Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7

File:Gladiator (subtitled).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 ⚡ 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it fails WP:NFCCP#8; it is only as a tangential example in Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant, an article unrelated to the movie except for covering the source of the words as depicted in the image. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note that the fair use rationale says that the file is used for "Commentary on the use of the phrase in modern cinema, and its prevalence in modern concepts of Roman times, specifically in and concerning the film Gladiator". But the actual text of the article currently (and indeed when the image was added) does not discuss the film Gladiator at all. If there were actual substantive discussion of the use of the phrase in Gladiator specifically that would maybe be one thing (though I'm skeptical!), but as it is I don't see how the image can possibly be said to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" as required by NFCC#8. What does showing a screenshot of a character saying something give readers that just saying in the article that they said it doesn't? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2021 (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:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation, a free photograph of this building exists, and is readily available on Commons -FASTILY 22:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#1 as the building is virtually unchanged in 2021 - see File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office 01.jpg. However, the uploader keeps removing the {{subst:rfu}} tag, in violation of WP:CSD: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, like it's alright that you were uncivilly scouring my edits to tag a mass of my images for immediate deletion, no discussions? It's hard for me to not appear snarky, but actually look at the image. This is the railway building at its height, the Yost & Packard masterpiece at its height. The roof is immaculate, with roughly hexagonal roof tiles and a beautiful conical crown. These elements are now gone. The windows on the building were double-hung, with lattice tops, and at least one with a decorative striped awning. The west facade featured a doorway with steps, and you can see what the train operators looked like, how they were dressed. The south facade featured another door with steps. And overall, the building and street condition are immaculate. -None- of these features are still present today, as the building sinks into disrepair, with vandalism, poorly painted-over graffiti, boarded windows, a poor new roof, crumbling brickwork, overgrown plants... I shouldn't need to spend 20 minutes typing this all up for you. Please use a critical eye to changes, "virtually unchanged in 2021" is dramatically disingenuous.

ɱ

(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of those things are too small and unimportant when an image of the entire building is shown in an article. If a small architectural detail is important for the article, then the solution is to show a picture of only that part so that people actually can see it. However, none of those details are subject to sourced critical discussion in the article and so fail WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2021 (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:Columbus Developmental Center.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation, a free photograph of this building exists, and is readily available on Commons -FASTILY 22:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This violates WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by File:Columbus, Ohio c. 1897 02.jpg as there are virtually no noticeable differences since 1897. However, the uploader keeps removing the {{subst:rfu}} tag in violation of WP:CSD: The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moving onto another image with stark differences? Because they were taken at two different angles, some of it is not directly comparable, but you can tell some differences in the surroundings immediately. While the old image had immaculately cut grass and an ornate lamp-post, the newer image features overgrown plants and the tall conventional parking lot lighting that is usually panned from a design standpoint. The north wing of the building is gone. The central tower's roof is also gone, was that not an immediate massive change? Again, disingenuous for you to say there were "virtually no noticeable differences" when such a massive element of tiles, dormers, finials, and lattice fencework is simply -gone-. The other apparent changes also relate to the roof - where there once were cupolas, finials, and steeples, ivy and tall chimneys, in the later image, the roof is stripped to its bare necessities. Lastly, this is the only photograph available to the public of the building in color, and in the modern era. Without this factor, it is impossible for readers to correctly judge the colors of the brickwork, stone trim, roof elements, etc.

ɱ

(talk) 13:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those differences are not subject to sourced critical discussion and are therefore not needed to be seen. If you want something in colour, then you can colourise the black & white photo based on the colour photo. However, a black and white photo seems good enough to describe what the building looked like. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (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:Nixon in Colombia.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 ⚡ 00:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this is a crop of a photo from the cover of the May 26, 1958, issue of LIFE: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/a-history-of-the-secret-service/24/. Copyright for this issue was renewed in 1986 (registration number RE0000312064), so unless it can be shown that the photograph is in the public domain for another reason or that permission was given to freely license it, it can be undeleted in 2054 (95 years after publication). clpo13_(talk) 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the file had already been copied to Commons, so see the deletion discussion there as well: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon in Colombia.JPG. clpo13_(talk) 23:52, 7 October 2021 (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:NelsonBaker.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient evidence to say that this photograph is public domain. There's no author information, so the claim that the author has been dead 70 years can't be verified. No rationale for public domain status in the US has been given, either. clpo13_(talk) 22:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the file had already been copied to Commons, so see the deletion discussion there as well: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NelsonBaker.GIF. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 7 October 2021 (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.

