Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10

File:Richard reid 1.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not the work of the federal government. It’s a county jail booking photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2020 (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:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg

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 2020 April 17. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg (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.

Cover arts of Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song)

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 Spain, keep Dutch. czar 06:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I previously brought both images to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 July 17, which resulted in deleting the cover art of the Dutch single (misidentified as Australian) and keeping the Spain one. However, I begin to have doubts about whether the Spain single was commercially released in retail stores. I raised my concerns to an admin who deleted the Dutch one, who then undeleted it, so I'm retaking them both here for my newer concerns. I checked the images from 45cat and discogs, which display labels showing "promotional use only" and "not for sale" in Spanish language. Neither another discogs entry nor eil.com can show more images in detail.

Not only the scarcity of confirming existence of the Spain retail single release is concerning, I'm also concerned about this source being cited for the info about the chart performance of "Hallelujah" in Spain. I don't see the song's Spain performance mentioned anywhere on the page; user comments aren't reliable by Wikipedia standards, so they don't count. The song might or might not have been charted in Spain, but the other source Promusicae neither shows chart history prior to 2004 nor makes singles easier to find as they list singles/songs in just PDF charts. Also, searching for the song in Promusicae website is very time-consuming.

In short, in light of my newer findings and concerns, I decide to switch my favors from the Spain artwork to the Dutch one, even though the song performed well on the Dutch chart in 2016, the year of singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen's death. Alternatively, maybe neither cover art should be used since I could not find any source calling the original Cohen version a "single" but instead a "song" (Rolling Stone, one book, more to search). --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC); edited, 05:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Aspects -FASTILY 06:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the Dutch one is kept, it needs to be renamed, because it is not Australian, thus is incorrect and misleading -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFCC#3a, multiple non-free images being used when one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which image do you want it deleted, Stifle? --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Stifle. As explained before, but in short version, the Spain single (i.e. the second one) may not have been released commercially. Rather the images of the vinyl disc indicate that the record was for promotional use only, not for sale. I couldn't find reliable sources verifying the song being charted in Spain. The Dutch one (i.e. the first one) is the one I rather pick to keep, despite the song not being charted in the Netherlands, because the Dutch single must have been released commercially in retail stores. This goes back to the pre-barcode era (pre-1990s, perhaps?). George Ho (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Stifle, when you said "first one", did you mean either the top (Spain) or bottom (Dutch) image? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first one listed on this FFD, that is File:Cohen Hallelujah Australia.jpg. But I don't really mind either way. My second choice is deleting the other one. One of the images must go. This !vote should not be used to generate a no-consensus keeping both. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete discogs uses user generated content which is often misleading. "promotional" or "promo only" releases are sent to the media and radio stations, they're not available to the public for public consumption and so are often misleading. Plus having a 2nd single cover doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in the article UNLESS there is a specific reason for it. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which image should be deleted then, Lil-unique1: the Dutch or Spain one? --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the top one. Dutch charts and Hungmedian use the bottom image as seen here. If these websites are good enough for charts then they're good enough for the cover too. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, delete the Spain one then. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (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:TodamericaRecord.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: keep. Also consider cropping. czar 06:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1950, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment I scanned this from a 78 record (pre-vinyl LPs) in my own collection in 2003. I'm not too familiar with Brazil copyright law, but looks likely to be copyright expired [1]-- Infrogmation (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In response to the uploader's comment, the image would be still subject to URAA, which restored the US copyright, even when Brazilian copyright would expire next year. Furthermore, the article "Todamerica Records" is still a stub, and I couldn't find reliable sources either giving significant coverage or verifying notability of the record label itself. Maybe print sources do, but it's a long shot. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriately licensed fair use image identifying the subject of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is generally accepted that a non-free image may be used to facilitate identification of the subject of the article like this. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crop out non-free elements If you crop out everything except for the word art of the brand, you can have that as the identifying image and it'd be PD-textlogo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2020 (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:KingRecordJapan.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: relisted on 2020 June 26. (non-admin closure) TheImaCow (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:KingRecordJapan.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.

