Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< December 20 December 22 >

December 21

File:Unoficial Flag of Spratly Islands.svg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unoficial Flag of Spratly Islands.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GEOGIA (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Out of project scope. Image is not used in any articles. There is no place for a fictional, made-up flag

Wikia is host to many role-playing fantasy wiki sites, and they might be a better host for this file. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:41, 21 December 2013 (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:DC-edit-a-thon-20131208-mlk3.jpg

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 Dominic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:DC-edit-a-thon-20131208-mlk3.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fisherjs (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Subject of photo requests deletion ... :) Djembayz (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (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:Seruwagi ronald.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seruwagi ronald.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Seruwagi Ronald (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. No foreseeable use.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2013 (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:PureSerenity2006.jpg

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PureSerenity2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hoppahop (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused. No foreseeable use.

Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2013 (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:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv

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. Overall, I consider the delete arguments, outlined by

WP:NFCC#3, and in particular, I'm not suggesting a shorter clip should automatically be deleted. This was a lengthy debate that was very close, and I'd like to thank everybody who participated. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darkwarriorblake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete A single screenshot showing gameplay would be acceptable, but not this. Aspects (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you basically just didn't read anything above then? It is completely and utterly justified. I won't get into the obliviousness of expecting a still image to demonstrate gameplay. Just seems like double standards, one for films, one for games. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most films don't even have a screenshot; the extremely rare case of using video is to show a directorial or production technique (one example off hand I think was over at
Star Trek First Contact
.) It's not a double standard. --19:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious? Films are films, they don't need video, they are video, unless something is extraordinary why would they require a clip? We use clips to show what NEEDS to be seen and most films do not require this, games are not comparable to film, they are a wholly interactive experience and employ mechanics that cannot be considered standard knowledge. The purpose of video is to show what cannot be effectively conveyed in text alone, which is why film articles have them when necessary. The immediate response to a video in a game related article being "Fuck it, throw in a screenshot", is a double standard. That it is immediately invalid because it is video and that a screenshot like those linked above, a staged, still image showing Batman mid kick, is somehow even remotely comparable. You make a decision about something you apparently know nothing. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The VG project has long been able to provide feature articles on games without resourcing to videos. I see nothing special here that one or two screenshots would not also show. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The VG projects majority of featured articles are OLD, before the means to make video useful and videos are NOT a requirement of being an FA, so an FA lacking a video and noone during nomination withholding their vote because of a lack of video is not an endorsement of no video. If they NEEDED a video, I would expect noone to NOT vote for it to become an FA. I'd be less irritated about this being nominated for deletion if one of you could muster an argument that could not be disassembled in less time than it takes me to click 'EDIT'.DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Video game articles continue to be nominated at FAC and passing without needing video. The argument that a video game article "needs" video is bogus. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything like that, try re-reading it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter the age of the video game. (And technically all older games now can be recorded to video). We have had several recent, in the age of Let's Play, video games pass FAC without the video. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, I didn't say they cannot pass without video. I said that having video would not stop them passing. Having video is not a requirement nor is it opposed. OR WE WOULD HAVE A GUIDELINE SAYING. I have to pull out
