Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 January 18

< January 17	January 19 >

January 18[edit]

File:Roman Holiday poster.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Roman Holiday (1953 poster).jpg (superior quality and image format) Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2020 (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.

Money Can't Buy files[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These non-free album covers are claimed to be used for visual identificaiton in the main infobox, but are actually used in sections of the Money Can't Buy article. There is no significant sourced commentary about these images. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file is used in the "main infobox" under the section titled "Extended play" which is referring to the "Money Can't Buy EP" album which is where it is placed. Therefore the picture is used correctly. It is likley that the use of the phrase "main infobox" was indended for the infobox it is actually used in. Since the photo is placed in the correct place it meets WP:NFCC#8 as it is contextually significant. Url has been added on "File:Kylie Minogue - Money Can't Buy EP.png" for image. Boston1775 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added url for "File:Kylie Minogue - Body Language Live.png" This file falls under the same rationale as above for being contextually significant. The file is used in the "main infobox" in the section titled "Body Language Live" which is about that album. The cover art is appropriately placed in the correct sections to be contextually significant. Boston1775 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary infoboxes in sections are not "main" infoboxes with or without quotes around them. Their usage for only visual identification without critical commentary. See WP:NFCI point 1. These are not being used in article about the albums, but are instead in sections about the album. -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more commentary would be nice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We generally don't allow non-free use in secondary infoboxes like this. Compare with WP:FILMMUSIC which is identical except for subject matter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:26, 18 January 2020 (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:Bowsette by Yuske Murata.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 ⚡ 08:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:FREER. Bowsette is famous as a character that was drawn by countless fans, both professional and amateur. Any of the free images in commons:Category:Bowsette are equally effective at portraying what Bowsette looks like. Although it was drawn by a professional mangaka, this image is still just fan art like any of the other images. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious qualms if *any* of the Bowesette images on Wikipedia commons can actually be considered free use because they're all clearly derivative of Nintendo properties. Additionally the usage in the article is to illustrate actual professional artists offering their own renditions and design changes to the 'meme', something that also can't be satisfied with any of the Free Use alternatives.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a free use equivalent is sufficient for the general depiction of this subject, we use that per WP:FREER. The image in question would either need a free use release or WP:NFCC#8 contextual significance to warrant the non-free depiction. Original fan interpretation of the character should be sufficient for Commons (commons:Commons:Fan art#General rule). (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If File:Bowsette another one by poderosoandrajoso.png is actually Creative Commons licensed, then it is a much better candidate than this picture, which is a non-free image. There is no apparent reason to display the image in the article besides someone liking it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input, as currently it's not clear that the free image is a) actually free and b) actually a good replacement for the non-free image here discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a WP:NFCC#8 reason for any non-free fan art beyond the original one by Ayyk92. The original one is described in detail in a way that needs the image to support the following: "Bowser now transformed into a female character resembling Peach but with a black strapless dress, fangs, large horns protruding from the sides of the head, and Bowser's spiked attire and shell." Try imaging that without an accompanying image. As for any further fan art, the article says that lots of it were produced and drops a few names of artists, but does not even try to discuss the appearance of their work. All other statements about visual aspects are general and not tied to specific works: "some renders", "a bulk of the art", etc. Of these, some are specific enough not to need an image: what "darker skin and/or red hair" is evident from the text alone. Some is quite abstract, more about the idea than any of its specific manifestations, and it would be serious WP:OR to tie any specific images to statements like "overtly male-gazey, dripping with horrendously over-the-top, seam-bursting cliches". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 18 January 2020 (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:Lam Siu-Por not clapping.gif[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That subject was not clapping whilst others were is adequately described by text and does not require an image to understand this. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't agree with the claim that the image violates WP:NFCC#8. First of all, many unique historical images can be described by text (e.g. the image of August Landmesser) and it doesn't mean that we won't show those images in Wikipedia. Second, even if Lam Siu-Por's image can be described by text, it is still not "adequately" described by text. As we can see, the image can "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" as WP:NFCC#8 requires. It is difficult to describe how the atmosphere is when the other officials were clapping while Lam was not. Does the text describe how exciting Carrie Lam and other officials were? Can the text accurately describe the eye contact of Lam with the camera (it is also one of the focus of the public discussion)? How about the other body languages of Lam? Several paragraphs of words are still insufficient to describe these tiny but important details of this very moment, which cannot be better described by this image. This image is unique and to conclude, the image fulfills WP:NFCC#8.--Elementautumn (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry but this clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 the image doesn't "significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. You can adequately describe this situation with text alone. As for the other images argument it doesn't really hold any weight. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment right now this is file is heading the deletion route, but Elementautumn brings up some points that could be considered if the article text was amended. In particular, any sourced discussion in the article about how enthusiastic vs. unenthusiastic the officials appeared would certainly be the kind of content that would benefit from an image, possibly to the WP:NFCC#8 degree. We all know what clapping and not clapping looks like, but appearing (un)enthusiastic is a different story. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given that no changes to the article text suggested above were or could be made to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (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:Eurostar icon.svg[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 2020 January 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurostar icon.svg (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:HofmanMadonna1909.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 2020 January 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HofmanMadonna1909.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:CadmusStamp.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 2020 January 29. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:CadmusStamp.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:Golden Lion size.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 07:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NFCC#1. There is a free copyright and similar topic image. SCP-2000 (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please use{{ping}} when you talk to me. Thank you!--SCP-2000 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominated image is the three-dimensional artwork of the prize. The one at Italian Wikipedia (it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png) is the drawing (two-dimensional) derivative of the copyrighted sculptural work; someone at it-wiki should either re-categorize it as non-free (but fair use) or nominate it for deletion. The "free" one shan't be transferred to Commons. -- George Ho (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the note, Italy lacks freedom of panorama especially for buildings and three-dimensional artworks (c:COM:FOP Italy). George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use File:Oshri Cohen holding the Golden lion.jpg instead, per WP:FREER. --Wcam (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a picture of Oshri Cohen holding the award acceptable per Commons rules and copyright law? George Ho (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho:I think the image acceptable per rule.--SCP-2000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to crop the image if it were used, to remove Cohen's face? I'd rather not have him be the "main" image of the Golden Lion article and thereby get UNDUE prominence. (If so, then delete and used a cropped version of the Cohen image.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing or the file page describing where the photo was taken, I am uncertain whether the award portion of the Cohen image is suitable for Commons. Strangely, photos of other people holding their own awards, like Neil Patrick Harris, one guy holding an Oscar, and one supporting actress holding an Emmy, aren't yet deleted. I found one 2012 Commons discussions about the issue. By reading the discussion, those photos were supposed to be generally discouraged (unless cropping out awards is possible?), and de minimis may not apply. --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upload locally a cropped version from File:Oshri Cohen holding the Golden lion.jpg as non-free to satisfy WP:FREER. I don't think it:File:Leone d'oro Mostra del cinema.png would have been a free equivalent anyway; it's not the real deal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyrighted award, no free equivalent exists. -FASTILY 21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: No one is arguing that there is a free equivalent of the award. People are arguing that there is a free equivalent of the photo, making it WP:FREER than this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more discussion on whether the free equivalent is actually equivalent, as there are legitimate points on both sides.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've uploaded the WP:FREER alternative File:Golden Lion.jpg so that you can take a look at it. The file is currently orphaned. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added the image as temporary 2nd image. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2020 (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.