Samples of Dave Matthews Band songs

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 22:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samples, previously tagged for deletion, are used in their respective articles about songs by Dave Matthews Band. I think the usages are merely identifications of respective songs. Critical commentary may not sufficiently support the samples. The samples would fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2021 (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:Jess Glynne - This Christmas.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: no consensus. ✗plicit 07:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art identifies the (digital) single release of Jess Glynne's rendition of "This Christmas", originally sung by Donny Hathaway. The Jess Glynne version charted in the UK and Italy, all right. However, I'm not confident that the image improves understanding of a Christmas song that has been sung by different artists. Furthermore, the article doesn't describe anything else valuable about the recording itself, especially the Background subsection. Rather any valuable info about the Jess Glynne version, even as a top British hit, should be merged into the section about cover versions, IMO. Moreover, the cover art itself doesn't improve understanding of the recording's notability, and the recording's notability itself would be already understood without this image. In short, it may fail WP:NFCC#8 and/or WP:NFCC#3a. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I don't particularly care if this image is deleted or not~~ I don't agree with this nomination. The nomination seems to be focusing on having a subsection for Glynne's cover of the song, which is not a discussion for and beyond the scope of FfD. (That being said, to dispel what the nominator said: Glynne's cover is the most successful version of the song in terms of chart performance, including Osmond's original. No other version has peaked as high on a national non-radio singles chart than Glynne's has, so any argument that this should not have more of a focus than a sentence in a "cover versions" section is frankly bollocks.) Cover artworks also aren't uploaded and do not primarily function to "improve understanding of a recording's notability". They are used to identify the work in question, which has nothing to do with whether or not the song is notable. WP:NFCC says nothing about notability; WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, in my opinion, because the cover of Osmond's original doesn't identify Glynne's more successful version. Ss112 10:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right. "Notability" is never mentioned in NFCC as I hate to admit. Nonetheless, in the past, one or a few more other editors used "notability" as part of their arguments. Well, maybe I shouldn't use #3a criterion. BTW, Glynne's version was successful in just her home country but performed either modestly or so-so in another country. If that's your definition of success, then how do you explain deletion of a cover art of Collette's take on "Ring My Bell" and Jessica Mauboy's take on "Something's Got a Hold on Me", which were deleted without objection in other FFD discussions? --George Ho (talk)