WP: OTHERSTUFF again, that says because stuff exists without video is not an excuse to not have video. If you're so sure that the article cannot pass to FA with the video, then switch your vote to Keep, and let them hold it back. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, I would suspect a video's inclusion in a FAC where otherwise screenshots would do the same job would fail FAC, due to excessive non-free. FACs strongly review all non-free inclusion and pass/fail will depend on that. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet if you click on the FAC nomination for Dredd in my signature, no comments complain about the video on that article one bit. Because a video and image are not mutually exclusive. I guarantee you that Arkham origins could pass FAc with the video, I've passed film and game articles, I know how to do Fair Use, which is why I am boggled not only at your rabid opposition to improving the quality of game articles where possible but your lack of comprehension of the Fair Use rules you cite with such abandon. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Dredd video and clearly its reasonable there. It's describing a unique slo-mo effect that the visual style is critically discussed in the article. You need to see the video to understand that effect as it is not easily described by words or a single image. This is not the case for the Batman game sample which can all be done with words and one or two images. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You CAN'T describe slow motion but you CAN describe a unique combat system is what you are saying? Mhmm. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows what slow motion is, but the specific approach they took with the motion in the film is not easily described (with all the various visual filters); as the article goes on to discuss how this was filmed and how it was taken critically, that fully supports NFCC#8 to require the moving video format to see that. The combat system in Batman is not unique (its the same as from previous games and also similar to ones in God of War and Wolverine, to name a few), and the visual approach of the motion is not discussed in a critical manner. The reader can understand the combat system without seeing it in motion action. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The specific approach they took is slow motion. You can dress it up how you want, the understanding is easy enough, the video compliments this understanding, not supplicates it. You say the combat system is the same as other games. A) No it's not or people wouldn't cite it as a strength of the Batman games alone, and the number of games that reference this combat system grows with every action game review. B) The video is not just showing combat, as I stated, it's showing about 7 different gameplay elements in one single file. You act like everyone has a £200 graphics card to capture video with, and that had they possession of such equipment they would still always opt for a screenshot that is as equally NFC as a video. You claim a lot of things Masem when I thought you a much more reasonable editor, yet no guideline exists on this site that says a video is equal to 50 screenshots, no guideline that says a video must be yay big to be acceptable, there is nothing that opposes the inclusion of a gameplay segment of video in an article apart from your personal opinion, the nominator has up and disappeared, his own shaky arguments decimated, yet I am forced now to spend my free time after work defending the innocent. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly are missing the issue here. If you can describe an element by a free or freer medium (per NFCC#1) with no loss of understanding, you must replace the less freer with these freer versions. Yes, the video is nice, but I can take it out and stepping into the shoes of someone that hasn't played the game, can still understand all the gameplay elements because they are common english words. Ergo no understanding is lost here and thus the video is unnecessary. You can't do that with the Dredd film clip due to the abstract nature of what the user is supposed to see. This is not personal opinion, this is NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've missed nothing, there is no free alternative, your argument is to replace one NFC with another NFC, images are not freer content, where is that stated anywhere Masem? Nowhere. Each deleter is arguing that we remove a NFC content and replace it with the exact same thing that achieves LESS. The idiocy is terrifying! DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A video is higher fidelity than a single image, and ergo if an image and text can do the same as a video, we replace it. That's NFCC#3b. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3B states, and I quote: "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." The key part here, and the part you are not actually reading properly is "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement)". Low bit-rate, low resolution, low fidelity, especially where copyright infringement can occur. Copyright infringement cannot occur with this video. But more importantly, nowhere does it say, an image is a better alternative to a video, because they are both NFC. You do not know what you are talking about Masem, stop embarrassing yourself. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a single low-resolution frame is of lower fidelity than a short low-resolution (which, BTW, this isn't) video clip. Period. One screenshot verses many. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What definition. Where does it say it? STOP saying these things as if they are fact when it is apparently just your opinion. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A single non-free image is less of a non-free taking than a non-free video. NFCC#3 is not just about counting how many times an article draws from the non-free part of File namespace, but how much of that non-free is taken. We don't use video if a screenshot works; we don't use a screen shot when text would sufficient. I can't see how policy can be clearer about that. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the policy doesn't say that, at all, I'm not sure why you're still going on about it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just quoted 3B. It clearly states this, not in the exact words I used but it's an obvious result from it. A single image is just "a portion" of a video file, and as such is better. It also comes from NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It doesn't say this, at all, but I am interpreting it to support my stance". You're boring me Masem, you've had your say. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd base my position on saying something is "obvious," since that implies I and only I have the proper and correct interpretation. And to give an example using myself, I'm a college educated, veteran journalist and eight-year Wikipedian, and my interpretation of these portions of NFCC is different from yours. In all honesty and sincerity, my knowledgable opinion doesn't find your interpretation "obvious." You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but claiming something is "obvious" suggests it's not opinion but irrefutable, unassailable fact. That's not true. It is only your interpretation. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My opinion is that the uniquely edited clip is an example of the transformative factor, in which, as delineated at Stanford University's "Copyright & Fair Use" guidelines, to use one highly
