Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1

File:University of the Philippines (UP Campus) - Oblation (Diliman, Quezon City; 2015-01-22).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 -FASTILY 02:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:UPDilimanObationLanternParade.jpg - artist is guillermo tolentino who died in 1976. additionally the wiki entry says that it was registered at the Intellectual Property Office in the year 2004. no freedom of pano in the phils that allows all and free forms of reuse of photos of copyrighted bldgs and sculptures that doesnt compromise the rights of the creators or their heirs within the 50 yr copyright duration period . Precednt is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Oblation_(University_of_the_Philippines_Diliman) Mrcl lxmna (talk) 06:11, 1 October 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:William Conton.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo taken with an iphone of a photo printed in a newspaper. The copyright for the original photo doesn't get transferred by taking a picture of it. Whpq (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no proof that uploader is the original photographer so the photo can't be used under a free license unless we get more information. The person in the photo died in 2003 so you could perhaps change to non-free use. --MGA73 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is a potential to converting to non-free usage. A quick search doesn't turn up any free images. But we do need to consider WP:NFCC#6. Image use policy requires the image source be provided. This is especially important given the image looks to have been from a newspaper and would need to verify that the image is not a press agency photo (WP:NFCC#2). -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 3 October 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:2014.03.29.west.hollywood.elementary.school.970.n.hammond.st.90069.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file is on Commons. Uploader requested to keep a local copy because FBI might close Commons. I think that reason is just silly. Anyway the uploader has not been active since 2018 so I think there is no reason to keep the file locally anymore. MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may think the reason is silly but that's not a reason for local copy deletion. And we don't keep or not keep files based on levels of contributor activity. Furthermore, I have actually been active much more recently than 2018; today, in fact. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back! --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been questioned here and below if the user’s activity is relevant. I think it is. If I create an article and add a template "MGA73 own this article and you are not allowed to edit or delete it!" then I'm pretty sure the template would be removed. But for files such a template is being accepted. My guess is that it started when some good contributors was against deletion and said they would leave Wikipedia if the files was deleted and then community accepted that to prevent the users from leaving. My rationale is that if user is no longer active then the reason to keep the fixes local no longer exist. --MGA73 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This file and a few other files was nominated for deletion with a similar reason. The other files was deleted but this one was relisted because the uploader commented.

So the status right now is that files can be kept if user is active and files can be deleted if user is not active. I think it is just a matter of finding out where to draw the line between active and inactive. When I nominated the file uploader had made no edits for more than 2 years. I think 1 year is too short a period so I suggested 2 years. (Should FBI close Commons then admins can easily undelete this and other files.) --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 1 October 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:Central Asia 1925 Map.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Central Asia 1925 Map.png. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find out more about the map I found this: http://minchanin.esmasoft.com/maps/hist1970/hist10-11.jpg

It is in Russian and I do not speak Russian. Perhaps it can help anyone find out more about it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 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.

