Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

File:Mangalashtak Once More Soundtrack.jpg

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 G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all film articles have their soundtrack cover picture IamRDOfficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamRDOfficial (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they do, they shouldn't. Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 20 January 2016 (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:LPK Soundtrack.jpg

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 G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 20 January 2016 (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:Political banner, Valeriu Pasat, 2010.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Religion in Moldova since the article is about a more generalized topic than the subject in the image. The subject represented in this file is for Moldovan Orthodox Church, but it may fail WP:NFCC#8 there as well since it may not be representative in that subject in a way to provide contextual significance. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2016 (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:Tennents Irish Cup.jpeg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use rationale here is incorrect. Not only does this file identify the subject of the article, but it seems to also have a picture on the left side that unique enough to be eligible for copyright that does not represent the subject of the article. Thus, this file is a WP:NFCC#8 issue. Steel1943 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2016 (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:Hilberg2.jpg

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 ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. As noted at length on the talk page of The Destruction of the European Jews, there is no convincing rationale for the presence of that image in the article. The need for a picture of the book's author for "visual identification" purposes was asserted but not demonstrated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notify the uploader of this FFD?--Elvey^(t•c) 07:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above File:Hilberg2.jpg is the exact copy of the non-free File:Hilberg1.jpg used in Raul Hilberg's bio. Without disclosure, only trimmed from the bottom. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Here's is that discussion; I've moved it here.

Picture of Hilberg

Elvey, there is no reason why the article should include a picture of the author of The Destruction of the European Jews, Raul Hilberg. Hilberg's physical appearance has no relevance to understanding the book. The picture is therefore useless. Readers can look at the article about Hilberg if they happen to care what he looked like. It is up to you to suggest an actual reason why this particular article about a book should contain a picture of its author - the overwhelming majority of articles about books rightly do not include pictures of their authors. Nothing you say in this edit summary gives a valid reason for including that irrelevant picture, which manifestly does not "illustrate the topic of the article" nor is being "used for commentary on a particular topic". The non free-use rationale given ("This image is used as the primary identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned") is totally inadequate as it does not explain, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text." Hilberg can be identified through text, as a historian, so there is no need for a non-free picture. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. I see fair use - visual identification of the person in question, at the top of the main article on his work. AGAIN: As I told you on my talk page: You need to either drop this or follow (WP:DEL, which in this case means) the WP:FFD procedure. If the FFD goes your way, fine, I'll stand corrected.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of, "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text" do you not understand, Elvey? The rationale given for including a picture of Hilberg in the article at File:Hilberg2.jpg is so that he can be identified ("This image is used as the primary visual identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned. No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question. As the subject of the image is deceased, use of this image for the stated purpose constitutes fair use)." If you think about it carefully, Elvey, you might realize that a picture of Hilberg is not required to properly identify him. He can be effectively identified, in writing, as what he is, namely an historian. That's precisely why most book articles do not have pictures of their authors: no "visual identification" is needed. I have no intention of dropping this matter. Stop edit warring to restore this obvious copyright violation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does, IMO explain "Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text", thusly: "This image is used as the primary visual identification of its subject, a notable individual, in the section of an article which deals with a major academic work by the individual concerned. No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the individual in question." I'm allowed to disagree. As I said, "If the FFD goes your way, fine, I'll stand corrected." Many book articles do have pictures of their authors, so to me there's no "obvious copyright violation". It's possible there's a copyright violation, but it's highly doubtful IMO. It's quite possible there's an NFCC violation, but I think reasonable people can disagree on that. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Is it the case that the picture of Hilberg significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, a book Hilberg wrote? The obvious answer is no. The violation of NFCC could hardly be clearer. (Incidentally, though there may be a - small - number of articles about books that do have pictures of their authors, in my experience, they are very much the exception. You may wish to review WP:OTHERCRAP, Elvey.) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You brought it up when you wrote "most book articles do not have pictures of their authors", FNC. Take a chill pill; stop edit warring. I'm seeing it's likely you're upset because your own content was recently deleted - as your talk page indicates. Chill. I had nothing to do with that. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "your own content" refers to, and this matter is in any case irrelevant and does not belong on this page. Stick to the relevant issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and insist you have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't care now. For the record, the content you have deleted three times this week is a short ASCII character string. That string certainly doesn't violate NFCC, because it's not non-free content at all. The string itself is free content. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nonsense statement that does not warrant a rebuttal. The content is a copyrighted picture. The only thing you have achieved by making that absurd comment is to suggest that you do not know or care anything about copyright. You would do well to have nothing further to do with this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a CIR issue if that's nonsense. Your comment is an un-CIVIL, gratuitous personal attack; please remove it. See B's revert and my comment on User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Note that an administrator with (c) expertise has supported my position that the short ASCII character string "[[Image:Hilberg2.jpg|left|frame|Professor Raul Hilberg]]" should stay in the article during the FFD, restoring it and writing, "Image is currently at FFD. Removing it while the discussion is ongoing prevents other users from being able to see it and opine. Adding link to discussion.)". I hope that's enough to get you to stop edit warring and avoid acting like that in future. --Elvey^(t•c) 12:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey, I'm sorry, but your comment above ("That string certainly doesn't violate NFCC, because it's not non-free content at all. The string itself is free content") was nonsense. People do sometimes make nonsensical comments on Wikipedia; that is what you have done above, and it is not a "personal attack" of me to point that out. You may, for all I know, be a fine editor in other areas, but you are not contributing helpfully to this discussion of copyrght. The content you restored is a non-free image; that the image is displayed on Wikipedia via an ASCII character string has no bearing on its copyright status. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, O'Brien. "[[Image:Hilberg2.jpg|left|frame|Professor Raul Hilberg]]" is a copyrighted picture, not an ASCII string. And 2+2=5. Kudos for at least ceasing your edit warring after User:B stepped in.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article about Raul Hilberg, which contains a picture of him. Incidentally, it's a slightly different version of the same photo. (If, for some reason, we needed a picture of him in this article, we should use the same one both places.) Some argue that if there is a book (or similar creative work) and there is no article about the author, that the book article is the de facto article about the author and it makes sense to have a photo there under a claim of fair use just as we would if there were a separate article. However, in this case, there is a separate article about the author and any need to know what Paul Hilberg looks like is only a click away, so there is no justification under our fair use rules for having his photo here as well. --B (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying/clarifying a condition under which the norm is to allow such images on book pages. I see that Harry_Potter, a 'good article', has a picture of its author, who has her own page. And I see that photo is free.
I defer to B's experience and expertise.--Elvey^(t•c) 12:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from The Destruction of the European Jews and keep at Raul Hilberg. (I became aware of this discussion via a link at WP:ANI.) I agree with B's argument. In situations like this, NFCC#8 should be considered in conjunction with NFCC#3. Because non-free files should be used only to the minimal extent necessary, it makes sense to use the image at the biography page of the author. However, that page is blue-linked right at the top of the book page, in the lead sentence, so readers can get to the image very easily. Given its non-free status, it makes sense to omit it from the book page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2016 (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:Maine Mendoza.png

