Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 5

May 5[edit]

File:Logo of the National Assembly (Hungary).svg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 2024 May 12. ✗plicit 11:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of the National Assembly (Hungary).svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

File:Morricone Youth Band.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 06:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded in 2016 as self-made, but appears to be a black-and-white screenshot of a 2012 YouTube video. hinnk (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nath – Zewar Ya Zanjeer (title card).jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. per Aspects (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not being used on infobox, it is rather being used at the bottom of the article to merely illustrate the first season. Thus fails WP:NFCC8 as it isn't really contextually significant. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I have now moved the file into the infobox, since the file that was there was deleted as having being uploaded by a now banned editor. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mann-Sundar.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. per Aspects (non-admin closure) —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_May_5#File:Nath_–_Zewar_Ya_Zanjeer_(title_card).jpg —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 08:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I have now moved the file into the infobox, since the file that was there was deleted as having being uploaded by a now banned editor. Aspects (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vadim Kravchinsky.jpeg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pius XII Catholic Center marker.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image appears to be a slightly-cropped version of one used at this Radyo Veritas online article, dated January 27, 2024 (1:29 pm). Notice the orange-reddish effect at the far right edge that bears striking identical similarity to the original image online. Suspected copyvio. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royce Hotel and Casino10.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: needless near-duplicate of File:Royce Hotel and Casino9.jpg. Redundant. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royce Hotel and Casino8.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFILESTORAGE: needless near-duplicate of File:Royce Hotel and Casino9.jpg. Redundant. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum4.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the two photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rivera Cruz Mausoleum5.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of photographs that are surely post-1970s and are under their original photographers' copyrights. Uploader is not the photographer of the three photos here. Derivative work issue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Redemption Loyola Memorial Park23.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted sculpture. The description itself speaks for itself: "The Redemption 1974 by Eduardo Castrillo". No FoP in the Philippines, and more so, violation of U.S. copyright law. Enwiki follows only U.S. FoP, but U.S. FoP does not extend to public monuments. Worse, it is caught by pre-1978 date for establishment of U.S. copyright over Philippine artistic works courtesy of Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), and was still copyrighted on the URAA date for the Philippines (January 1, 1996). Copyvio, image should be deleted from English Wikipedia. Will remain under U.S. copyright for 95 more years (1974+95+1=January 1, 2070) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:500Rs. Pakistani Rupee.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 currency. See c:COM:CUR Pakistan. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's lifted here, to double check I checked the current 2024 500 Rs. Banknote and it's the same except for the state bank guy, perhaps I'm not understanding it correctly, could you please elaborate?

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free using {{Non-free use rationale currency}}. Wikiacc (¶) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scan of non-free currency which makes this an obvious non-free file. Can't be converted to non-free without running afoul of WP:NFCC#8; Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fastily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:10Rs, Reverse, Pakistani Rupee, 2008.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Whpq (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005-series banknote. See c:COM:CUR Pakistan. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense to non-free using {{Non-free use rationale currency}}. Wikiacc (¶) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scan of non-free currency which makes this an obvious non-free file. Can't be converted to non-free without running afoul of WP:NFCC#8; Upon reviewing the text of the article, I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage. -Fastily 00:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fastily. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reina Sofia Museum Of Modern Art Night view of a visitor tower.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 01:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural photos uploaded by an employee of Ian Ritchie Architects (per User talk:Alex Johns#Ian Ritchie (architect), User talk:Alex Johns#Checking copyright status). One photo has a copyright notice in the description. Based on their talk page history the uploader has uploaded many other clear copyright violations, and these all seem to be photos copyrighted by the firm or photographer, which the employee does not have ability to release under a free license. Consigned (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Tortured Poets Department The Anthology.png[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 23:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC: not discussed critically or needed for educational value, purely ornamental in the infobox, where there is already non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Template:Extra album cover#Template:Extra album cover: "An alternative cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion". The article in which this file is used (The Tortured Poets Department) is an album that was released as both a standard album and a double album edition, and the cover for the double album edition (this one) is absolutely necessary for readers' understanding.

