Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 April 14

< April 13	April 15 >

April 14[edit]

File:Tadej Valajavec Lampre.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

web-quality, no metadata. unlikely to be own work Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2019 (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:Taiwan Flag.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

low-quality, higher quality versions available on Commons Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly redundant file. funplussmart (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2019 (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:Tamanna-7.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seems lifted from web, low-resolution, no metadata Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2019 (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:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as last time; this article not having a copyrighted screenshot of the episode was a prerequisite to its being promoted to GA, and we seem to be moving away from such images in TV episode articles in general. In this case in particular, it should need to go through GAR before any new images are added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the image after The Optimistic One requested it last year (see here). If there is a problem with having a non-free image on this article (of which I can see the arguments), there really does need to be a WP:TV discussion about the use of non-free images in across all shows, I think Hijiri88. I mean, if removing the image is what it takes for an article to be a good article, that suggests to me that having non-free images like this on any episode article is not a good idea, or only on a very few. I'm posting a link to the good article review in question here. --Ted Edwards 12:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, what makes an article a GA is meeting the requests of the GA reviewer. It's a severely flawed system, but it's what we have at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. But I still think starting a discussion of WP:TV could still be a good idea, so I'm wondering what you think. --Ted Edwards 12:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every other episode has a non-free image, why is it only this episode that gets penalised for having one? The Optimistic One (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Optimistic One: WP:OSE. Every other episode should not have a non-free image; the other episode articles either are not GAs, or their GA review was not thorough enough. Articles on episodes of other shows do not seem to have such images: I recall discussing this and hearing as much from someone else on one of the GOT talk pages two years ago, and just now clicked a bunch of links on List of Breaking Bad episodes that bore this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again. It's really not OK that this keeps getting re-uploaded. And we don't need yet another discussion about this: there's no automatic "entitlement" to include a non-free screenshot in episode articles. It's possible that GOT is lagging behind. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: looking at your argument for deletion, I'm wondering if there's been confusion. The image I uploaded being discussed here is a completely different image to the image previously used on the article. I wasn't sure you knew this, but I doubt my comment will change your mind. btw. do you know if there's been a WP:TV-wide discussion about use of non-free images like this? I'm thinking I might start one if there hasn't been one, because I'm starting to think there's not much encyclopedic purpose to these images, which is especially a problem as the images usually aren't free. --Ted Edwards 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, but, as I think you realise, that doesn't really change anything. I'm glad to see that you're coming around to the idea that these screenshots don't serve much encyclopedic purpose. As to your question: There's been plenty of discussion in various NFC fora. I don't know if there's been a large discussion in any WikiProjects, but I'm sure there will have been. I'd imagine, for example, that there's been discussion at the Simpsons WikiProject, as they were ahead of the curve in removing these images. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2019 (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:University College Cork emblem.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: relisted on 2019 April 22. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:University College Cork emblem.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:Ian-mcdonald-3.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect photograph Mileshewitt (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC) This photograph should be deleted; it purports to depict the British music journalist Ian MacDonald (b.1948) but actually depicts the science fiction author Ian McDonald (b.1960). A Google Image search for Ian MacDonald (music critic) vs. (science fiction) reveals photographs of the two men.[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:USB.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative of a logo whose use is licensed by usb.org and probably under copyright. Therefore, the uploader's license is likely not correct. I believe it would be better for us to use a copy of the real logo if we are going to have the image, and I don't think that the image adds much to the Glossary of machine vision page where it is used. ★ Bigr Tex 19:26, 14 April 2019 (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:Proud as a Peacock (1980 logo).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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of one of two versions of the logo for the Proud as a Peacock advertising campaign by NBC. This second image, with no critical commentary or even mention of it outside of the caption, does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and therefore violates WP:NFCCP#8. The boilerplate rationale template also gives me pause, as I doubt that "The logo may be obtained from Proud as a Peacock," nor does the purpose statement about identifying the brand make any sense. ★ Bigr Tex 20:20, 14 April 2019 (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:Ecotricity.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo, replaced by vector version. Cloudbound (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2019 (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.