Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 13: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:48, 13 April 2013 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 edits →File:Peyton-Lucas-Brooke promo picture.jpg: Reply.← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:54, 13 April 2013 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 editsm →File:Peyton-Lucas-Brooke promo picture.jpg: Tweak. And note to B.Davis2003: You are not supposed to remove the listing from here. You are supposed to discuss/debate them.Next edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:
	:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).		:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).
	Violates ]: not discussed critically. ] (]) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)		Violates ]: not discussed critically. ] (]) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
	:The image itself does not need to be discussed critically. Per ], that is only the #9 criteria: "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." I used the the #4 criteria: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Per the #8 criteria you cite (WP:NFCC#8), such images may be used "if presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I used the love triangle image in and notes that the love triangle was promoted by using promotional images, commercials and sexual situations to entice viewers. Whether the love triangle image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" in this case, however, is a matter of opinion. But ], with that image still in the article, the use of the images, were graded as "appropriate use with suitable captions" by a very experienced GA reviewer. ] (]) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)		:The image itself does not need to be discussed critically. Per ], that is only the #9 criteria: "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." I used the the #4 criteria: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Per the #8 criteria you cite (WP:NFCC#8), such images may be used "if presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I used the love triangle image in and notes that the love triangle was promoted by using promotional images, commercials and sexual situations to entice viewers. Whether the love triangle image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" in this case, however, is a matter of opinion. But ], with that image still in the article, the use of the images were graded as "appropriate use with suitable captions" by a very experienced GA reviewer. ] (]) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:54, 13 April 2013

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

File:Internet Championship belt.jpg

Things like this need two licences: a free licence from the photographer and a non-free licence for the belt. The image only has the latter. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The owner of the belt design and the owner of the photograph are the same. He has granted permission to use both here. It's a bit confusing to me. Which licence tag would be appropriate for the image? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

There is no OTRS ticket and the e-mail quoted on that page doesn't mention any appropriate licence anyway. Without an OTRS ticket mentioning an appropriate licence, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

So what would be the appropriate licence? I don't know the formalities. If someone says we can use their work, it seems appropriate to me to use their work. I have no intention of sharing this on Commons, so not sure what a Commons "ticket" has to do with anything. I'll gladly follow rules, but I'd like to understand them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand a bit more now. Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no way to upload, solely to en.wikipedia, an image which isn't completely free to the known universe, without filling out Fair Use rationale, the way we would for an image we don't have permission to use. Even though the owner says we can use the image and belt design, we must still explain how we could justify using it if he theoretically didn't give clear permission, or revoked it. My next step should be allowing deletion and reuploading as fair use. Yes? No? And what exactly is a "higher resolution than necessary"? If I upload these under fair use, can someone claim they're too detailed and remove them or replace them with a fuzzier free use image, even though the owner is cool with detail? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

This image needs to be filled in with {{Photo of art|some free licence provided by the photographer||{{Non-free 3D art}}}}. As no free licence has been provided by the photographer, the image can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg

Things like this need two licences: a free licence from the photographer and a non-free licence for the belt. The image only has the latter. Stefan2 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:OhFather1995.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. The first, because it does not add anything to the reader's understanding and is not being discussed anywhere. It might be a re-release cover, but there is absolutely no reason to add a non-free image just for the sake of it. What next? Remix, etc covers.? —Indian:BIO · 04:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Passes WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 as stated on Template:Infobox album, "An alternate 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.", which could be logically used for singles. Aspects (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are contradicting your own statement. First of all, this cover being discussed is not widely distributed, it has not replaced the original cover as the new artwork and neither is the subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary, hence it does not pass the criteria for inclusion. And yes, NFCC criterions take precedence here. You go on re-adding the covers in every article and frankly I find that disruptive. —Indian:BIO · 15:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 are policy whereas {{Infobox album}} is not, so whenever {{Infobox album}} conflicts with WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8, then WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 take precedence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg

I believe this file requires discussion. It is taken from a Facebook page by an editor in good standing on Misplaced Pages and used to illustrate an article on the eponymous young lady's suicide. I do not believe that the usage qualifies for Fair Use. Wiser heads than mine need to consider this with care. While not strictly relevant to the discussion, editors should note that the young lady's death is a highly emotionally charged area with a police reinvestigation pending. Comments should be made with care regarding the feelings of her family and friends. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:All Stars Football Club.png

Dubious own work: looks like an advertisement for a club. Not eligible for F1 due to different file format. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Indiacom Webpage Screenshot Apr 2013.png

Non-free images are only permitted if removal of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the article, see WP:NFCC#8. This image is hidden by default. This screams that the image is unimportant and that you can easily understand the article without the image. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Woolworths logo.svg

Violates WP:NFCC#3a, see File:Woolworths logo 2012.svg. Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep, we commonly show old logos of organizations and groups. Fry1989 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Blake's 7, Series 4 Logo.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Suzanne Mizzi.jpg

Comes from a newspaper, but unclear where the newspaper found the image. Might violate WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Mabel Strickland.jpg

Photo taken from a newspaper website, but it doesn't say where the newspaper got the image from. Photos used in newspapers usually violate WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Rollergirl-DearJessiesingle.jpg

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 by inclusion in an article where already a cover art is being used and there's hardly any source and critical commentary for this one. —Indian:BIO · 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Peyton-Lucas-Brooke promo picture.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The image itself does not need to be discussed critically. Per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Images, that is only the #9 criteria: "Images that are themselves subject of commentary." I used the the #4 criteria: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary." Per the #8 criteria you cite (WP:NFCC#8), such images may be used "if presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I used the love triangle image in a section that heavily discusses the love triangle and notes that the love triangle was promoted by using promotional images, commercials and sexual situations to entice viewers. Whether the love triangle image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" in this case, however, is a matter of opinion. But during the GA review, with that image still in the article, the use of the images were graded as "appropriate use with suitable captions" by a very experienced GA reviewer. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)