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: Kept. I'm convinced the licence and provenance are correct - Peripitus (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'I caught the photo' is no indication of holding the copyright, let alone releasing it. Karst (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the uploader: I'm not that good at English considering that I didn't grow up natively speaking and learning it and I think I mistakenly put the wrong word in the description. I fixed it now. I really own the copyright.

Can you indicate where it was taken? The resolution is very low and it has no metadata associated with it. This page has had issues in the past with people ripping images from Facebook and passing them off as their own. Karst (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that "caught" is meant to be "took". However, this looks like a crop of a larger picture, which seems suspicious. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. This is the image URL of the original full photo posted on Facebook. This is the other one and has many more as well (you can browse the timeline to to verify it). I cropped the photo so my family members won't be in the picture. Anyways, it is my cousin's account and not mine but the camera is my property and I took the photo aswell. -–Angelo 6397 ^{T A L K!} 14:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. You no longer have the photograph? That way the metadata can be added and confirm it. Added the image to the article. Karst (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2016 (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:K Records logo.gif

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: Kept and left as non-free - Peripitus (Talk) 23:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be unfree, but I'm not sure if the picture meets the threshold of originality. If it does, then the picture should be removed from User:Itsbeach/Quagmire Records per WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A court should decide whether or not it meets that threshold as it's a legal question. For our purposes, this is a fair use image used in compliance with fair use law and Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fair use for the K record article. I have removed it from the Quagmire draft, where it does not belong and use there does not fall under fair-use. Problem should be resolved, threshold-of-originality or not. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 21 January 2016 (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:Alison reveal.png

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in Grave New World (Pretty Little Liars) as it appears to be a random screenshot without critical discussion. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in that article because files are required to have one rationale for each use, but there is only a rationale for one of the uses of the image in the article. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in Alison DiLaurentis and WP:NFCC#9 in User:Mrs. Hastings. Stefan2 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2016 (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:2012republicanprimaries.png

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 ⚡ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused incomplete map. Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history should be merged with the current one: [1]. This image I uploaded and placed on this article, which retains the most updated map and all versions except the initial two. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 00:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a different map and the copyright tags are also different, so merging sounds like a bad idea. That file starts with a blank map, then [2], then [3] and then lots of more file revisions. One of those linked file revisions should contain all of the information from this map. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2016 (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.