Ippantekina (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Album cover is NOT ornamental, this is the cover for The Anthology double album (31 tracks), and is discussed via any mention of The Anthology in the article. The standard edition cover is only representative of the standard album (the first 16 tracks). Theknine2 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do see this as a unique case where the double album has garnered a significant amount of prominence and significance. The covers are substantially different, and it is difficult to declare one of them more important than the other.--N Ø 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all previous arguments. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TTPD is marketed as a double album. It is normal for it to have two album covers. They also look totally different. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: purely ornamental in the infobox and not discussed critically or needed for educational value? Do you know about a double album cover? Kys5g^talk! 14:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments The Sharpest Lives 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "not discussed critically" is a claim purely unfounded, because The Anthology, with that exact same cover artwork, has been reviewed separately in its own right by multiple publications (with many critics having drastically different artistic opinions on it), even has a separate Metacritic page with that image, and has charted independently as a separate album entry in some official national charts with that image (outpeaking the standard in some markets). Additionally, this is not the first time a Swift album simply has a different artwork other than the standard; all of her albums, including the recent Midnights and 1989 (Taylor's Version), have had cover artwork variants. But what makes The Anthology an unique case is that it is simply not a variant, but a double album re-issue, with a new set of songs worthy of a whole new album annexed to it.

ℛonherry☘ 18:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I'm clearly in the minority in agreeing with the nominator (@Koavf), the 'Anthology' cover art did not receive significant coverage in the same way that the primary/initial artwork did. Although the strength of feeling about the imagery being different is noted, the actual second cover art did not generate critical commentary in the same way that the first one did. No one will look back in years to come and lament the exclusion of the cover art. There's a slight tendancy with popular artists like Taylor Swift and Dua Lipa for fans and editors (because the articles attract large editing communities) to swamp discussions about the necessity of multiple non-free media items. I am absolutely assuming WP:AGF and in no way claim that its a pile on by fans, but if you look at the WP:NFCC rules objectively, I do not believe the arguments given for keeping the second cover go beyond "the second version of the album received critical coverage", the actual imagery of the second cover art did not receive enough critical coverage to warrant "necessity otherwise exclusion harms reader understanding" which is the basic premise for multiple cover arts. I fear this is done decision because of the strength of feeling for keep, but objectively I don't think its warranted IMO. The second version of the album being discussed and reviewed isn't relevant to making the 2nd cover art necessary, notability isn't inherited. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you even know if people wouldn't care about two different artworks in a matter of years? People said this about Revival (Selena Gomez album) back then and the deluxe cover ended up becoming more circulated than the original standard cover. Besides, 'The Anthology' came out a mere few hours after the original cover, so many people are always going to recognise this album as having two artworks because the album only had one artwork for literally two hours. Besides, there is significant coverage of media using The Anthology cover to discuss both TTPD AND The Anthology. Variety used The Anthology cover in their review and Pitchfork used both and even reviewed both parts of the album separately in theirs. This isn't like a deluxe album case where the artworks might look similar so a second cover may not be warranted. The Anthology has an additional 15 songs that belong under the other album cover, and it would be disingenuous to not add it and discount its encyclopaedic significance just because of it. People are going to recognise both covers due to the nature of TTPD/The Anthology being a double album. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 08:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last line. Half of TTPD's tracks (from "The Black Dog" to "The Manuscript") do not fall under the original artwork and are only represented by the double album artwork. ℛonherry☘ 12:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NahNah on their comment on your claim that "no one will look back and ...", could you please explain how would do you know that? That assumption is extremely WP:CRYSTAL. Also, you keep repeating the word "objectively" while stating your opinion. Stating your opinion is subjective, not objective. All of the editors here are giving their subjective opinions on an objective issue. The only objective denominator in all of the arguments made here in this discussion is that The Anthology has received its own individual coverage; the question is whether that coverage is strong enough to warrant its cover artwork in the infobox or not. Let's not try to predict the future—it's not a great argument. ℛonherry☘ 11:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover the extra cover suffices when it either "is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original" or "is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary". If we're strictly speaking about this guideline, the Anthology cover passes the first criterion (it is both significantly different and widely distributed). The second criterion regarding specific critical commentary can be bypassed. Ippantekina (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I'd say The Anthology passed the second criterion too, considering how it has its own Metacritic assessment and multiple reviews have rated it separately. I've never seen this happen for other recent double albums, like that Morgan Wallen record; probably because those albums have been a double album from the start and wasn't re-issued as a double album that is distinct from the standard album on the release day. ℛonherry☘ 10:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This double album cover is also used in the currently updated The Eras Tour poster. It is worth adding to this page so that more people can realize that the photo of the poster belongs to this double album cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.75.191.37 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of articles albums or singles will feature alternate covers for other editions of a release, such as international covers. Because the Anthology in itself is a double album, this album cover is significant and should be kept in the article. Harryh2112 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF - its not a great argument. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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