Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

December 8[edit]

File:UTEP logo.gif[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. New file (File:UTEP Miners wordmark.png) has been uploaded and has replaced this logo in all articles it was in. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 00:48, 8 December 2014 (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 mexico state.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned (in the PD); new file (PNG version) uploaded (File:New Mexico State Aggies logo.png). Note: this is not the same image. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 01:25, 8 December 2014 (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:Ticklish Affair.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film screenshot fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. This is a random screenshot of the two lead characters talking to each other and is used in the cast section of the article, but I assume it is actually meant to be in the production section since its image caption fits the prose there. It first had an image caption of "Despite the "screen chemistry" of the leads, critics did not consider the film interesting family fare." that was changed to "Shirley Jones reluctantly fulfilled her contract despite her reluctance to take on "fluff" roles in a rom-com like A Ticklish Affair. Despite the "screen chemistry" of the leads, critics did not consider the film interesting family fare." Either way the screenshot does nothing to show the film was not "interesting family fare." Its fair use rationale simply states its use is "Illustration", but it is hard to see what it is illustrating. The screenshot could be replaced with words alone thereby failing WP:NFCC#1. The screenshot does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image chosen was essential to the reader seeing what was essentially a studio programmer. In forcing Shirley Jones, then still a contact player, into another rom-com, it hastened the animosity and eventual fall from grace that took place, especially in a year that she was praised for a "serious" role in Elmer Gantry. The image shows that typical pairing of two romantic leads, a place that she no longer wanted to be. The film doesnt quite mean the end of Jones as a leading lady but it came close. Much of the performances by the two leads seems stilted and forced as evidenced by their uncomfortable smiles. Now, a question, do you really think that after careful research of the films that I edit, that I simply want image "baubles" to dress up the articles? This is not the first film image that this particular editor has challenged, all the while, using a "cut-and-paste" justification, such as "... but it is hard to see what it is illustrating." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A change in the position of the image as well as further details in the caption have been made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information was added to the caption and the file's fair use rationale. Unfortunately, most of this information is nothing more than original research. "In the first scene where the two leads have been paired in a romantic encounter, the acting was noticeably forced." I removed this caption sentence that is sourced to a TCM article that says nothing about the acting. These two sentences were added to the fair use rationale: "Illustration of the scene where the two leads meet uncomfortably, illustrating the true-life dilemma that Shirley Jones had to endure as she was forced to abide by contract provisions to do a film she considered "fluff"." and "The leads of a rom-com are shown in the first of a series of uncomfortable encounters. It is clear from the look of Shirley Jones' face, that she is also re-thinking her role in the film.". Nothing is presented in the articles or the sources to show that the two characters meeting uncomfortably was illustrating real-life dilemmas or that the look on the character's face shows what the actor was thinking in real life.

"Much of the performances by the two leads seems stilted and forced as evidenced by their uncomfortable smiles." (From above) This seems to be your own interpretation and nothing more than original research. The simpler explanation is that the two characters are uncomfortable with each other and not that that something happening in the actors' backgrounds is making its way onto the screen. "The image shows that typical pairing of two romantic leads, a place that she no longer wanted to be." (From above) That statement shows that this is just a random screenshot from the film that could be found in any comparable film and does not need to be in the article. There is a lot of interesting information about the production of the film, but it all needs to be properly sourced and even then it does not justify having this image kept in the article to help the readers understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Shirley Jones' book, she specifically describes her feeling uncomfortable in the role. After pressing studio heads to offer her more substantial parts, she felt that pressure was placed upon her to fulfill her contract obligations. She reluctantly took on the role of a romantic lead, but was not happy throughout the film, making it known that she would resist this type-casting in the future. Her screen roles, naturally, and even proposed projects, noticeably shrank, to the point, that after, A Ticklish Affair, Jones was considered an anathema in the industry, with producers and directors shying away from her. Her reaction was to scout out other acting assignments, notably on Broadway, where she revived her career and later as a smash hit on television. Her screen career continued but was relegated to the kind of roles she personally deplored, including Fluffy. She never again had what she considered a "serious" role and never was considered for another Academy Award, after winning Best Supporting Actress honors in Elmer Gantry. I have revised the caption to reflect her opinion about the role she played in A Ticklish Affair with a suitable citation from a tertiary source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a lot of words that are interesting, but you fail to show how this specific image passes WP:NFCC#1 or WP:NFCC#8. The prose you wrote here could be added to the article if supported by reliable sources and replace the image itself. Also this specific screenshot does not help the readers' understanding of the article and its removal would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Aspects (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when there are only two editors involved in an aspect of interpretation, a decision should be weighed on whether the deletion of the image has widespread support. At this point, the decision remains at an impasse, so I suggest that no decision can be made unless others are involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there are reliable sources that actually make the analytical claims brought forward by Bzuk in a citable form, this whole discussion is moot. Neither the present caption and context in the article nor the FUR on the file page establish any genuine need to see this specific picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 21 December 2014 (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:Screen shot Pacific Liner 1939.