And the "Physical standard edition artwork" was put as the secondary image because it was believed, by some, to help readers better understand the page's subject matter, given that both covers were used side-by-side during the time of the album's release at public stores. Per WP:NFCC, we have contextual significance for the main infobox image; it's something we do not have for the secondary image — a.k.a. the one nominated for discussion. As such, the main image is what's predominately used for its digital releases, and is widely recognized as being associated with the album and its contents, etc. livelikemusic talk! 02:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My point regarding the image has not changed from previous FFD. It has no contextual significance, has no predominant release except for one particular format, and no critical analysis of the image unlike the deluxe edition used in the main infobox. We can also have several examples where both cover passes the FUR, like The Fame Monster. Rebel Heart certainly does not fall in that and this extra cover is just a plain failure of NFCC. —IB [ Poke ] 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Last year, I voted "weak keep" because I assumed that omitting the physical standard image would harm the article and readers' understanding of the album, Rebel Heart. However, I read the whole article and arguments about this image, and I realize that an image caption for the deluxe/digital edition cover should suffice readers' understanding, making the physical standard one redundant. Also, as said before, the whole article has not yet mentioned this image. Maybe the whole discussion is not more to do with helping readers understand the album but with emotions based on or influenced by attempted efforts to improve the article. If deleted, I wonder whether it would lead to more outrage or something, but then again, this is an encyclopedia, not a shopping catalogue or a gallery of images or a Madonna-dedicated website. If kept, however, I wonder how many more nominations will be made until the image is deleted. Meanwhile, other websites still have the cover of the physical standard edition, so all's not lost... unless I'm proven wrong. --George Ho (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely this was presumed from the fact that you nominated this for deletion... and it's curious that you would make this addition when no one has participated in this discussion in 2 weeks. Please be reminded that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not simple polling. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As you said, the conversation has been sitting here for 2 weeks. My vote may be unnecessary, but it was made with the intention of drawing an admin to the fact that this conversation has been sitting here for so long with no input, and requires relisting. Semantics, but consensus is polling—the polling of informed participants based on Wiki policy, but polling none the less. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I concur with the arguments noting that this secondary image is not discussed in the article. The album is discussed, but not the cover. This is an unusual case in which two albums are effectively being conflated into one album article, but the standard edition's cover isn't the overall notable one here. Did you know there's even a third cover for the Super Deluxe edition? The notable cover, the one that actually drew sourced commentary, is File:Madonna - Rebel Heart (Official Album Cover).png, and that's the one that should remain. There are plenty of single covers that come from albums as well (such as File:Madonna - Hold Tight.png), and we don't presume our editors will get confused about whether they are on the right article or not if they don't see those single covers. I presume that our readers are capable of understanding they are on the right article when they see "Rebel Heart" as the article name, read the first sentence which says "Rebel Heart is the thirteenth studio album by American singer and songwriter Madonna" and see a cover with Madonna's face on it. If our editors are still truly confused at that point, I would think they'd need an assistant to help them understand the world around them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you @Hammersoft:, this is exactly what I feel and wholeheartedly agree with you. Can we please close this discussion? Its been over so many months now and I am not able to proceed with the article for FAC. —IB [ Poke ] 04:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer troop in Šiprage, 1943.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yahadzija (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This was deleted at least twice on the Commons (File:Pioniri.jpg and File:Siprage-pioniri-1943.jpg - see related DR) and reuploaded here to avoid scrutiny. Uploader is now globally banned for this behaviour (uploading and reuploading copyvios across projocts). In this instance, uploader conflates ownership of physical property (photograph - "My photo-collection") with ownership of intellectual property (copyright). Permission from the actual author would be needed (Bosnia/Herzegovina is pma +70, so evidence author died within ca. 4 years of taking this would be needed for a PD claim). Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep.  Sandstein  15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Images of this person are subject to copyright law of Australia." is incorrect statement. People are not copyrighted themselves. NFCC #1 violation? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This was previously discussed as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning toward keep - Unless Channel Nine has commercial interests in the screenshot and the program, I see no valid reason to delete the image unless pressured to obtain a freely usable and permitted image of the late Reg Grundy. Speaking of commercial interests, I tried to go to terms of use page, but the page is broken or something. Also, I emailed the agent of the widow of Grundy, and I was told that the wife has higher priorities. However, giving me a permission to use an image isn't one of them. A procedure to obtain an image of a decease person isn't something to take very lightly. There are precautions, like a sensitive communication between a mourning person and a recipient. However in this case, I don't want to badger or pressure or contact Grundy's widow further because... a mere image is not something to cherish like a prize or to selfishly be proud of. Also, I don't want to give her more emotions and remind her of Grundy too much. The only valid reason for deletion is proven commercial interests, yet I doubt that Channel Nine has a lot of interests in the screenshot. Well, prove me wrong, so I can do something about it. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted uploaders of the individual images. I've not received one response from Australian Film Institute about either image. I've not received one response from another person about this image. How would an ordinary Australian have enough resources to contact people who took individual photos of this person? George Ho (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.  Sandstein  15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob Hasegawa Official Portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tukwilaphile 2643 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Washington State government works are not PD. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that "Photos on Washington State Legislature are Public Domain" as claimed by Tukwilaphile 2643. The source site given in the image description is not the Washington State Legislature site but rather the Democratic caucus site and it states "Copyright 2013 Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus | All Rights Reserved". I can't find the phot on that site anyways. The EXIF on the photo states the copyright holder is "Washington State Legislative Support Services" and that the photo's copyright status is copyrighted. The contact information in the EXIF provides a website, www.lssphotos.com which states photos can be purchased which doesn't seem to support the idea the the legislative photos are public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CIMG0843.jpg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:CIMG0843.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oscarisgreat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused personal image. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_5&oldid=1140424231"