Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

October 28[edit]

File:MRT common.JPEG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but a link to a third party site is Given, Who actually took the photo please? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - That's not a photo, that;s an artists's rendering of a yet to be built transit station widely used in news reports about plans to build the station. -- Whpq (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2018 (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:Edmonton Oil Kings 2018 logo.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: Kept, Converted to have a proper fair use rationale. Maxim_(talk) 14:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed as self, but this is a third party logo design. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the license and completed a proper fair use rationale. Flibirigit (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2018 (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:Dean Burk 1954.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, watermarked, and too low a resolution to be useful in context I think. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2018 (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.

Uploads by Mull0329[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 November 5. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umdlib2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Swensonlobby.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Umdlib.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Maloskystadium.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Kirbyplaza-night.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LendleyBlack wiki2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:LendleyBlack wiki1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

A Night at the Opera screenshots[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 all. ℯ xplicit 05:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free screenshots being used in A Night at the Opera (film). None of the screenshots themselves are really the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the article, so the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is not really provided. The screenshots appears to be primarily to illustrate certain plot points or scenes which seems more WP:DECORATIVE than not, and is not something really encouraged for articles about movies per WP:FILMNFI. I could see using these if there were used to show some particular technical aspect of the filming process, etc., but only File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg seems to try to serve that role; that particular use, however, simply seems to be to visually support a plot description rather than technical commentary on how that particular scene was shot. If further clarification could be provided as to why these particular screenshots need to be seen by the reader other than to try and argue WP:SCENE, then perhaps such content could be added to the article and the respective rationales revised accordingly; otherwise, I cannot see how these met WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER since a textual description of the respetive scenes seems sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The images visually identify cast members and situations descrived in the plot summary, so they are illustrative and not decorative. They are also quite obviously publicity set-ups, and not stills from the film. Publicity shots were regularly taken during the filming of movies at this time, and these shots were widely distributed to newspapers and magazine for publicity purposes. Each image has a proper rationale for its use in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to them as screenshots because that’s how they are licensed. Why did you license the ones you uploaded as {{Non-free film screenshot}} if you feel/felt they’re quite obviously publicity set-ups? The source you’ve cited for File:ANATOcontract.jpg does say it’s a screen capture. It shows the same image with some dialogue text at the bottom which has been cropped out of the upload. The sources for the other files seem to be dead/overwritten, so can’t say anything either way about those two. I they are PR photos, then perhaps the licensing should be changed to {{Non-free promotional}} instead.
Regardless, being widely distributed for publicity reasons or simply used to “show” the cast members is not really a sufficient justification for non-free use in my opinion, unless there was something particular about the way they looked in the film (e.g., costuming, make-up, etc.) that might have been discussed in reliable sources at the time or subsequently thereafter. If you want to just show what they looked like then perhaps there are some free equivalent images which can be used instead.
Now, since you’re claiming that the three you’ve uploaded are PR photos, then perhaps they were never released with a copyright notice or their copyright was never renewed. So, maybe it’s possible for them to be converted to {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Can you provide anymore information about your uploads which shows they are indeed PR photos? — Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific information about the images, but after 44 years in show business, I know the difference between the look of a frame from a film (motion blur, somewhat less than perfect positioning of the people in the shot) and a publicity set-up, where everything is set and the lighting adjusted. It's clear to me -- and, I would think, anyone with experience with these matters -- that these are publicity shots.
As for the licensing, these were uploaded quite a while ago -- did we even have the "non-free promotional" license then? I'm not sure we did. If not, then I went with what was the closest applicable license, or at least the closest that I was aware of at the time.
I also would like to ask: how does it improve the encyclopedia to remove these photos? Isn't that what we're here for, not to blindly follow rules, but to improve the encyclopedia? Or, to put it another way, how does it harm the encyclopedia to have these shots in the article, especially if they're promotional;? What is the animus here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, these clearly fail NFCC#1 or NFCC#8, depending on the perspective. Either what is being depicted is already covered by text, ie. that this and that actor is featured in the film. Or what is being depicted is not being covered by text at all, ie. that something happens in the scene on the balcony or that there is something of significance beyond dialogue in the contract scene. As for File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg, it could potentially pass with sourced critical commentary. As the article says, it's a famous scene so it could be possible to find actual analysis in sources about what happens on the screen or how it was done. "[A] total of 15 people crowd[ed] into Driftwood's tiny cabin" is a complex statement. One can't quite imagine what it looks like without an image. But nothing in the article text necessitates seeing what it actually looks like.

As for Beyond My Ken inquiry about bettering or harming the encyclopedia, the criteria laid out in NFCC#8 is that the absence of these images should make it extremely difficult for the reader to follow the sourced critical arguments made in the text. That is presently not the case. It is obvious how keeping images that fail the non-free criteria harms the encyclopedia. We are only allowed non-free content that meets the stringent criteria in order to keep such content minimal. That follows from the WMF resolution wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Keeping sloppy non-free content is against everything that we stand for.

As such, remove all. File:ANightattheOperaStateroom.jpg can be revisited when the article has sourced critical commentary of what you should be looking at in that particular scene. The question of whether these are screenshots or promotional photos is irrelevant because no one is saying that they would violate WP:NFCC#3b (Screenshots, in theory, are smaller portions of a larger work. Photos are entire works, but the resolution is not excessive) or WP:NFCC#2 (No one is going to not buy the film because they've seen four screenshots. In the case of promotional photos, yes, the copyright holder might actually want to disseminate them widely, but that does not excuse them from meeting the rest of the criteria). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 28 October 2018 (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:Nepalese Maoists.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Querying this, as the credit is to someone other than NIH, and thus possibly a photo agency. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the work of a free lance photographer. The image information states "Credit: Dermot Tatlow/Panos Pictures" which is almost certainly this guy. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2018 (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:Ratna Fha11.jpeg[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 G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low-quality editor-made hand drawn image of someone who lived hundreds of years ago. It is useless at best. WP:OR. Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2018 (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:Nalakuber 129.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 G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a crappy editor-made hand drawn image of a mythological figure. It is useless at best. WP:OR. Deli nk (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2018 (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:Devi Alkapuri 231.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 G5 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a crappy editor-made hand drawn image of a mythological figure. It is useless at best. WP:OR. Deli nk (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2018 (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:SEAG Mascot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of 2019 Southeast Asian Games mascots being used fort he stated purpose of "The subject of commentary as one of the core aspects of the branding of the 2019 Southeast Asian Games". However, the actual commentary in the article is a single sentence. That is hardly significant commentary nor is the sentence really about this being a cor marketing concept. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2018 (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.