Almost forgot: I nominate this image not because of article quality but because I don't think this image is necessary to understand the song and the release in question. Also, I want to be sure that deleting the image would not affect how readers learn about the song, its history, and its versions. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened in other FfDs, whether editors didn't care or not, has nothing to do with this one. Glynne's version is the most successful and highest-placed version of this song in any one country. I didn't claim it had international success, but that being said, I don't see why we only need to retain the original, especially in cases like this where Glynne's version has been more successful and is arguably better recognised in a country than the original. This assumes the original is always more important and this just isn't the case. The A-side of a 7" vinyl can hardly identify a version of the song issued 50 years later in the 2020s by a completely different artist that had more success with their version. Ss112 02:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glynne's version is the most successful and highest-placed version of this song in any one country. I think the assumption that Glynne's version will be more successful and well known than Hathaway's original screams recent-ism, doesn't it? Furthermore, I hardly see why "importance" of Glynne's version would be affected by deleting the cover art. The importance (or lack of it?) of Glynne's version is already understood enough by most readers, and the cover art is... excessive, isn't it? This assumes the original is always more important and this just isn't the case. Since the original's debut, the song has become one of staple Christmas songs especially from the US. (see "Cover versions" section.) Moreover, the original singer was also one of its songwriters, and the original version re-charted in Christmas of last year. Since the song became more acknowledged especially in the 1990s, many other singers before Glynne covered the song. The assumption that Glynne's version is more important than other versions made prior... isn't what I have in mind. The A-side of a 7" vinyl can hardly identify a version of the song issued 50 years later in the 2020s by a completely different artist that had more success with their version. I don't know why you said that. The side label used as lead image identifies an early, original release of Hathaway's version. The original version performed modestly in early 1970s, so I'm using that side label. Also, Americans didn't receive an official picture sleeve when the single was released to them. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George, I already outlined how Glynne's cover version is the most successful. I'm talking about in terms of chart performance. I didn't think I needed to keep repeating this. That's not "recent-ism", that's literal fact. I absolutely believe Glynne's is the most important cover version of the song because of this. Also, I never said Glynne's cover was "more important" than Hathaway's original. I said it was more successful on the main singles chart of a country than any other version, including Hathaway's original, which is fact. Please do not attempt to twist my words while literally quoting me directly. You are now getting outside the scope of something that should be at FfD. I'm no longer going to speak about whether Glynne's cover should have its own section, because what is said here won't affect that overall section, so please stop bringing this up. "I don't know why you said that." Because you're saying we should get rid of the cover art for Glynne's version, and that somehow the face of a 7" vinyl that you uploaded suffices as the only picture we should have on the article. It doesn't and can't identify the more chart-successful Glynne cover or any other version, full stop. Is it detrimental if we remove the 7" vinyl cover? I don't think so. I notice that my image for Glynne's version predates your upload of the 7" vinyl cover, which seems almost done to spite me or because I uploaded a cover for another version, so if we keep anything, I say we keep Glynne's cover and get rid of the picture of a vinyl, which I believe is inconsequential on any article. I don't even believe it helps readers' understanding in identifying Hathaway's version, because Hathaway's version became a "Christmas staple" years after the era where its single would have been distributed on vinyl, which you even said yourself. Most articles you've furnished with a picture of a 7" vinyl A-side have not been benefited with said picture, nor has this article. Only people old enough to have it at the time or vinyl collectors would even know what the face of the vinyl looks like. Actual covers are always more important in my opinion, and you're yet again attempting to get rid of one here. Ss112 07:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my image for Glynne's version predates your upload of the 7" vinyl cover, which seems almost done to spite me or because I uploaded a cover for another version. I uploaded the label identifying Hathaway's original version not to spite you. Actually, if the digital re-release of the original had an available cover art, I would have used that available cover art just as long as better chart performance prevails. The same couldn't be said for Stand by Me (Ben E. King song), however. The 1980s re-releases of the other song had picture sleeves, but the FFD discussion led to keeping the 1960s single release lacking a picture sleeve instead because the original release was successful and was deemed to be used by default. Back to the side label, I think the side label helps. The original Hathaway version charted on Billboard in early 1970s as written in prose. Maybe I should duplicate the info in chart form if necessary.
Most articles you've furnished with a picture of a 7" vinyl A-side have not been benefited with said picture, nor has this article. Oh really? With help of captions, those labels should help readers realize how most US vinyl single releases were manufactured and distributed before CD singles became popular in the 1990s. Furthermore, they help readers stop assuming that most pre-1990s US singles had picture sleeves, which were contradicted by those existing products themselves. Nonetheless, some other editors disagree with my views and have been fans of cover arts. To me, using facts, including factual visuals, helps improve understanding of the past. Furthermore, some other editors are tempted to add a cover art probably due to their dissatisfaction with side labels as lead images. But I'm doing my best to relate well to most readers. Only people old enough to have it at the time or vinyl collectors would even know what the face of the vinyl looks like. That shouldn't prevent readers, including the young, from being curious about older single releases, should it? Indeed, I even overlooked but then realized especially via research that most American single releases missed out picture sleeves, while overseas single releases somehow contained picture sleeves.
