Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 April 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:35, 12 June 2017

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26

File:Garry walia.jpg

Uploader has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to promote Gary Walia. Article title is protected from creation, therefore this file will probably never be used again. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons(?) - Commons doesn't have a legitimate page about sockpuppetry. Rather commons:COM:Sockpuppetry is redirected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I'm sure the image may have potential, though it's not currently used in one article. Nonetheless, if verified as free, I think it's suitable in Commons as sockpuppetry is not a sole reason to delete this image. Also, Commons doesn't have its own COI page, in contrast to Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if his article is protected from creation and he himself is blocked, what use will the image have? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a deletion discussion at Commons would find it within scope. You can't anticipate what possible use an image may have, what somebody may someday find to do with it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is out of scope here, and it would out of scope on Commons, too. ℯ xplicit 00:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hannibal key art.jpg, File:Hannibal Season 2 promtional poster.jpg and File:Hannibal season 3 promotional poster.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: Deleted -FASTILY 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fail WP:NFCC No. 8; they are used for purely decorative purposes in the article, without any sourced commentary specific to those images explaining how they help enhance the reader's understanding of the subject Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2017 (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:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.jpg

This is not a proposal for deletion. It is a debate on the image usage in both Der Landser and Franz Kurowski. Copying Marchjuly original rationale:

Decorative use of non-free cover art in Franz Kurowski#Work for Der Landser. As explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, non-free cover art is generally considered acceptable as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the work in question, so non-free use is fine for Der Landser. In other articles, however, the cover art itself typically has to be the subject of sourced commentary in order to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. There's no real justification for non-free use of this image in the author's article and it should be removed. A wikilink to the relevant book are is more than sufficient as explained in item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI.

However, I felt that the rationale is not valid for speedy deletion. Instead, I'm taking this to FFD for more input, now that FFD is cleaned up by implementation of File PROD. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See more in File talk:Der Landser by Franz Kurowski.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tagged the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} because I felt its use in the author's article did not comply with WP:NFCCP. I still feel that way and suggest remove from "Franz Kurowski" and keep for "Der Landser". My reasons for this have already been re-posted above GeorgeHo and further expanded upon on the file's talk page (see the above link), so there doesn't seem to be any point in repeating things here. Furthermore, GeorgeHo might have misundertood my use of the template in that I was not suggesting that the file be deleted; I was only disputing one of its non-free use rationales. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your usage on the template. However, sometimes the template is slowly becoming less useful and less effective (to keep a file), and even when it says "the file will be deleted or removed from some uses". Also, the template is part of the WP:F7 criterion and discussed at WT:CSD#Re-reviewing F7 criterion - Invalid fair use claim (April 2017). The template is more of a redundant "deletion" template to me. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tearsofgriefbayonne.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: remove from Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used in both "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism" and "Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks". Marchjuly's original rationale, which is not valid for speedy deletion:

Non-free use in Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks fails WP:NFLISTS because the same image can be seen in the stand-alone aritcle To the Struggle Against World Terrorism. As explained in item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, a link to the stand-alone article is preferred in cases like this.

However, the sculpture is illustrated in the image, and the use in "To the Struggle Against World Terrorism" has potential validity. George Ho (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason I added the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template was because I believe the use in the list article does not comply with WP:NFCCP. I was not suggesting that the file be deleted; I was only suggesting remove from the "Memorials and services for the September 11 attack. I thought this was clear from what I posted in the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean in the last sentence, but "Files for deletion" became "Files for discussion" when FFD merged with now-"historical" WP:NFCR. Also, the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is less useful as a template to keep a file; rather it's more of a redundant "delete" template to me. --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (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:Sabrina Spellman.jpg

Marchjuly's original rationale:

Decorative use in Sabrina Spellman#Live-action television. Non-free images of fictional characters are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles of such characters, but this particular image is not being used in such a way. The screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the relevant section so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Moreover, there are free images of Melissa Joan Hart the actress who play the character availble on Commons which could be used to show her if necessary.