"What Would You Do?" infobox images

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. On the season 1 image, that is, since the other files were deleted per G7 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of these fail MOS:TVIMAGE, as they do not present a "season-specific title card". They also fail WP:NFCC#8, "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"; images do not present any new information to the articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The season 1 title card presents notable information about who the host was, the show's logo at the time, and what he was doing (caption). Title cards from 8 to 13 present the title card of each season's special. Title cards for seasons 15 and 16 are actually season-specific. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Season 1, I'll leave up to the consensus of this discussion. Seasons 8 through 13, you admit that they are not season specific at all, rather episode specific, hence further supporting their deletion. Seasons 15 and 16 are just graphical changes of the same design and have zero visual connection to the seasons in question. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except File:What Would You Do? (season 1).jpg Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note All except for File:What Would You Do? (season 1).jpg deleted under G7 per preceding comment by Some Dude From North Carolina -FASTILY 04:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:56, 1 October 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:Skinny Pete El Camino Teaser.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. No policy-based justification that merits the inclusion of this image. Ə XPLICIT 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of non-free media in this article: this piece adds little to no educational value. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This image details the promotional campaign that was done by the film, and indicates which trailer gave the audiences and critics their first glimpse. ―Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:56, 1 October 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:ElCamino Huell.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. No policy-based justification that merits the inclusion of this image. Ə XPLICIT 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of non-free media in this article: this piece adds little to no educational value. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this image was made available as part of the electronic press kit for use in the media - I would say this piece of media was free. This piece also marks proof of the return of a character that fans wanted to see in the film, so I would say it does add educational value. ―Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:57, 1 October 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:Tom Brown's School Days (1940 film).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 ⚡ 12:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD tag on the DVD cover of Tom Brown's School Days (1940 film) was contested. On grounds, the adaptation was discussed in the section about adaptations of the novel of the same name, which would supposedly meet WP:NFCC#8. However as-is, the novel article mentions the 1940 film as a passing, not in greater emphasis. Deletion of the DVD cover wouldn't affect the understanding of the novel and its characters such as Thomas Arnold, the prominent school headmaster of his time. Furthermore, there are free images of Thomas Arnold, portrayed by various actors as depicted in the novel, and the DVD release may have come out in 2000s probably. Almost forgot that it was previously tagged for deletion years ago with "di-disputed fair use rationale", but I didn't look up until now. George Ho (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've now elaborated on Variety's review of the 1940 film version in this section of the article, where Fair Use of the image in question is made to illustrate this adaptation's particular emphasis on Dr. Arnold's character and Variety's praise of Cedric Hardwicke's portrayal. While there are free images of Arnold, there are none of Hardwicke in this role. Adding to its value for the reader's understanding is the scene portrayed, where Arnold rebukes Brown and the villainous Flashman after a fight, better than mere prose alone could convey their crestfallen countenances in this pivotal scene. — JGHowes ^talk 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The addition you made still doesn't improve justification of the DVD cover, which looks photoshopped, i.e. extracted from the film, mixed, and colorized. Words by a Variety reviewer are already understood without the image. Furthermore, I copied the quote to the film article, which I think the quote belongs. The DVD cover doesn't balance the content well and may not meet WP:NFC#CS. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? ...looks photoshopped, i.e. extracted from the film, mixed, and colorized. That is the DVD's cover, see Tom Brown DVD. JGHowes ^talk 13:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, "justification of using the DVD cover". ...Anyways, maybe a screenshot would have illustrated what you added recently. However, even the screenshot (or the DVD cover) would be unnecessary to illustrate the actor portraying the character in the film unless free, otherwise. The main matter is whether to trust readers into understanding the novel and brief info about adaptations without this DVD('s) cover or a screenshot. From what I can tell, you assume that readers wouldn't understand the article subject (i.e. the novel) without the DVD cover or any other image of the actor in the film. Why is that? --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Nothing about the appearance of the cover or anything portrayed in it is discussed. Neither is this the primary means of identification of the article topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 19 October 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:New Order - Blue Monday.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 Blue Monday (New Order song), remove from remaining three articles. Ə XPLICIT 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The audio sample of Blue Monday (New Order song) is used in four articles, including the song article itself. I can't be certain whether the usage at the song article meets NFCC, but I'm sure that the usages in other articles may fall below the criteria and should be challenged. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Blue Monday (New Order song). Remove from Hi-NRG (no sourced critical discussion), Hi-NRG (only mentions that the machine was used for this song, which is expressed with perfect clarity by text alone), and Substance 1987 (no sourced critical discussion). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 19 October 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:Sucker MCs (Krush-Groove 1) sample.