File:RexRecord.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: keep. czar 06:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#8, missing critical commentary in the article it is used in FASTILY 03:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be in the public domain in the United States (published circa 1940, no copyright notice). However, to record collectors, when talking about record labels (and particularly 78rpm record labels), there is nothing more visually important than the label itself for establishing context. WP:NFCC#8 met by leaps and bounds. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even without copyright notice, the foreign work is still copyrighted in the US per URAA until December 31, 2035, ninety-five years after first non-US publication, i.e. at least fifteen more years to go. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriately licensed fair use image identifying the subject of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2020 (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:FMovies Homepage Screenshot.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this image is actually the poster for Avengers: Endgame, for which there isn't an applicable fair use claim in this article. If it showed lots of different movies, one could make a de minimis argument, I guess, but this is just the Avengers poster with some website structure around it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the use of the Endgame poster seems incidental to me. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - that it's incidental (that it could be any giant movie poster) doesn't make it de minimis. The fair use justification for the copyrighted screenshot used in the article about the website does not include a fair use justification for the poster, which is very much a separate copyright, and using it outside of the avengers article fails NFCC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article mentions the streaming site containing pirated materials, and it's blocked in Australia, Sweden, and India. Those living in these countries and understanding English would be able to see the screenshot, but I'm unsure whether the website screenshot is necessary convey what the whole article says and what the website says, i.e. "contextual significance" (WP:NFCC#8). If the movie material is the issue, then maybe a replacement is needed. However, a premium edition of one of anti-malware software apps blocked the website for possibly containing trojan, so I'm unable to take the risk. George Ho (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the screenshot of the homepage meets criteria #8 of the NFCC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the website logo may be used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2020 (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:HeartcatchPreCure.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: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HeartcatchPreCure.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:Mr Nutz-4 console versions.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is eight pieces of non-free media, which is not necessary. A single screen shot from the Genesis/SNES version to show gameplay is enough. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Since there's no critical discussion on the different versions (only mention of their ratings), the simplest solution would be to crop three of the versions out of the existing image and revdel the old version. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2020 (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 Jersey Devils logo.svg

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 on Commons, marking as resolved -FASTILY 00:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content criteria applied to a simple logo that may not meet the threshold of originality. Compare "public domain" image File:New_Jersey_Devils_1982.svg. One of both is incorrectly tagged. This led to a possibly completely unnecessary edit war at Devils–Rangers rivalry. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a File:New Jersey Devils old logo.svg version on Wikipedia, which also has the possibly wrong licensing. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have nominated the linked Commons file for deletion, as I do not believe that the logo meets the PD-textlogo criteria. Ergo, this is a correctly tagged non-free file. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the Commons discussion isn't resolved yet (we need a better way to handle FFDs which depend on Commons deletion requests)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2020 (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:USS YF-415.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 ⚡ 07:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image is claimed to be Public Domain as the work of the US Navy. However, the provided source for the image is not an officlal US Navy web site and the source credits for the image do not state it is a US Navy photograph. There is no evidence that this is a US Navy image. See also c:COM:Deletion requests/File:USS YF-415.jpg Whpq (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2020 (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:ICD-11 MMS tiny portion.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this image to produce a visual representation of the ICD-11, more specifically the ICD-11 MMS. This screenshot was made in the ICD-11 Browser. The file was tagged for speedy deletion by User:JJMC89 because of WP:IUP#FORMAT, a policy which states:

“

Generally speaking, you should not contribute images consisting solely of formatted or unformatted text, tables, or mathematical formulas. In most cases these can instead be typed directly into an article in wiki markup (possibly using MediaWiki's special syntax for tables, math). This will make the information easier to edit, as well as make it accessible to users of screen readers and text-based browsers.

”

I would seriously beg to differ here. This screenshot is used to provide a visual example of the hierarchy of the ICD-11 MMS, similar to software articles that show a screenshot of the interface. I could've uploaded a screenshot of the entire screen, but that would make the text unreadable, defeating its purpose. Note how the image displays the gray colored nodes, and the maroon colored residual nodes, both which are important elements of the ICD-11 MMS system.

The policy's assertion that content inserted directly into Wikipedia articles is more easier to edit is not relevant here, because the ICD-11 MMS is not supposed to be altered by us.

Also, the ICD-11 Reference Guide says: "ICD is distributed free of charge for personal, research, governmental, and other non-commercial uses. Commercial users of the ICD are subject to royalties payable to the WHO."

Wikipedia is non-commercial, so having the ICD-11 or a portion of it on Wikipedia is fine. Therefore, I would argue that this image is fine and that its inclusion in the ICD-11 article is beneficial towards the reader's understanding of the subject. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is non-commercial, so having the ICD-11 or a portion of it on Wikipedia is fine." → That might very well be the case, but I would like to hear from someone who understands the copyright area really well. If images of the ICD-11 browser are acceptable, we would want a very crisp, sharp, clear image because the display size can be quite small, e.g., on desktops, and images of text require more work to begin with, so we want it to be very easy to read even at a small display size. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the restriction on commercial use means that the file is considered non-free on Wikipedia (which considers licenses to be sufficiently free only if they allow both derivative works and commercial use). However, per my comment below, a mock up that displayed the formatting without the disease data would not be copyrightable. If you create one, you can release it under a free license in place of this image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this image meets the non-free use criteria, specifically #8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". The layout and color scheme is a minor detail in the article, and removing the example does not hamper readers' ability to understand the ICD-11. However, it would be relatively easy to create a mock-up of the format, complete with the colors and the triangles, but using placeholder names instead of the disease information. Since the format that ICD-11 is using is not copyrightable, the mock-up could be released under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Manifestation and Markworthen: see my comment above about a possible alternative that could be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thank you very much The Squirrel Conspiracy. I like your idea! And thank you for explaining the non-free content policy. I've probably read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and related articles/guidance a half dozen times over the last several years, but it's one of those concepts that takes repetition for me to fully understand it (that's just me, other folks probably understand it all much faster! ;-). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:15, 11 April 2020 (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.