However, I think that rationale is not valid for speedy deletion. I think more input is needed as a free image of the actress is not a good substitute for this image, but I'll leave others to decide. To make matters more complicated, it was uploaded by a blocked sockpuppet in 2010. --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A freely licensed photo of the actress can be used to show her ("her" in this context refers to the actress, not the character she's playing) if needed, but I don't a non-free image of the character is needed since its main function seems to be decorative. If the file was being used at the top of the article as the primary means of identification, then its non-free use would be OK; however, it's being used in a sub-section of the article about one representation of the character. There's no sourced article content specifically about this particular screenshot, which means that it could be replaced with any other screenshot of Hart as "Sabrina" in order to show her in the role. If that's the case, then there's really no need for any non-free image of Hart as "Sabrina" to be used since there's nothing about seeing Hart as "Sabrina" which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing her as the character would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No free-use image of the actress would be appropriate to show the appearance of a character as portrayed in the show, which is he point of the image here. There won't be any free-use images of any copyrighted character. This portrayal is significantly different than the cartoon image in the infobox and, in a similar way that that cartoon image illustrates that version of the character, this image does the same for the live-action portrayal. Generally fair-use images should be minimized in articles but this image adds value to this article. Any other screenshot of Hart as Sabrina could replace this one, there will not be a free-use one available so this one is as good as any as a representation of what the character looks like in the show. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would agree with you if this was a stand-alone article about that particular character, but it's not. I think the guidance in MOS:TV#Images is relevant here in that this is an "in-the-body-of-the-article image" which the reader does not actually need to see in order to understand what is written about the character. While I can appreciate that Hart is obviously not the same as the the animated character, I just don't see the context for WP:NFCC#8 be provided for this particular screenshot. I also don't think tweaking the caption as you did here is sufficient enough to justify non-free use. Perhaps there's some sourced information which could be added as to why Hart was choosen as "Sabrina"? Something about her appearance and how it reflected the way the character was portrayed in the comics which goes beyond the obvious that she's female and blond would help justify the screenshot's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at MOS:TV#Images is more for additional non-free images for the same portrayal. This article is basically a merger of what could be two separate character (in show disambig) articles of the character and just as the infobox character is justified for the animated portrayal the live action portrayal is similarly justified as that would have been the infobox image of a separate article if there were one. Even if there is no commentary about that specific image, I believe it is contextually significant for this usage and meets NFCC#8 and would be detrimental to this article to remove it. I changed the caption as I wanted to emphasize that this is a character image, not an actor image, the emphasis is on the character's appearance, not the actor's. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's definition of contextually significant when it comes to non-free use seems to imply that something more is needed than simply wanting the reader "to see" a non-free file; it has to be essential to the reader's understanding is such a way that not having it would be detrimental to that understanding. Sourced commentary about the image in question somewhere in the relevant article would better connect the article content to this particular image. I don't see how omitting this particular screenshot is going to make anything written about the character in that relevant section difficult for the reader to understand. In fact, I don't see anything in that section about the character's appearance at all. This is why I asked if it were possible to added content about the character's appearance and perhaps why Hart was chosen to portray the character. Why does the reader need to see this particular screenshot for them to understand anything of the content about the character's background or love life? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same justification as for the non-free image in the infobox. Infobox character images are generally permitted without commentary solely to illustrate appearance of the character and that is deemed sufficient justification for the infobox image. This is the significant portrayal in another medium justified in the same way, to illustrate appearance of the character as it is different from the infobox image. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file is no longer being used as a main infobox image so that comparison is not really valid in my opinion. From the article's edit history, it does appear that at one time it was primarily about the character protrayed by Hart, and the file was being used as the main infobox image at least up to this version; however, it was replaced and moved to the sub-section here. Lots of editors simply move a non-free image without really taking into account how it affects the file's non-free use justification. They mistakenly assume that non-free use is "article-specific", and all that matters is that image is being used in the same article. Non-free use, however, is "use-specific" and the non-free use rationale is supposed reflect the particular use and how it satisfies all ten non-free content criteria; therefore, moving a file from one location in an article to another is likely going to impact its non-free use justification. A main infobox image may be allowed because it is assumed that the context for the image's non-free use comes from the enitre article and its sources, and that somewhere within that article there will be (or can be) some sourced discussion of the file per se which better justifies its use per NFCC#8. The same, however, cannot necessarily be assumed for non-free images within a sub-section of an article. For example, non-free content use policy might allow the use of a non-free logo in the main infobox because the logo is seen to serve as the the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. The same non-free logo, however, generally requires a much stronger justification, typically being the sourced of critical commentary, when used within a sub-section of the article and the justification for non-free use for the infobox may no longer be applicable. Per your reasoning, it seems that non-free images could also be added for all of the portrayals of the character listed in the "In other media" section as well. I don't think non-free content use policy would consider such a thing to be permissible without a pretty strong justisfication for each specific use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is in poor shape. Too much in-universe coverage and too little real-world perspective. Also, the casting section is missing. If "Casting" section is added, File:Melissa Joan Hart 2011.jpg or File:Melissa-joan-hart-portrait.jpg can be used. However, the current version of the article looks as if it's meant for Wikia. Yes, I took this image to FFD because the "speedy deletion" tag usage was contentious, but I'm not sure how effective the non-free image is. I can find an image of the character using her finger to put spells on others, i.e. special (visual) effects. As Geraldo said, the image may have potential. However, the content looks dull as is, and I don't mean image quality. Without her using a pointy finger in the image, it's still dull. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emiratespalace.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 as F9 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previously available online. link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and relicense as non-free - The United Arab Emirates does not allow Freedom of Panorama on architecture. The image is non-free and taken from website, but it still has some potential. Somehow, some or many uploaders either are confused with the Upload Wizard tools or misused them. George Ho (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user may be more that just confused, as they have been warned on their talkpage previously. Also how do we go about the relicense? Do we just edit from the page and fill in a fair use rationale, or do we have to reupload the image? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, editing the page would take an overhaul or something, but better to edit the page than re-upload it. You can change to {{non-free architectural work}} or {{non-free fair use}}. --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. The image does not meet WP:FREER for non-free usage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2017 (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:Logo of Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan'.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 ⚡ 02:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:19, 26 April 2017 (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:Raag Manjori'.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 ⚡ 02:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:22, 26 April 2017 (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:ABC Spark Logo.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: Files moved to Commons Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Spark article doesn't use this logo anymore. The article now uses the teal logo instead, which is located at File:Logo for ABC Spark.svg, so I don't see why this file should still exist, and as such, I think it should be deleted. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Commons. As a logo consisting solely of text in a common face and geometric shapes, it is ineligible for copyright in the US and thus a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have changed the licensing on both versions to {{PD-logo}}; since the images no longer violate any policy in such a way as to warrant deletion, I request that this be speedy-closed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: That's not why I want the PNG image to be deleted. I want it to be deleted because it's redundant since it's been replaced with the teal version of the logo in the ABC Spark article, not because it violated any rules. I just don't think having a duplicate of the teal logo (just with different colors) is a good idea. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KamranMackey: It has historical value then. We don't delete free images merely for non-use. IF we move it to Commons, this won't be an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Just moved the files to Commons. The files here do need to be deleted however. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done And with that we can close this (I will do this myself; it's not a conflict since the files now come under CSD F1). Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the PNG version (too many colors) as unfree. Nonetheless, move the SVG (plain green) version to Commons. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of colors makes no difference to its copyright status in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2017 (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.

