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 04:01, 14 April 2013 editInedibleHulk (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users127,482 edits →File:Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt.jpg ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:26, 14 April 2013 edit undoStefan2 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers217,239 edits Undid revision 550176374 by Special:Contributions/B.Davis2003 (talk)Next edit →
Line 106:		Line 106:
	::::The talk page tells that the article ''didn't'' meet the GA criteria. --] (]) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)		::::The talk page tells that the article ''didn't'' meet the GA criteria. --] (]) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, and the GA reviewer's decision clearly shows in the GA review I linked above. But whether or not the article met the GA criteria as a whole is a different matter as to whether or not the images passed the WP:NFCC#8/GA criteria. Like I stated above, the GA reviewer very clearly graded the images as "appropriate use with suitable captions." And since that GA reviewer is so experienced, it would be good to have him weigh in on this discussion and state whether or not he feels that he made a mistake in his assessment of the love triangle image. ] (]) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)		:::::Yes, and the GA reviewer's decision clearly shows in the GA review I linked above. But whether or not the article met the GA criteria as a whole is a different matter as to whether or not the images passed the WP:NFCC#8/GA criteria. Like I stated above, the GA reviewer very clearly graded the images as "appropriate use with suitable captions." And since that GA reviewer is so experienced, it would be good to have him weigh in on this discussion and state whether or not he feels that he made a mistake in his assessment of the love triangle image. ] (]) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
			====]====
			:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).
			Violates ]. See for example ]. ] (]) 15:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
			====]====
			:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).
			Violates ]: essentially just a photo of the characters, but you get the same understanding by looking at the photos in the articles about the actors and in the articles about the characters. ] (]) 15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
			====]====
			:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).
			Violates ]: essentially just a photo of the characters, but you get the same understanding by looking at the photos in the articles about the actors and in the articles about the characters. ] (]) 15:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
	====]====		====]====
	:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).		:<span class="plainlinks nourlexpansion lx">] ( \| ] \| \| ] \| )</span> – uploaded by ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span> \| ] \| ] \| ]).

Revision as of 15:26, 14 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)

But it would still be fine reuploaded as a fair use pic? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

You would still have to obtain a proper licence statement from the photographer and have that licence sent to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's where I'm having a problem. What, exactly, does he further need to do to properly licence the photos? Is there a form he needs to fill out, or certain words he needs to use? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

The photographer should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. As the photographer isn't the copyright holder of the underlying belt, this additionally needs a fair use rationale for that part. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this Lazarchik guy holds the copyrights to the belt and image. Seems that way, anyway. Anything you see suggesting otherwise? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the belt was made by the World Wrestling Entertainment so the copyright holder to the belt would be the World Wrestling Entertainment. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This company makes belts for wrestling companies. The overlay in the corner says who "hand crafted" it. In this case, it seems Ryder personally ordered the belt. It's not an official title, and has had very little recognition (possibly none) on WWE TV. In any case, the company publicly sells many of the exact same belts the promotions use, so it seems they generally have that right. There might be an issue with selling this particular belt, given the Internet logos. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, April 13, 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)

But it would still be fine reuploaded as a fair use pic? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

You would still have to obtain a proper licence statement from the photographer and have that licence sent to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this Lazarchik guy holds the copyrights to the belt and image. Seems that way, anyway. Anything you see suggesting otherwise? I'll definitely show him that template, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the belt was made by the World Wrestling Entertainment so the copyright holder to the belt would be the World Wrestling Entertainment. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This one has absolutely nothing to do with WWE. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, April 14, 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)

The article states "The song was not released as a single in most European territories until December 24, 1995, when it appeared on the 1995 ballads compilation Something to Remember." So it was widely distributed in Europe and it is the cover version that Europeans would expect to see for identification purposes and does not need to be "subject of specific (sourced) critical commentary" since it is being used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. The file use rationale for the image states "This cover meets criteria as it depicts the 1995 single release which is significantly different from the original release." Altogether this means the image passes WP:NFCC#3a. This also passes WP:NFCC#8, since it is being used for identification purposes, that European readers who would expect this cover version over the original version would impair their understanding of the article and would be detrimental to their understanding of the article.

