Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19[edit]

File:Adolfo Costa du Rels (color).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: no consensus. Opinions are split on whether the Commons file can actually replace the local file, due to questions about its copyright status Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adolfo Costa du Rels.jpg was recently uploaded to commons and provides an alternative to this image, which is non-free use. DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The license on this image should actually be changed. It's a portrait of while during his service as President of the League of Nations meaning it was taken around the 1930s and 1940s. The given source says it was taken from the LN library in Geneva. Thus it should be public domain under PD-Switzerland-photo as it is more than 50-years-old with an unknown author. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

PD-Switzerland-photo applies only to photos that are not original, a vague concept. This one seems original enough.
We can guess that File:Adolfo Costa du Rels (color).jpg was taken in Switzerland and was published soon after, so it could fall under the "publish+70" term for anonymous photos in Switzerland. But it has "C. Ed. Boesch" written on it, which may well be Charles-Edouard Boesch (18/03/1885 - 08/12/1961) [1]. We have to assume it is not free.
The same type of guesswork applies to File:Adolfo Costa du Rels.jpg, which is assumed to be anonymous and made in Bolivia. It looks like an official photograph, so the name of the author may well have been recorded. If made in Bolivia the author would have to have died 50 years ago, about 20 years after the photograph was taken. We do not know if that is true, so the status of File:Adolfo Costa du Rels.jpg is dubious. Possibly it should be put up for deletion.

Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the latter image on Commons, it comes from an archived link of the official Bolivian chancellery website. The photograph is likely his official photograph as Foreign Minister and would've been taken in 1948. You'll find that in terms of Bolivia, records of any official photographer are at best incredibly rare and at worst nonexistent and even in the best of cases you won't find those records on the internet and would have to be physically in the country's national archives. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governments being what they are, it is quite likely that the official photographer's name is recorded in some dusty ledger. The photographer may also have published the picture in an album of their collected works. The could still be alive, aged 95, and preparing to sue Wikimedia. For a recent photo like this, a claim that the author is anonymous must be backed up by evidence of a serious search in the country of origin. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2021 (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:Dua Lipa - Future Nostalgia The Moonlight Edition.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: keep. Ə XPLICIT 14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC - there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article. The original cover art, which is the primary visual image associated with the album, is sufficient for the purpose of visual identification. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought we kept images for reissues. Glory (Britney Spears album), Fearless (Taylor's Version), etc. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Moonlight Edition is a wide release on all platforms almost a year after Future Nostalgia came out, with a significantly different cover, infobox, and exclusive single releases of its own. Given the significance the reissue has garnered, the new artwork is likely to help readers.--N Ø 03:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the image is NOT significantly different. The stylings etc are the same and it looks like its from the same photoshoot. It's hardly groundbreaking. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lipa's hair colour and costume being different is enough for me, personally. Hardworking as she is, I doubt she dyed her hair in the middle of the same photoshoot. There is also a lot of text on the reissue cover that isn't found on the standard version. They look substantially different and not really like close substitutes for each other.--N Ø 11:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistically the images look similar. They look like a continuation of the same theme/visual concept therefore that doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and WP:NFCC#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". No one is going to be confused or fail to understand an infobox for the re-release if the cover is excluded. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respect people's opinions, but I don't understand how you can say that the new image is similar to the original when in the new Lipa has a different type and color of hair, a different outfit, a different pose and a different scenery. The only thing that remains from the first image is the moon because they placed it larger. The image of Future Nostalgia: Moonlight Edition is different from Future Nostalgia as its material: "We're Good" is an exclusive single from Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition and that along with the other bonus songs escape from the original album concept and collaborations with Angèle, Miley Cyrus, JID, DaBaby, J Balvin, Bad Bunny and Tainy were added... which arguably will give more relevance or notability to this new edition. Alexismata7 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let me quote - "WP:NFCC#3a "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" and WP:NFCC#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". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the new cover is of significant information because it helps to distinguish how the new material is (visually) represented. If we talk about the image increasing the reader's understanding: if I am a person who does not know anything about music or Lipa and I go to a store wanting to buy The Moonlight Edition to be "fashionable", I would end up buying the standard edition because Wikipedia only shows one image (since you want to delete the new one) and I wouldn't realize that I'm buying the wrong edition since they are both similarly named ... 1. Future Nostalgia - 2. Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition. Alexismata7 (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might comment that actually the license rational specifically says "It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone" - we have already established that the album has been re-released, it is mentioned several times in the article. We could easily say "the re-release features Dua Lipa ...." etc and describe the cover thus rendering the cover null and void. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alexismata7 and MaranoFan. DX!talk 16:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments from above. DovahDuck (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; agree with above arguments. The k nine 2 (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (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.