Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

June 25[edit]

File:Australian Antarctic Medal Reverse.jpeg[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 12:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Decorative fair use, lacks critical commentary in the article it is used in. Also noting that a non-free image of the front of the medal, File:Australian Antarctic Medal.png, is already in use in the infobox of Australian Antarctic Medal FASTILY 00:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion located here File talk:Australian Antarctic Medal Reverse.jpeg

Retain as per original retention consensus at File talk:Australian Antarctic Medal Reverse.jpeg. Kangaresearch 07:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons The file image is not identical to the other file image displayed in Australian Antarctic Medal, which is File:Australian Antarctic Medal.png (which is an image of the riband, suspender bar and obverse of the medal face - which is unique and distinct). This file image is of the reverse of the medal face, which is unique and distinct to this medal and not the same design as that on the obverse. The Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criteria policy Criterion 3a states that multiple items of non-free content are not to be used if one item can convey equivalent information. There is no RfC on the interpretation of NFCC 3a, so normal interpretation rules applies.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines equivalent as:

equal in value, measure... effect, significance
corresponding in position, function
that which is equivalent... equal

This image may be related to the same object, but it is not equivalent or equal, it is of the unique and distinct reverse, which is not equal or equivalent to the image of its obverse. Nor is the reverse of the medal of a standard format (like a lot of medals in other countries are, where a common effigy is used), but is specific and unique to this medal (and this medal alone). It also follows the convention in Medal, where both a obverse and reverse of the same medal is displayed (in much larger prominence that Australian Antarctic Medal uses, and unlike in Medal, is specifically focussed on the discussion and design of the medal displayed), and that in Meritorious Service Medal (New Zealand) (which displays both obverse and reverse for two version of the medal), and the British Empire Medal to name a few examples.

Re:WP:NFCC#8 Like the aforementioned article examples, where the obverse and reverse of the medal is displayed, a visual image significantly increase readers' understanding of the written description, especially where ambiguity between the official text description and the engraving itself exist, and its omission would therefore be detrimental to that understanding as a result. Kangaresearch 08:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: Cited concerns are:

WP:NFCC#3a: One item of NFCC can show the obverse side of the medal; however you only get half the picture. The reverse is not 'equal' or 'equivalent' to the obverse; and
WP:NFCC#8: The reverse image of the medal significantly increases readers' understanding of the article. For example, I seriously had difficulty understanding what a worker outside Mawson's hut in a blizzard brandishing an ice pick would look like. The image makes it vey clear.

Further, this discussion has brought no new information to light from the earlier discussion to retain, located here. Rangasyd (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/retain: per my comments on the image's talk page. I disagree with the premise that this is decorative usage. It is being used in an article about the medal itself so is being used to aid reader understanding. If it was being used in an article about a recipient or a peripheral topic, I would agree with the argument, but in this case I do not. There is commentary in the article referring to what the image is depicting and its usage supports this. WRT NFCC 3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." --> only one image of each side is shown. Each side is different, so an image of each aids the reader. WRT NFCC 8, I contend that the image of the reverse side does enhance the reader's understanding of the description in the article in a significant manner as it clearly shows what is being described. Final point, but I'd ask how does deletion serve Wikipedia's purpose? Having the image clearly improves the article and its usage has no detrimental effects as far as I can see. The image is low res and has a valid fair use rationale and the copyright holder would have no objections to its use in this manner (in my opinion). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: the phaleristic image incised in the medal is an inherent element of the article subject's semiotics. As the subject is in and of itself a semiotic, the image cannot be separated from the object and should stay as informational content. Bigturtle (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The usage here seems to be very similar to articles on coins in that we do make use of obverse and reverse images of coins and as such, I would say its usage simply for visual identification is sufficient for WP:NFCC#8. As for WP:NFCC#3a, the two sides are not visually similar so both can be considered for its use as visual identification. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Infobox All of the examples that others are giving where both faces of an object (medal or coin) are shown, they are shown in the infobox, side-by-side, for purposes of identification. If the two sides of this medal were in the same image or side-by-side in the infobox I would have no problem with this image being retained. Down in the article it looks like a decorative use and comes closer to falling afoul of WP:NFCCP#3a and WP:NFCCP#8. ★ Bigr Tex 02:57, 3 July 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:Super Devin.jpeg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pure spam created by a self-promoting NOTHERE. Java Hurricane 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a file hosting backup for your selfies. Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused personal photo. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 05:01, 27 June 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:Nepal's New Map.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of the Government of Nepal. According to the Copyright Act, 2059 (2002), "Government of Nepal shall have the copyright over the work prepared by Government of Nepal."

Does not qualify for fair use, as a free equivalent could be created. CMD (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 25 June 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:Alicia Keys – New Day (song).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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long standing tradition that the only cover arts used for songs or albums are those that are made publicly available with the song or album. This song received a radio release, also known as an impact day release in the United Kingdom where the album track was promoted to a specific date. There is no publicly released version of this artwork. There is a version of this artwork at Discogs cited to promotional copies of the song which are sent to press/radio. However, these are not for public consumption so as the public we're not meant to see these.

Discogs is also user generated content so it can't necessarily be trusted. Chart listings at Ultraptop.be and Lescharts.com also use a completely different cover art. In short, it hasn't been proven that this is a legitimate cover art for the song, without a commercial release (independent from the album), a cover art was not needed to promote the song. Inclusion of the cover art suggests that the song was available to purchase as an independent release from the album. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:05, 25 June 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:Taylor Swift - Wonderstruck Enchanted.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is not being used in the primary infobox. It is in a infobox in a section for a spin-off product. The image itself is not the subject of significant sourced commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:08, 25 June 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.