Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6[edit]

File:Mr. Blue Sky - Electric Light Orchestra.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 00:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either a re-upload of a deleted PROD-ded image, or a slightly different one using the same filename. Part of a UK vinyl single that came with a picture sleeve, seen in following sources: blogspot (probably where the image was taken from), ebay, discogs, 45cat. Normally, I would favor using ones coming from an artist's or a band's home country, either with or without a picture sleeve. However, the British picture sleeve is already used in the article and the one I favor over the blue vinyl. Honestly, I don't see why the sleeve and a blue vinyl (in full) should be displayed simultaneously. George Ho (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further argue rule-wise, the blue vinyl is insufficiently supported by critical commentary in context and may fail WP:NFCC#8. George Ho (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the same image to me. Gotta agree it should be deleted as per the previous file’s discussion. —HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... It wasn't discussed. I just PRODded the image, and the PROD was left uncontested, leading to the image's deletion. George Ho (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I guess I shouldn’t edit late at night, haha. —HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different, higher-quality image. Colored vinyl is relatively rare, so it would elicit interest from fans of the song. - JGabbard (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something to elicit interest from fans of the song is not what NFCC would use as one of the criteria. Also, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Furthermore, the label has complex, copyrightable elements, and higher-quality image would fail WP:NFCC#3b (and WP:IMAGERES if it also applies). George Ho (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could be said of almost every picture sleeve ever uploaded. Image size and quality are automatically reduced to the proper standard by a bot. And a second image hardly constitutes a repository. So your appeals to policy do not seem particularly applicable here. Many other song articles feature both a picture sleeve and a side label, whether on colored vinyl or not. - JGabbard (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many other song articles feature both a picture sleeve and a side label. That kind of usage's compliance with NFCC, especially WP:NFCC#3a, is to be evaluated. For albums, normally a front cover would suffice. One of exceptions is Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), which was originally wrapped in black with a sticker banner. For singles, either a front sleeve or a side label. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't see how using a picture sleeve and a blue vinyl complies with NFCC. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether most readers care for a blue vinyl while reading the whole article, and deleting the blue vinyl image still wouldn't affect understanding of the song, would it? Sure, a blue vinyl coincides with the song title (as a marketing gimmick), but even a phrase "blue vinyl" (if mentioned in the article) is not hard for most readers to understand. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George: WP:NFCC#3a prescribes "a minimum number of items," but by no means limits that number to one. It only restricts "multiple items." One additional item does not qualify as "multiple items." The additional image has remained on the article (and on many other such articles) for four years with no quibbling over it except from you. It is an enhancement to the article which I am certain many have appreciated seeing, with substantial interest. - JGabbard (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC allows non-free content only if free content is proven inadequate, but it also forces people to embrace free content (as sufficient and adequate) and restricts use of non-free content. Well, a picture sleeve passes all of NFCC (well, in context of marketing, branding, etc per WP:NFC#cite_note-3) and should be sufficient enough for conveyance per WP:NFC#CS. The British single came with picture sleeve in one pressing and generic sleeve in another. Thankfully, we found that the picture sleeve has still existed.

As for #3a criterion, I don't know why you didn't mention its partial rule, one item can convey equivalent significant information. A picture sleeve and a blue vinyl aren't the same in appearance obviously. However, to me, they both identify and have been part of the same British release, i.e. "convey equivalent significant information", and are also suject to WP:NFC#Number of items. But it's hard to convince you. As I figured, you'd rather find a major flaw in my arguments and then rebut them.

Whether the blue vinyl complies with WP:NFCC#3a still doesn't absolve its WP:NFCC#8 issues. As long as the blue vinyl is proven to be part of the British single distributed with a picture sleeve, I still don't see how deleting the blue vinyl affects the understanding of the song (and its releases) in context. Even without the blue vinyl, readers can still learn what the song is about and associate the picture sleeve with the topic in question. Speaking of context, I tried finding reliable sources significantly covering the single packaging without avail. If fans are interested in other images of single releases, they can use other sources, like discogs, 45cat, and Google. George Ho (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily you champion side labels. While this additional image may not be essential to understanding, it does enlighten the reader concerning the song's promotion in the United Kingdom, where it had its greatest chart success. This side label violates no policy, enhances the article, and harms nothing by remaining in place. My intention therefore is to deprod. - JGabbard (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily you champion side labels. Only if retail releases from a singer's or band's home country lacked picture sleeves. (Nonetheless, you think that a release's origin isn't subject to policy or something like that.) Well, to be frank, if the British release lacked a picture sleeve, then a closeup of a side label, not the whole blue vinyl record, should have been used. In certain cases, I can use a picture sleeve or a label for (overseas) singles if not previously distributed in the singer's or band's home country. (Off-topic, but I prefer a commercially released edition over promo-only release, e.g. It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year.)

My intention therefore is to deprod. You were too late to de-PROD a push-out centre edition of the blue vinyl, but you uploaded a solid-centre edition. This side label violates no policy, enhances the article, and harms nothing by remaining in place. How does the blue vinyl meet #8 criterion's rule, its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? I.e. Why do you think omitting the blue vinyl would harm the understanding (of the song)? George Ho (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed in my previous comment. - JGabbard (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2022 (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:CrosleyField1970.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 ⚡ 14:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free images of better quality exist at the Crosley Field article schetm (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2022 (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:Stalinade.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 ⚡ 01:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work — see c:COM:PACKAGING. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2022 (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:Troski Bio photo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a low-quality screen capture. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2022 (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.