Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2[edit]

File:Doug Ford Jr. headshot.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 ⚡ 02:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as the free equivalent File:Councillor Doug Ford at levee 2011 cropped.jpg serves the intended purpose (a headshot of the subject). Also has an odd license apparently permitting its use only on the bio of the subject, but is being used on other articles where the free equivalent would also suffice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, let's stick to free images. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 05:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I just thought it was a better representation with it showing the full face, but I can see where the free equivalent is good enough for an encyclopedia. So, I'll do the revert myself. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (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:William Hitchcock with boy and pony, c. 1900.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. After thinking on this a while, since the NFCC grounded keep rationales are rather basic whereas the "it's not copyrighted" case needs some consideration but there is no clear cut consensus for deletion. If the Commons discussion determines that the image is not copyrighted, the license can simply be changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free picture of young Alfred Hitchcock riding a pony, used decorativel to decorate a paragraph explaing young Alfred Hitchcock used to ride a pony. Fails WP:NFCC#8, since we don't need to see a picture of young Alfred Hitchcock riding a pony to understand the fact that young Alfred Hitchcock used to ride a pony. damiens.rf 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination misrepresents the facts of the matter which indicates that the article and image usage have not been properly read or understood. Andrew D. (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, elaborate on that. That' too loose. --damiens.rf 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: If the photo was taken in 1900, it would be covered by the UK Copyright Act 1842, which provided for a maximum of 42 years copyright protection. It is more than likely that this photo entered the UK public domain in 1942 at the earliest. If we applied the UK Copyright Act 1911 instead, the maximum protection is "fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived" i.e. it would be PD in the UK from 1 January 1951. The fact that it may have been published by later authors is neither here nor there because they do not own the copyright of the photo. On the flipside, it was almost certainly taken before 1923, which makes it PD in the US. @SlimVirgin: I think this is a candidate for Commons. Green Giant (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Damiens.rf seems to have misread the file page. Green Giant, for the image to be PD, the publication date would have to be before 1923, but the earliest publication I can find was 1981 in New York. It's possible that the image was taken in 1897, not 1900, which would definitely make it PD in the United States. It may be PD anyway; I haven't been able to figure it out (see the Hirtle chart). SarahSV ^(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the image is PD, it can obviously be kept. What shoult the image be tagged? --damiens.rf 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Hmm... that is an oddity. I read the Hitchcock wiki which mentions the 1981 book as the earliest reproduction, which I suppose is plausible. I don't think it would be affected even by something like URAA because it would have been out of copyright in the UK in 1996. It might be worth raising this on Commons - see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#William Hitchcock photo. In the meantime I would recommend closing this request and tagging the file with {{PD-UK}}. Green Giant (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Giant:, thanks for opening that discussion. I'll comment further there. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 'til that lengthy Commons discussion resolved, I'd say.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I can't see the point of relisting this. The Commons discussion isn't likely to reach a conclusion. The only thing that will resolve whether this is free is some forensic work. In the meantime, all we can do is claim fair use for a very low-resolution version. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that perhaps some more time would increase the chance of useful information emerging, better to try it once than not to try at all. I understand the sentiment that relists are overused in FFD and that throwing in the towel/"no consensus" closes need to be applied more frequently, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: this isn't no consensus; this is keep. The Commons discussion is a separate issue; that's about whether it's free. Ideally we need to pin down certain issues, get a reply from the British Film Institute, reach out to the writer who published it in 1981, and that will take time (months, probably). SarahSV ^(talk) 19:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we can allow a relicensing discussion. The remit of FFD was broadened a while ago to also handle "this is currently non-free, can we make it free?" since it allows the use of higher quality and size images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: what kind of relicensing discussion do you envisage? As I said, it will depend on someone doing the work. That will probably end up being me, but I have no intention of doing it at the moment. I'm not sure what's left to say. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions says (bold added): "If, after seven days, there has been discussion but it has not led to a consensus, the closing administrator may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion." This has led to consensus, so it should not have been relisted. Please close it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (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:Mexican Americans.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one of the files in this collage ended up being deleted as a copyright violation, would it be possible to determine a replacement image, swap them out and then revdel the old copyvio versions? Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with one of the images in c:Category:Oscar De La Hoya or another notable Mexican-American. The deleted one showed Oscar sat somewhere with a namecard in front of him, advertising one of his fights. Green Giant (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we have consensus (OK, one uncontested suggestion) to redo the collage, anyone willing to do the paintwork?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, this image is unusable at least on en.wp per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 4 February 2018 (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:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.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, argument that the masked version has far more justification under fair use is convincing. Fish+Karate 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC#1: since it is essentially an image of the actress’ face and free alternatives of this living person exists in the commons. TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The screenshot is the only image in use in Hope Pym and the image is not just of the actress's face as claimed, but of her in her costume where you can see her face. There is no free alternative of this character available as such. The nominator wants to replace the image with one they uploader, File:Evangeline Lilly and Paul Rudd as Wasp and Ant-Man.jpg, where you cannot see the character's face. Their rationahle for replacing that image back into the article was "we know what Lilly looks like, there’s tons of images of her in her article, the mask is new", when the mask is not mentioned either in the article text or in the image caption. This image replaced a previous image, File:Evangeline Lilly as Hope Van Dyne in Ant-Man.jpg, that was used in the article from June 2015 to August 2017, where the character's face was shown since she was not in costume in the first Ant-Man film. In that time, TriiipleThreat edited the article eight times, seemingly unconcerned about this WP:NFCC#1 violation, until I reverted his preferred, uploaded screenshot. I am not sure why they did not mention this other image here, but I feel this image is a better quality image to show what the character looks like. Aspects (talk)
- Again we have free alternatives of the actress’ face which including hair and make-up is not significantly different this one. The other image that Aspect mentioned shows the characters’s complete non-free costume including the mask for which no free alternative exists. The mask is part of the complete costume and does not need a separate mention in the article. Lilly’s face in turn is not mentioned at all and as result this image actually shows less of what the character’s costume looks like.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more commentary
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the mask because it was in your edit summary for re-adding the image into the article, but is not mentioned in the article, the fair use rationale or the edit summary when it was first added. If the mask was the reason the image was changed it should have been mentioned in all three paces. For comparison, Ant-Man and Ant-Man (Scott Lang) use the same image showing the character's mask, while Iron Man in other media shows the character's face. A new image has been added to the infobox, File:Hope Pym by Ron Frenz.jpg and with the size of the article, it could be hard to justify having two non-free images. User:TriiipleThreat also started a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Hope Pym#:File:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.jpg shortly after starting this discussion. Aspects (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects forgot to mention that File:Hope Pym by Ron Frenz.jpg is of the comic book character, not the film character, and is being used in the infobox as the main means of identification since the article’s focus and name is of the comic book character, while the film character is regulated to the “In other media” section. So if the article is to small to justify two images, I suggest we remove File:Evangeline Lilly as Wasp in Ant-Man and the Wasp.jpg, especially since the only commentary is a passing mention and is not being discussed critically. As for the Iron Man article, I cannot say that I agree with it but it might have something to do with the fact that there is an entire article called Iron Man's armor in other media.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the helmeted image is better for the subject matter. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The helmeted version, File:Evangeline Lilly and Paul Rudd as Wasp and Ant-Man.jpg has been deleted since it has not been in use, but can be easily re-uploaded depending on the outcome here. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (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:ChalkboardGagNew.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chalkboard gag of this episode is not the subject of sourced commentary, nor is it necessary to identify it. It would not be suitable for The Simpsons opening sequence#Chalkboard gag since it is part of a list and is already described in text. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (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.