Actual covers are always more important in my opinion, and you're yet again attempting to get rid of one here. The criterion's purpose is making sure that the non-free content improves understanding of the article topic, i.e. the 20th-century Christmas song, and is too significant for deletion. Well, not that covers are or aren't "important", but covers have had mass appeal and has attracted most customers. However, the Jess Glynne cover art is supposed to improve understanding of one of 20th-century Christmas songs, which is the purpose of WP:NFCC#8. I don't see how it does. To me, the cover art makes readers recognize the release that was successful in one country... but is probably ineffective in illustrating the song's long history and prominence. The cover art is just... there... as part of the version's success and to display the singer's appearance, but I wonder whether the cover art adds anything much to readers. From what I learned in another FFD discussion, eliminating the cover art might affect a reader's enjoyment, but the enjoyment itself isn't part of NFCC. In other words, the content's ability to be enjoyable wouldn't improve its ability to comply with the NFCC. Instead, understanding the article topic is one of keys to prolong the non-free content's survival. Another key is making sure that free content, especially text, isn't enough for such understanding. To me, unfortunately, deleting the Jess Glynne cover art from the article does not and may not affect what a reader can (already) learn about the song especially by reading the whole article. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say we keep Glynne's cover and get rid of the picture of a vinyl, which I believe is inconsequential on any article. To you, the vinyl label is "inconsequential", but deleting the label would increase or please people's (poor/bad) assumptions about older vinyl single releases using generic sleeves, i.e. lacking picture sleeves and discourage others further from using such labels. Furthermore, that would affect readers' understanding of how vinyl singles, like the original Hathaway version, were variously manufactured and distributed in different regions at the time. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
George, writing interminable paragraphs to each of my points is not going to change my mind that the Glynne cover should be removed. The Glynne artwork does inherently not carry with it the fact that the song peaked higher on a national singles chart than any other version. That's what it sounds like you're trying to say above. It's art; it can't say that itself. It's to identify the most chart-successful version of the song, period. Your reasoning for uploading pictures of the A-sides of 7" vinyls sounds like an agenda to "educate" readers about the fact that vinyls were previously not packaged with cover artworks, and that sounds like the wrong reason for editing. Any cover for any song could be said to be "just... there...", and most of your points could be made about any of the, I repeat, inconsequential vinyl A-sides you've uploaded. I said nothing about "enjoyment"; I didn't upload the cover for my or any reader's "enjoyment", so your point about this is a response to something nobody had suggested. I'm not replying to you beyond this, as it will just encourage you to further clog up this thread with your rants suggesting things I didn't even say, and make any admin ignore any valid point I made just so they'll see you arguing, give up reading and delete the cover. I didn't know before, but now I've learned you are one of many users on this site who'll endlessly rant at any and everybody who disagrees with you. Please spare me the green inline quotations of what I've said, it's pretentious and ridiculous, and I'll ask you to never bother me with the nonsense you posted on my talk page earlier today again. I say keep the Glynne cover, delete George Ho's picture of the A-side of the Hathaway vinyl nobody ever cared about because the song wasn't successful upon release on vinyl in the 1970s. Thank you. Ss112 10:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll vote keep the Hathaway vinyl if you nominate it for deletion. George Ho (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes George, thanks for clarifying something that was never in doubt. Ss112 10:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's further comment: Identifying the most successful cover version of all cover versions with a cover art... If deleting the Glynne cover art affects understanding of the very old Christmas song, then I can stand corrected. However, art or not, to me, keeping the cover art of the successful cover version just because it's part of the successful version of a very old Christmas song and/or just because the vinyl label is "inconsequential" (to you), looks less than appealing (to you), and would be the only image left... There must be other reasons to keep, i.e. never delete, the cover art. Neither success nor being negative about the vinyl label should be the only, if not main, reasons to keep the cover art. Maybe recognition is also it? But that would make text content appear inadequate to help readers recognize the version, wouldn't it? Honestly, I trust the ability of the text content to teach readers about the song as much as that of the vinyl label I uploaded. When I read info about the version's chart performance, I can already understand and recognize its success. Is a cover art needed for understanding and recognizing the article topic? Would deleting the cover art affect such understanding? Why or why not? If being a success is enough to keep the Jess Glynne cover art, then... I don't know what else to say besides, "That would contradict the decision made about the cover art of the successful but lesser-known Collette version of the other song". The original Hathaway version charted well in one Christmas music chart in the early 1970s and has been well known to many, especially those who covered the song. Some like the uploader can say that the original version wasn't successful, but to my eyes, the Hathaway version has been successful since its original release. --George Ho (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not able to leave this alone? Have you never encountered or do you not expect opposition when you nominate something for deletion? It's like you can't believe the user who uploaded the file actually disagrees with you and you just have to keep replying, like you're offering something new. (You aren't.) You've already elaborated on this in three very lengthy replies above. Who do you think is reading all this? (Those are all rhetorical questions, in case it wasn't clear.) Imagine putting up this much of a fight over one cover artwork when you nominate files day-in day-out. It's seemingly all you do on Wikipedia. I'm in disbelief you have this much to say about whether one damn file gets deleted or not. You've contributed 10 KB of text on one image file. I think we can safely say it's not swaying any administrator who's assessing this, nor any other user, and nobody is reading your rants at this point, myself included. Any sensible user can see you're wasting your time. Time to move on. Ss112 14:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a song cover of a notable cover version that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (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.