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 Sucker M.C.'s, remove from Oberheim DMX. Ə XPLICIT 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently used in both Sucker M.C.'s (the song article) and Oberheim DMX (article about this digital drum machine). Usage compliance with NFCC must be determined. IMO, should be removed from the drum machine article; uncertain about usage in the song article. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Sucker M.C.'s. Remove from Oberheim DMX. The machine article only mentions that the machine was used for this song, which is expressed perfectly clear by text alone. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 19 October 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:Pt ltl pcp2.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 as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be {{PD-ineligible}} since I can't find anything copyrightable, but I'm not sure. Jonteemil (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this source is public domain, it could do with being recreated as an SVG. Extua (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a vector version of this file here, assuming the original is {{PD-ineligible}}. Extua (talk) 11:47, 2 October 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:Hollywood Stars cap.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: relisted on 2020 October 23. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hollywood Stars cap.png (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:She-Venom (Anne Weying).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 the file File:She-Venom (Anne Weying).jpg because consensus is unanimous that the file's use at Anne Weying complies with policy. No consensus as to the file's use at Venom (Marvel Comics character) without prejudice to further discussion of the file's use at that article (perhaps an RFC if needed) at Talk:Venom (Marvel Comics character). Numerically, one editor argued, among other things, that the image (depicting the female version of the character Venom, a.k.a. Anne Weying) is not critical to the understanding of the character Venom. Two editors argued that it is critical, or at least important enough to meet the requirements of policy. However, both sides stated their views without referencing any sources, which leaves us with the dueling opinions of three editors, and thus no consensus. If anyone disagrees with this WP:NAC, they are free to revert it without discussing it with me first. (non-admin closure) Le v!v ich 04:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC 8. Different character from the subject of the article. Not critical to the understanding of the subject of the article it's in. Similar illustration already present in the article on that character. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not even the same character, but an entirely different related character. One is male, one is female. I cannot imagine an article referring to a female version of the character and not showing what that looks like.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: I think there might be some confusion here. This image is used in Venom, but depicts Anne Weying. My point was that since She-Venom/Anne Weying is not the same character as Venom, then the non-free image of She-Venom should be in the article on Anne Weying, not in the article on Venom. I am not nominating for deletion the image of She-Venom that's in Anne Weying, it's clearly acceptable for an image of She-Venom to be in that article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I do appreciate the clarification, I did understand we are speaking of its use in Venom. I don't believe any reasonably encyclopedic article about Venom could possibly forgo a depiction of the female version of the character. The female version is an important aspect of the character's history and fungibility, and certainly not anything that could be adequately described by words alone. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This fictitional character is a symbiote being which can have any sex depending of its host. The article about Venom should show the two most proeminent versions: Eddie Brock as the male Venom and Anne Weying as the female Venom. Even if the female Venom is not shown on the male Venom article (in the event the article is divided for both sexes), this picture can depict Anne as female Venom on her article. Also, one picture of a comics character, which have thousands of pictures or more (at least one picture per page it is published), each one different of the older one (when on different comics book, drawn by different artists), will not hurt sales of the comics books the character is featured. Joaopaulo1511 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 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:BCM logo FINAL Horiz.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. Ə XPLICIT 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, because there already exists a free photo of the exterior of the museum entrance which is a more prominent aspect of the subject than this non-free logo. Using the free photo alone is sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose of visually identify the article topic. Wcam (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An image of the museum is not replaceable for the fair use image of the logo passing WP:NFCC#1 and the logo is used as identification of the museum in the article's infobox passing WP:NFCC#8. Template:Infobox museum, which the article uses, allows for both a logo and an image of the museum showing that logos are an acceptable fair use alongside a free image of the museum. Aspects (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the logo and the photo are not the exact same, but both can be used to serve the encyclopedic purpose of visually identify the museum, in which case the free content should take precedence (WP:FREER), and I argue that the physical presence of a museum is a more prominent aspect of it than its logo (WP:NFC#CS). The mere fact that the infobox template has both options does not automatically guarantee using both would satisfy WP:NFCC; an example of this is WP:FILMSCORE. --Wcam (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is customary for a Wikipedia article about an organization to have their logo in the infobox, to assure the reader they've reached the correct article. Most such logos are non-free. A photo of a building alone does not suffice for this purpose. Consider, for example, the recently promoted Good Article, Warner Bros. Movie World: it has the non-free logo in the infobox as well as several free images of the park's attractions. Or Texas A&M University, a Featured Article with the non-free logo in the infobox and several free photos of the campus. JGHowes ^talk 00:37, 15 October 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.