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film screenshot fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. This is a screenshot of the gangway leading to the ship before it takes off. It had an image caption of "Pacific Liner featured a full-size steamship set." that was changed to "Pacific Liner featured a full-size steamship set that elevated the production to a near- A level feature; the cost of the set was amortized over the years and it appeared again as the setting for RKO's The Ghost Ship (1943)." The accompying prose talks about "lavish shipboard set ... with art deco trimmings." The fair use rationale states its purpose is "This image is being used to illustrate the article on the movie in question and is used for informational or educational purposes only." But by the screenshot showing just the gangway and part of the ship, it does not illustrate a full-size steamship set, a lavish shipboard set or art deco trimmings. Its fair use rationale simply states its use is "Illustration", but it is hard to see what it is illustrating. The screenshot could be replaced with words alone thereby failing WP:NFCC#1. The screenshot does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The set was never of the entire steamship but consisted mainly of interior sections, except for one section that includes an exterior section with the gangplank, which was specifically chosen because it has the name of the ship evident. The text describes the elevation of the B-flic to near A-level status primarily because the studio relented from its usual policy of mundane sets made for use on studio song stages, to create an entire ship in sections that could be filmed. The studio spent so much money on the set that it was under pressure by executives to re-use the set which typically would be broken up. When you see the scene of passengers boarding as seen in the image that is used, you get a feeling for just how expansive the set was. There could be other scenes that would have shown interior views but nothing that showed a portion of the exterior as this image does, and nothing that links the set by showing the name of the film's steamship, "S. S. Arcturus". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A further rationale in an expanded caption is provided for the image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2014 (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:Rolling Stone November 2014 issue.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient justification to use non-free image in Sabrina Erdely (WP:NFCC#8). This is the cover of an issue of Rolling Stone, but the picture on it has nothing to do with Sabrina Erdely, and the large text on it has nothing to do with Sabrina Erdely. Erdely's article is one of five articles listed, and one of the three small ones. This picture adds nothing to our article on Erdely except confusion (what's Dave Grohl got to with this Wikipedia article?). GRuban (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination, the image has been moved to the just created A Rape on Campus and now ... nowhere? Much the same argument holds for the A Rape on Campus article; if the image is unused, it should definitely go. --GRuban (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Layout of articles provides needed context to this entry; limited excerpt from this magazine (less than 1% of this issue's content) and lo-res nature of excerpt makes this certainly fair use. BlueSalix (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't get that. What's the information that we get from this cover that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? Given that the article topic is "Sabrina Erdely"? You've got to look pretty hard on the image at the resolution we've got it at to find the blurb referring to the article, and Erdely's name isn't even there. I'm trying to imagine what reader could possibly say - "I didn't really understand Erdely until I saw that cover!" --GRuban (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's dial it back a little. BlueSalix (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize that sounded heated, not intended so. Still need the answer to the question, though, what's so important about the cover layout that it significantly increases understanding? --GRuban (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if we disengage at this point. Therefore, I decline to answer without prejudicing my position. BlueSalix (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is fair use. That's not the discussion we're having though. It's up for deletion because if violates our policies on the use of non-free content, which are more restrictive than fair use law. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delele - decorative use of a non-free image. We don't use magaznine covers just because an article in the magazine issue was mentioned. --damiens.rf 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly decorative use, and not crucial to an understanding of the A Rape on Campus or Sabrina Erdely articles in any respect. Clear WP:NFCC #8 failure. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2014 (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:Toros in Puerto Rico..JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image. It's a poster announcing a bullfight, used just to make the point that there were bullfights in Puerto Rico. We can convey this information without the use of images. damiens.rf 14:29, 8 December 2014 (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:Somme (2006).jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a theater production staged in 2006, used in article about the theater company. Fails NFCC#8, as the staging and aesthetic choices of the production in question (let alone of this specific scene) are not being discussed in the article, and the image is thus not the object of sourced commentary (beyond stating the fact that the production existed). Also currently orphaned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 8 December 2014 (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:Whopper bar.