On a separate note, my re-adding of images based on WP:NFCC guidelines is no more "disruptive" than the deletion of images based on WP:NFCC guidelines and is something that should have been addressed on my talk page and not brought up in a file deletion discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In what way does this differ from, say, The Quest for Kalevala? That article only contains the German cover and not the Brazilian cover, the Dutch cover, the Italian cover or the Finnish cover. The main difference, as I see it, is that this is a music product (so that most consumers only hear the songs by listening to radio broadcasts or streaming music on the Internet and don't see the cover art at all and that the cover art thus doesn't help you identify the product) whereas The Quest for Kalevala is a product that you must consume by holding it in your hands (so that the cover art is highly visible and that the cover art thus helps you identifying the product). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 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:So Happily Unsatisfied 2001 Demos.jpg

Redundant to File:So Happily Unsatisfied.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This file is different artwork for demo recordings associated with the album and should not be deleted.--Emgee1129 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:So Happily Unsatisfied Demos 2.jpg

Redundant to File:So Happily Unsatisfied.jpg. Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC) This file is different artwork for demo recordings associated with the album and should not be deleted.--Emgee1129 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Docsity Social Learning Features.png

Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Abracadabra dance.png

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 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)

No, we don't, and especially not when they largely duplicate the current logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 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)

Keep The cover art for the Madonna version cannot help for identification purposes of the notable, sourced Rollergirl version and therefore this image passes WP:NFCC#3a. I do not think I have ever seen an argument that says a notable cover version cannot have its cover art in the article because the original version has its artwork in the article. Since the image is being used for identification purposes, it would readers' understanding of the article and would be detrimental to their understanding of the article, if the image for the notable, sourced version were not in the article, therefore passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- In what way does this differ from The Quest for Kalevala? That article only contains the German cover and not the Brazilian cover, the Dutch cover, the Italian cover or the Finnish cover. The main difference, as I see it, is that this is a music product (so that most consumers only hear the songs by listening to radio broadcasts or streaming music on the Internet and don't see the cover art at all and that the cover art thus doesn't help you identify the product) whereas The Quest for Kalevala is a product that you must consume by holding it in your hands (so that the cover art is highly visible and that the cover art thus helps you identifying the product). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 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)

Delete It must pass all the criteria, not one of them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

~~That is not correct, Timtrent. Read the policy and guidelines; all of the criteria do not apply to every case, and they cannot. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)~~

Oops, in my response to Timtrent above (which I obviously stroke through), I was referring to the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Images; however, as it states: "All non-free images must still meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here." I still contend, though, that whether the image's use passes or fails WP:NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion; this is clear by it having passed during the GA review by a very experienced GA reviewer. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The talk page tells that the article didn't meet the GA criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the GA reviewer's decision clearly shows in the GA review I linked above. But whether or not the article met the GA criteria as a whole is a different matter as to whether or not the images passed the WP:NFCC#8/GA criteria. Like I stated above, the GA reviewer very clearly graded the images as "appropriate use with suitable captions." And since that GA reviewer is so experienced, it would be good to have him weigh in on this discussion and state whether or not he feels that he made a mistake in his assessment of the love triangle image. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Box Set Cover Art for One Tree Hill.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:90210 Season 5 Promotional Poster.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#1: essentially just a photo of the characters, but you get the same understanding by looking at the photos in the articles about the actors and in the articles about the characters. Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:90210 Season 5 Promo Poster.jpg

File:Holditdontdropit-musicvideo.PNG

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Freshpair, Soho, New York.jpg

This document is too small to be legible and is not in use. Dianna (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:1987-1992 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA Cloisonné Nose Emblem.jpg

Violates WP:NFCC#8 in two articles and WP:NFCC#10c in one. Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is my first time responding to a deletion request, and I'm new at uploading. I may have used incorrect selection when describing the image, but it is relevenat in terms of illustrating how the cloisonné technique is used in modern ways, such as mass produced automobiles as the one described. Can you tell me more specifically what changes I need to make to the way I uploaded it to make it more acceptable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBOT Guy (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)