Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

September 30

File:Elon Musk's submarine.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: relisted on 2018 October 8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elon Musk's submarine.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:Sun & Moon, Pauline Smith, 2013.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: Keep but resize. Consensus is apparently that the image can be used, just not at this current size Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

should be non-free reduced; claim that "People click through to view the image. They don't just view it in the article" by uploader is nonsense FASTILY 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily see my comment on Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair above. These images are not decoration. They serve an encyclopedic function in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the file size, the use of the painting as the infobox image seems to violate NFCC#8, since it obviously doesn’t visually identify the artist and there’s no critical commentary. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to identify the artist. The image show a piece of her work discussed in the article. I grant you the critical commentary is not extensive but it is there. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response indicates you either don't understand WP:NFCC#3b or have never bothered to read it. -FASTILY 03:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Ytoyoda. Enough with the aspersions please Fastily. I have already replied re 3b (minimalism). It does need to be at the minimum size, but not at such low resolution that it ceases to fulfill its encyclopedic function. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact encyclopedic purpose that it requires to be available at a larger resolution than the thumbnail that appears in the infobox? If a higher resolution is necessary to view certain details, then why not crop to show the relevant details? And then if there’s an encyclopedic purpose to the image, what the hell is it doing in the infobox where it’s easentially decorative and fails NFCC#8? Ytoyoda (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep, but only if more of the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is provided. However, if the file is kept, it should be reduced per WP:NFCC#3b.
I don't think the file should be being used in the main infobox. That image should be for the purpose of primarily identifying the subject of the article. The picture of the work would make sense in the main infobox of an article about the painting itself, but not in one about the artist. This doesn't mean that a non-free image pof the work cannot be used in the artist's article, it just means it should be moved to the body of the article near the content discussing it.
The work is just mentioned once by name in the caption, which isn't really the type of contextual connection for non-free use NFCC#8 is looking for in my opinion. The connection should really between article content and non-free image, not the image and its caption. So, it would be better to add the relevant sourced critical commentary content about the work itself or commentary on how this work is considered to be particularly representative of the artist's style to the article body and then move the image near that content in support. Otherwise, I don't think it quite meets NFCC#8. In addition, the source cited (at least the part I can access) makes no mention of the painting itself, so basically the caption appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYN. NFCC#8 doesn't mean (again in my opinion) to simply write a description of the what the work looks like; it means to show that the work itself was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. If you could basically pick another work by the same artist's and support it with the pretty much the same caption or commentary, then there's no real justification for using any non-free examples of the artist's work. So, if the rest of the source goes into discussion of this particular work, then content summarizing that commentary that goes beyond a simple discription is what should be added to the article.
As for NFCC#3b, I'm not an admin so I cannot see the previous versions of the file; however, the resolution really should only be what is necessary for the article and not what is desired for the file's page. Mention was made above of File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg, but that was reduced by Ritchie333 per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 23#File:Smiling Woman Ascending a Stair, Wyndham Lewis, 1912.jpg and I think something similar should be done here. The source for the file should be more than sufficient for readers looking for a higher resolution of the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image should not be used in the infobox since it is not an image of the article subject. Since the article doesn't contain any sourced critical commentary on the work, WP:NFCC#8 is not satisfied. If the image is kept, it needs to be reduced to < 100,000 px per WP:NFCC#3b. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR, the critical commentary was in The Times where they discussed the objects in the work and interpreted them as a critical commentary on western military activity in the Middle East commenting on the "deconstructed" U.S. flag, the Arabic newspaper, and the Sun and Moon which related to their discussion of her "obsession" with astrology also mention later in our article. I moved it all to the body. My point about the size it merely that particularly with artworks, people don't only view the thumbnail they also click through to see the file so it needs to be of reasonable resolution when they do or the encyclopedic function is not served. It's already quite small at 332 × 500 but that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce according to our guidelines and keep - there is nothing that you have to see to understand the topic that you can't see in the inline version. Yes, to fully appreciate a work of art, it's nice to have a life-sized version of it, but we're not in the business of hosting high-resolution images of non-free works. If you want to study a high-resolution version of a copyrighted work of art, you go elsewhere to do that. No non-free image should be any larger than its size in the article. Wikipedia articles can be printed, or displayed in other formats where there isn't a "click-through" image description page and so if an image description page is required for the reader's understanding, then something about that process is wrong. --B (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce. The image should be kept, as it's no longer in the infobox but accompanies sourced critical text in the relevant section. The text – "In 2013 she produced Sun and Moon as a commentary on military action in the Middle East which featured a Sun and Moon, a carousel horse, and a tank against a split background with an Arabic language newspaper in the top half and a deconstructed American flag below" – really needs this image to be seen to be intelligible in any meaningful way. But the default thumbnail size (220px) that it's currently rendered in the article is sufficient for this purpose. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 30 September 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:Sister Sparrow & the Dirty Birds - Fight.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: keep. In the album article that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover used non-transformatively in an article ABOUT THE BAND. There has been some disagreement over whether to include it. Bringing it here for discussion. @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: @Mburrell: B (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, it has been removed from the artist page. The clock should be ticking for seven days, and if I have not created an album article, it can be deleted. Or it can be deleted hastily, and if I create an album page in the next seven days, I will re-upload it and attach it to the album page. Mburrell (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not recommend deleting the image file, as the image is now attached to an album article, Fight (EP). Mburrell (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, file now solely used on an article about the album. Salavat (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Fight (EP) and keep it off other articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NF rational satisfied for use in Fight (EP)--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:51, 5 October 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:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.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: relisted on 2018 October 9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomb of Pope Clement XI requiem.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:First-point-of-aries.svg

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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Early" upload - Almost certainly own work, but as uploader is deceased, no way to confirm it. Not sure how this is supposed to be handled? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too simple to get a copyright IMO. Can be moved to Commons with PD-ineligible. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Commons - if you look at the XML source code of the SVG, it includes sodipodi:docbase="/u/kwantus" sodipodi:docname="/u/kwantus/equatorial-ecliptic.svg so we need neither tea leaves nor a seance to ascertain the original author - we can safely change the template to GFDL-self. Also worth noting, Commons:File:First point of Aries.png is an extracted PNG from this SVG. --B (talk) 15:58, 7 October 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.