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's concept drawing of a type of fast-food restaurants. Obvious case of {di-replaceable} but erroneously declined by admin. This type of restaurant now exists (according to the article text), so real-life photos of it can easily be taken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an argument in favor of keeping from the uploader that this rendering is important to show how the concept was intended. But, barring cited presentation that the concept and actualization of the concept were different, I fail to see how taking a picture of an actual Whopper Bar can not fill the same role as this drawing. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated on the image's page, there are no free images of a BK Whopper Bar available on commons or Flickr. As it stands now there is no substitute image available that can be used to provide an example of this type of location. --Jerem43 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Such locations are open in seven different countries. Is there some obstacle to a person walking in and taking one or more photographs of these locations? If not, then we have to delete. We do not keep non-free content when it can be replaced with free licensed content, even if such replacements do not yet exist. See WP:NFCC #1; "or could be created". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hammersoft. Taking a photo of a real one is perfectly realistic. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Burger King establishments have a specific policy that prohibits the photography of the interior. This dates back to at least 2008 and typically establishments have the right to refuse photographic rights and could find such images as a legal matter if they truly wanted to press the issue.Here is an image showing this posted policy. I don't mean to point out the issue like this, I don't suppose you can actually use a "CC-BY-SA" image claim if it actually violates the establishments asserted rights. Anyone providing the photo has already violated Burger King's policy and rights. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though this does not seem to have prevented this, this, this, this, this or this. Given these locations exist in seven countries, the laws of those respective countries likely differ significantly in such a case. After some more digging, I found this (search "Burger King’s corporate office"), which would cast doubt on this being a corporate level policy. Given that BK Whopper Bars "are designed to go into malls, airports and casinos and other areas with limited amounts of space" it's hard to imagine with these non-standalone restaurants they can legally prevent a person standing near the restaurant taking a picture of the design of the restaurant (witness this and this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to all the points Hammersoft rightly raises, whatever legal position the company might be invoking to justify such a photography ban, it cannot possibly have anything to do with copyright – it's not as if the design of a barbecue counter was a copyrighted artwork, of which photographs would be "derivative works" or anything. So, if I walk into such a place, pull out a camera, and the staff don't immediately jump at me and prevent me from clicking it, once I have walked away with the photograph, the copyright to it is mine and I can do with it whatever I want, no matter how many house rules I might have broken in obtaining it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not legal to prohibit photography at a Burger King restaurant in Sweden unless Burger King enforces restrictions on entry, such as requiring its customers to obtain an 'entry ticket' prior to entering the establishment. Even then, Burger King would only be allowed to require photographers to leave the establishment when they start taking photos – Burger King would not be able to confiscate the photographs or prevent their use. I don't know whether Burger King offers this specific concept in Sweden or whether only other concepts are offered. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copyright problem it is a legal right of Burger King to prohibit photography within their (at least United States) establishments by law. ACLU link. Even in Sweden the matter is complex and typically reserved for art galleries, churches, and museums and such - but private entities can restrict photography within their premises. Matters of public places Freedom of Panorama are more broad. Again, its not a copyright matter, but enjoy debating over the merits when replacing it violates the rights of the company. Call it nonsensical or self-defeating, but cameras are ubiquitous and Burger King has a corporate stance against it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously noted, they can not stop a person photographing their facilities from non-BK held property, such as an airport. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is illegal to prohibit photography in public places in Sweden. If you want to prohibit photography, then you must ensure that the place is a private place, requiring you to put admission control in force (for example by requiring all restaurant visitors to obtain an admission ticket prior to entry). As long as anyone can visit the restaurant by merely opening the door and walking in, the restaurant is a public place. This has nothing to do with copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the law of Sweden in detail. For those with USA photos and USA rights, do you understand the difference between public and private property? Even as a tenant in a larger mall, the entity still can exert rights within their own establishments. In all honesty, Wikipedia editors are no different from the general populace in the fact they have little to no understanding of legal rights. One does not wonder why the public releases aren't used instead..... but keep arguing if you feel like it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, these locations exist in six other countries than the United States. We do not have to have an image produced in the U.S. Two, you really think Burger King has any legal right to prevent someone taking a photograph of their location when the photographer is not standing on BK property? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Cough, cough. Below? Moot argument? Free image found? No longer need this one? Don't need to argue over Swedish copyright law? --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Chris' point were to sustain, then the image you referenced wouldn't be "legal". Not that I think the argument holds water. Thanks for uploading it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this is silly. https://www.flickr.com/photos/shinyasuzuki/4914202513 is a perfectly fine free licensed photo. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BK_Whopper_Bar.jpg and replaced image in BK Whopper Bar.

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.