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 Marchjuly's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sabrina_Spellman.jpg&diff=776752448&oldid=519369356 original rationale]: {{talkquote|1=Decorative use in [[:Sabrina Spellman#Live-action television]]. Non-free images of fictional characters are generally allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles of such characters, but this particular image is not being used in such a way. The screenshot itself is not the subject of any sourced critical commentary within the relevant section so the [[:WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion|context]] required by [[:WP:NFCC#8]] is lacking. Moreover, there are free images of [[:Melissa Joan Hart]] the actress who play the character availble on Commons which could be used to show her if necessary.}} However, I think that rationale is not valid for speedy deletion. I think more input is needed as a free image of the actress is not a good substitute for this image, but I'll leave others to decide. To make matters more complicated, it was uploaded by a blocked sockpuppet in 2010. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''': A freely licensed photo of the actress can be used to show her ("her" in this context refers to the actress, not the character she's playing) if needed, but I don't a non-free image of the character is needed since its main function seems to be decorative. If the file was being used at the top of the article as the primary means of identification, then its non-free use would be OK; however, it's being used in a sub-section of the article about one representation of the character. There's no sourced article content specifically about this particular screenshot, which means that it could be replaced with any other screenshot of Hart as "Sabrina" in order to show her in the role. If that's the case, then there's really no need for any non-free image of Hart as "Sabrina" to be used since there's nothing about seeing Hart as "Sabrina" which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing her as the character would be detrimental to that understanding. -- 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''': A freely licensed photo of the actress can be used to show her ("her" in this context refers to the actress, not the character she's playing) if needed, but I don't a non-free image of the character is needed since its main function seems to be decorative. If the file was being used at the top of the article as the primary means of identification, then its non-free use would be OK; however, it's being used in a sub-section of the article about one representation of the character. There's no sourced article content specifically about this particular screenshot, which means that it could be replaced with any other screenshot of Hart as "Sabrina" in order to show her in the role. If that's the case, then there's really no need for any non-free image of Hart as "Sabrina" to be used since there's nothing about seeing Hart as "Sabrina" which significantly improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that not seeing her as the character would be detrimental to that understanding. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''': No free-use image of the actress would be appropriate to show the appearance of a character as portrayed in the show, which is he point of the image here. There won't be any free-use images of any copyrighted character. This portrayal is significantly different than the cartoon image in the infobox and, in a similar way that that cartoon image illustrates that version of the character, this image does the same for the live-action portrayal. Generally fair-use images should be minimized in articles but this image adds value to this article. Any other screenshot of Hart as Sabrina could replace this one, there will not be a free-use one available so this one is as good as any as a representation of what the character looks like in the show. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 :: It would agree with you if this was a stand-alone article about that particular character, but it's not. I think the guidance in [[:MOS:TV#Images]] is relevant here in that this is an "in-the-body-of-the-article image" which the reader does not actually need to see in order to understand what is written about the character. While I can appreciate that Hart is obviously not the same as the the animated character, I just don't see the [[:WP:NFC#Meeting the contexutal significance criterion|context]] for [[:WP:NFCC#8]] be provided for this particular screenshot. I also don't think tweaking the caption as you did [[:Special:diff/Geraldo Perez/777416650|here]] is sufficient enough to justify non-free use. Perhaps there's some sourced information which could be added as to why Hart was choosen as "Sabrina"? Something about her appearance and how it reflected the way the character was portrayed in the comics which goes beyond the obvious that she's female and blond would help justify the screenshot's non-free use. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 :::The guidance at MOS:TV#Images is more for additional non-free images for the same portrayal. This article is basically a merger of what could be two separate character (in show disambig) articles of the character and just as the infobox character is justified for the animated portrayal the live action portrayal is similarly justified as that would have been the infobox image of a separate article if there were one. Even if there is no commentary about that specific image, I believe it ''is'' contextually significant for this usage and meets NFCC#8 and would be detrimental to this article to remove it. I changed the caption as I wanted to emphasize that this is a character image, not an actor image, the emphasis is on the character's appearance, not the actor's. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 02:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
-::::Wikipedia's definition of [[:WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion|contextually significant]] when it comes to non-free use seems to imply that something more is needed than simply wanting the reader "to see" a non-free file; it has to be essential to the reader's understanding is such a way that not having it would be detrimental to that understanding. Sourced commentary about the image in question somewhere in the relevant article would better connect the article content to this particular image. I don't see how omitting this particular screenshot is going to make anything written about the character in that relevant section difficult for the reader to understand. In fact, I don't see anything in that section about the character's appearance at all. This is why I asked if it were possible to added content about the character's appearance and perhaps why Hart was chosen to portray the character. Why does the reader need to see this particular screenshot for them to understand anything of the content about the character's background or love life? -- 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
+::::Wikipedia's definition of [[:WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion|contextually significant]] when it comes to non-free use seems to imply that something more is needed than simply wanting the reader "to see" a non-free file; it has to be essential to the reader's understanding is such a way that not having it would be detrimental to that understanding. Sourced commentary about the image in question somewhere in the relevant article would better connect the article content to this particular image. I don't see how omitting this particular screenshot is going to make anything written about the character in that relevant section difficult for the reader to understand. In fact, I don't see anything in that section about the character's appearance at all. This is why I asked if it were possible to added content about the character's appearance and perhaps why Hart was chosen to portray the character. Why does the reader need to see this particular screenshot for them to understand anything of the content about the character's background or love life? -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 03:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 :::::Same justification as for the non-free image in the infobox. Infobox character images are generally permitted without commentary solely to illustrate appearance of the character and that is deemed sufficient justification for the infobox image. This is the significant portrayal in another medium justified in the same way, to illustrate appearance of the character as it is different from the infobox image. [[User:Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) 03:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 :::::::This file is no longer being used as a main infobox image so that comparison is not really valid in my opinion. From the article's edit history, it does appear that at one time it was primarily about the character protrayed by Hart, and the file was being used as the main infobox image at least up to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabrina_Spellman&oldid=544004651 this version]; however, it was replaced and moved to the sub-section [[:Special:diff/Shallowgravy/553303908|here]]. Lots of editors simply move a non-free image without really taking into account how it affects the file's non-free use justification. They mistakenly assume that non-free use is "article-specific", and all that matters is that image is being used in the same article. Non-free use, however, is "use-specific" and the non-free use rationale is supposed reflect the particular use and how it satisfies all ten non-free content criteria; therefore, moving a file from one location in an article to another is likely going to impact its non-free use justification. A main infobox image may be allowed because it is assumed that the context for the image's non-free use comes from the enitre article and its sources, and that somewhere within that article there will be (or can be) some sourced discussion of the file per se which better justifies its use per NFCC#8. The same, however, cannot necessarily be assumed for non-free images within a sub-section of an article. For example, non-free content use policy might allow the use of a non-free logo in the main infobox because the logo is seen to serve as the the primary means of identification of the subject of the article. The same non-free logo, however, generally requires a much stronger justification, typically being the sourced of critical commentary, when used within a sub-section of the article and the justification for non-free use for the infobox may no longer be applicable. Per your reasoning, it seems that non-free images could also be added for all of the portrayals of the character listed in the "In other media" section as well. I don't think non-free content use policy would consider such a thing to be permissible without a pretty strong justisfication for each specific use. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)