Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

May 7

File:Bob at Easel.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: Remove from The Joy of Painting (already removed from User page). ★ Bigr Tex 23:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 in The Joy of Painting and WP:NFCC#9 in User:TrainboyMBH. Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Seems reasonable to have one non-free image in The Joy of Painting but not sure if there is a title card or something else more appropriate to include. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Page has been removed from User:TrainboyMBH. Need discussion about usages at Bob Ross and The Joy of Painting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with a title screen in The Joy of Painting. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:02, 7 May 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:Nicholasbiwott.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 BigrTex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dubious own work. thoughts, anyone? Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. Needs more information on source/origins. I'd delete. czar 04:20, 17 May 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:Viva la Vida.ogg

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 in Viva la Vida, remove all other instances. — ξ ^xplicit 03:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are no specific fair use rationales for each usage. In terms of the usage, the only one that seems proper is at Viva la Vida which discusses it in the context of the composition. Its usage at Coldplay#Viva_la_Vida_or_Death_and_All_His_Friends_.282006.E2.80.9309.29 which is more about the album not the individual song is purely decorative. The section goes into the change in the album and how the album is part of a trilogy. In contrast, the song is just noted as released on itunes and its charting, neither of which necessitate the usage of a non-free portion of the song, especially since it is properly being used at the song's page. Finally, its usage at Baroque pop is purely decorative as the article does not even mention the song (although the genre is cited in the Viva la Vida infobox). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Coldplay and Baroque pop per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 7 May 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:ZanZarah Map.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 ⚡ 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decorative non-free screenshot used at ZanZarah: The Hidden Portal. There is no commentary that requires this map image. The only discussion is in the introduction that this is a "magical world loosely associated with our own world" and in the gameplay section that about how traveling within the world is done, neither of which requires a non-free image from the game other than for illustration. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove there is some discussion about the map ("Traveling via the global map is impossible"...) and the setting, but all of this is is unsourced and none of this is directly tied to the image. The image description page is very vague about the purpose, saying only that it is "to illustrate the fictional setting of the game." (fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:29, 7 May 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:Tim Kretchmer - BBC News.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 ⚡ 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is of the late Tim Kretchmer, the perpetrator of Winnenden school shooting. He is not the main topic of the article. The presence of the image does not help readers grasp the school shooting. Furthermore, a description of the perpetrator's appearances is not emphasized. Images of perpetrators who do not have their own biographies have been deleted. Shall this image be an exception? George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kretschmer used to be an article at one point before being changed to a redirect with the content merged into Winnenden school shooting. I don't think the fair use tag applies anymore and have no issue seeing the picture deleted. odder (talk) 22:35, 7 May 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:Non polluting vehicle.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: convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The threshold of originality in the home country (India) is unknown. — ξ ^xplicit 03:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No "Use" is specified and I'm not sure what to use, but I think this qualifies as {{PD-simple}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 14:59, 7 May 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:Updowntrick2.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1: this concept could be just as easily illustrated using free use media, so we have no reason to use assets from Capcom. czar 17:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A free alternative does not exist, is extremely unlikely to be made (are you going to make it?), and would also be essentially a lie. The point is specifically to show that this type of thing exists in commercial games. We need concrete examples. That's the point of the article, and the point of speedruns. Essentially, this is like saying we can replace all album covers currently displayed on Wikipedia because we could just make free illustrations that look similar to it—that too would be a very distasteful destruction of encyclopedic content about commercial works. --msikma; user, talk 19:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That analogy doesn't work because there is no free alternative to an album cover (except perhaps a free logo), but there is plenty of game footage that can be used to make the same animation that was made in this case. A better analogy might be that we don't use fair use images of living people because it is possible to create (or incentivize the creation of) a free use alternative. The conditions for using fair use works are clear in the NFCC link above. czar 21:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: There are freely licensed platform games - even commercial ones - so a free alternative that shows a "zipping" trick can be made. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Nothing in either the use rationales or the articles suggests why it should be Megaman or any other non-free software. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 8 May 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:Nutting ComputerSpace-Blue-Screen.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. There is insufficient sourcing information to verify the uploader's claim. — ξ ^xplicit 03:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative screenshot of copyrighted software, unless someone can prove that the software is out of copyright. czar 17:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This game does not use software - everything is hard coded in TTL logic. This series of games were manufactured in 1972 and 1973, and according to the copyright law of the day the word Copyright along with the date, had to be printed on the documents, and it also had to be filed with the US Copyright office. None of this was done. The game is entirely in Public Domain ^[1]. I also took the photo shown and provide it freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flippers.com (talk • contribs) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of [the copyright filing] was done." @Flippers.com, what is your source for this? Or did you verify the lack of filings personally? czar 07:15, 9 May 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:Logo levelup.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 ⚡ 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, no expected future use. czar 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason it's not being used in the article? nyuszika7h (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when the article was deleted in 2008? But (plot twist) they actually changed their logo recently to something that wouldn't be uploaded to Commons anyway. If this logo passes the threshold of originality, perhaps a higher res version should be uploaded directly to Commons instead. czar 18:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 15 May 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:Game Boy Color logo.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 ⚡ 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Game_Boy_Color_logo.svg. Not in use. Not required for attribution in another image or the svg. czar 17:48, 7 May 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.

^ http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[1] ttp://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[1]