    RS cite, material taken from the original work has been transformed by adding new expression or meaning — in this case as an educational example that adds value to the original by creating "new insights and understanding" that still images in no way would. And while there is no bright-line test for de minimus use, 48 specially edited seconds of a 12-hours-or-more-long game would certainly seem to fall within that — if a few seconds is not de minimus, what is? Substantiality is also a factor, and these seconds aren't of any so crucial to the plot that it would be a spoiler, and aren't anything at the heart of the game. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That actually seems an interpretation of something NFCC itself doesn't say. "Video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license" are allowable under the defined conditions. There's nothing whatsoever here suggesting this only refers to a clip running incidentally in the background. The guideline clearly allows non-free video clips to be used when needed for encyclopedic contextual significance, as is the case here. And 3b certainly is about de minimus: "Minimal number of items...Minimal extent of use." As is the case here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • False equivalency, a film is not X x number of JPGs. So any film on any article is 3 dozen NFC images? No it isn't. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, since one could also simply post the X frames in a large montage to show the same thing, plus the audio atop it. This is why we weight heavily against the use of video (plus additions for accessibility and the like). --MASEM (t) 19:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. No one would get away with posting a large montage of NFC images unless each and every one had a full justification. There is no weighting beyond your own active imagination, and every video supplies a preview image, acting as a screenshot for anyone printing the pages out, accessibility is not an issue. Next argument. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they don't have the software to play the video, the video image may not be shown. (Depends on software, of course). And yes, we do weight videos that heavily. If the video can be replaced with a very limited number of screenshots, then the video is excessive. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite anything you are saying or is it as made up as the 30 seconds thing below? The video cannot be replaced with screenshots. Go find me an image that shows detective mode, gliding, combat, gadget use, demonstrates the art design, sound, and new combat rating mechanic. Go do it Masem. I will paypal you £100 right god damn now if you can do it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're starting on the false assumption that we need to see all these elements visually to understand the game. That's not correct at all. Readers are not stupid - if you say one move Batman has is a glide kick to strike an enemy silently from above, you don't need to visually see that. The only thing from all the major elements of the game is "Detective Mode" which is not obvious what is meant, and thus reasonably to show a screenshot of that. This is what is done on the Featured Article Batman: Arkham Asylum, the rest of gameplay is described in text, and that's sufficient for our purpose as an encyclopedia and not a game guide. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To comment on Tenebrae's point - there's certainly no prohibition of using a short video (<30s or so) of a multi-hour video game to show the game off; that would fall under fair use defense within the US. The issue is that within our non-free policy, most videos of video games can be replaced with text and a limited number of screenshots, which is considered a reduction of non-free media per NFCC#1 without losing understanding of the topic. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. I'm going to ask you to stop talking, you've stated your opinion and it's all made up, and you continue to make things up. There is no prohibition of ANY length of video mentioned anywhere, there is no cut off point that says you can't use a 50 second video, and it is 50 seconds. And replacing a video with a screenshot is not MORE FREE, there is, again, no guideline that says one video is equivalent to X Screenshots, if you're going to continue to make remarks, at least stick to the truth and not these falsehoods you continue to pedal. NFCC 1 does not say "Replace video with images where possible, this is a reduction of non-free content". WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT!? Where does it say that ANYWHERE on this site? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are showing an insufficient lack of understanding of why we have a non-free policy and the free content mission set by the Foundation. It is not just about checking off 10 points listed in NFCC and going on your way. No one is saying you can't show what the game looks like, but we are saying that you can do it in a freer manner than showing a video clip from the game without losing understanding of the broader picture of the game (again, we're not here to be a guide for how to play it but to give a broad overview of the importance and notability of the game to the field of video games in general). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I so regret involving you in this, I didn't think you were this obtuse. A copyrighted image is not freer than a video, it isn't, and a video isn't equal to 3000 images, it isn't. It is not a guide video, there is no instruction, there is no dialog, that's a pathetic attempt to undermine it's given purpose, you continue to be an embarrassment to yourself with your lack of both evidence and underhanded lies. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, audio and video samples are to be limited to 30 seconds, so 50sec is far too long. One screenshot would show what the video is attempting to do, maybe with a bit more text to establish content but nothing out of the ordinary. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You disappoint me Masem. 30 second claim is going to need a cite as it is only applicable to audio files. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a reasonably metric to apply to videos too. OTherwise, the argument leaves us at "10% of the length" and that would imply 1.2 hr of footage could be used before we exceed that, and no that is not going to happen. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it a rule or not? I didn't ask for your opinion on reasonable length. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • At some point we had this for video (in addition to audio) but I cannot find it. However, I would expect it to be the same, as otherwise, I could get around the audio limitation by getting a music video of the song and exceed 30 sec. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And yet clearly that limitation does not exist, again I'm not interested in your opinion on video length. It's either a guideline or its not. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure it's appropriate for an editor to make a claim about a purported guideline that doesn't appear to exist. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Videos include audio. Are you suggesting that only the audio should be cut down to 30 seconds and that the rest of the film clip should be silent? That would just confuse readers. --
                  Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
  • The free flow combat system is independently notable, it has its own name, is the focus of gameplay, it is the focus of reviews, it is a singularly identified component of the game as is the detective vision mode and gliding, all these things are noted aspects of gameplay for each of these games, each of these things and more is demonstrated in this single video that it short, shorter than the file below and shows more than 10 screenshots. You ARE a game player, you have no idea how useful the video is to the non-game player. If you're telling me Ōkami couldn't benefit from a video, you're a liar. What the hell is this?DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not needed. One image + text is much better from an NFC side than a video. Only if it becomes impossible explain the events of the video by text should we resort to video.--MASEM (t) 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video meets the NFC guidelines set out at the start of this discussion. I do not care if you like it or not, it meets those guidelines and has a sufficient NFC rationale, so yes, is needed. I notice you haven't done as I asked and found me this magical image that demonstrates all these things yet. You can't? Didn't think you could. Video is to compliment prose, it is not there simple if it is "impossible" to describe, you're making up new qualifiers as you go. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, that Okami image is a god damn blurry mess with a black cirlce and half a fox? What is going on in that screenshot? I say that as someone who has never played the game. How could a 10 second video harm that article? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's described in the text. And that's the part you're missing; its the combination of text and image and video that has to be evaluated to see if any can be reduced. If a video can be replaced by text and images, then we do that because videos harm our free content mission moreso than simple screenshots. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I read the text, the image is still useless. Is the black thing the celestial brush? If so what is it doing there? Is it attacking the Fox? I do not know. But to you, assuming you have played it, it makes sense. It does not at all to me, someone who hasn't played it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're clearly not reading it as the caption explains what's going on. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, much more logical that I, the person who hasn't played the game and has read the caption and seen the image, am the one who is doing it wrong. After all, people who haven't played the game are not the target audience for our articles. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text talks about a ink brush to draw to perform actions, the picture clearly shows the inkpot and brush, and the ink circle is around a wilted tree, with the caption talking about restoration. Yes, clearly we're attacking the wolf with it. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Where is the ink pot in that image? Where is the brush. Where is the tree? You. Are. Speaking. As. Someone. Who. Has. Played. The. Game. I do not see an inkpot in that low quality image, the tree is obscured by the black stuff and the black stuff is a black streak that is coming out of the body of something and into a plume of smoke. I am telling you. As. Someone. Who. Has. Not. Played. The. Game. That image makes no sense to me. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And my video has a more sufficient fair use rationale. That article wouldn't pass FA anymore. In fact, that article could do with an FA review.DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you're approaching personal attacks (by targeting an article I worked on). BTW, just having a rationale doesn't meet it passes NFCC, as that rationale can be disputed (the case here). --MASEM (t) 21:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What personal attack? It's a poor article, it doesn't deserve to be an FA by modern standards and that should be rectified. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to move for this discussion to be immediately closed in opposition of the original nominator? The video has a complete fair use rationale, meets the requirements of
    Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Video. There is no reasonable excuse to not retain this video beyond personal feelings. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete video: WP:NFCC#3b specifically says: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice". Ergo, a screenshot from the video would suffice for the purpose of Wikipedia and therefore the entire video is not used. --
    ЛееСуда. 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: there was a second discussion opened up at
    ЛееСуда. 01:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Like the OP, I fail to see how a video is worse than a screenshot wrt NFC use. And even though I'm not a gamer, it's quite obvious to me that a carefully prepared video snippet has dramatically more value to a reader of the article than a screenshot could have, and an editor should be free to decide how to illustrate an article as he or she sees fit. To me, this looks like template wielders heavy-handedly imposing their will on article writers, again, reducing the quality of Wikipedia.Nettings (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nettings, if you are supporting the video could you please add a Keep to your message? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 07:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ТимофейЛееСуда has both blatantly ignored my comments at the NFC review which state that there is no distinction anywhere on this site between a video and image and that the video DOES MEET 3B, and has chosen both to ignore that and comment against the file here, but attempt to prevent further discussion elsewhere. Clear case of abuse of power. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 07:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear violation of
    NFCC#3; a screenshot and text could just as easily illustrate the gameplay. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Clear how? How is one NFC better than another. How can one screenshot illustrate the same things as the video? You all keep saying this, not one of you can back it up, either how it fails 3, which it doesn't, how one NFC is preferred over another, it isn't, and how a screenshot can illustrate what this video can. This is insane that these people are allowed to have opinions and cite rules when they don't understand the meaning of those rules. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 07:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC#3b is pretty clear that anything that is lower resolution or lower fidelity or less of a taking from a larger work is more desirable as long as the same educational understanding can be achieved. A screenshot is better than a video clip in this regards since none of the gameplay elements are difficult to explain. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't clear, you are manipulating it to meet your own ends. It says exactly this "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." There is no wiggle room, it does not say replace anything with anything else, it says that it should not be an entire work, it says that low resolution/fidelity/bit rate are better than high resolution/fidelity/bit rate. It does not say replace a video with an image, it in no way says replace a video with an image, it does not say what you think it does, it doesn't say anything of the sort, and it is inappropriate to keep citing in when you clearly do not understand it. The video is within the guidelines of video usage, if the bit rate is an issue it can be reduced but 3B does not support what you want it to, stop using it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this apparently being a clear rule, you and your side are unable to cite a single guideline, policy, rule or established consensus that says what you want 3B to say. Not one single thing. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking for something that, by the way WP's policies and guidelines are written in a descriptive manner, is not going to exist. We are not going to have exact rule language that says "A screenshot is better than a video file to meet #3b". Instead, one has to interpret how these are applied. In the past, no one has had an issue understanding how a screenshot is better than a video file because 3b's intent is quite clear on that. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isnt. It says low bit rate. I don't why you aren't getting this, but one piece of NFC is not better than another, and you have nothing and continue to provide nothing that states a NFC image is preferred to a NFC video. Your problem seems to be you normally just get to bully people by saying "3B says" but have never been challenged on the fact that it "3b doesn't say" before. The video is less than the file size required, if needed its resolution can be reduced, its bit rate lowered, but it falls within the parameters for both video and 3b, and again still, you fail to provide a screenshot that does that the video does. You're a bully and a liar Masem, in the face of blatant evidence that 3/3b doesn't say what you want it to, you just keep repeating it. When I move to close this deletion discussion because 3b doesn't apply, you moan about it. If you want 3b to say that, you should change it, but it doesn't, it actively endorses BIT RATE/FIDELITY/RESOLUTION, it does not say an image is better than a video nor does it include your abstract interpretation that a video is a thousand tiny jpgs. Yet you refuse to accept this reality and continue to comment here well beyond the time your involvement became superfluous. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And here you prove you're trying to find exacting language about this. That's wikilaywering. You must learn the intent of these criteria, not the letter of them; that is how policy is applied. And arguable "a portion of a work would suffice" applies to a screenshot vs a video file, if that's not abundantly clear. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, even an abstract interpretation of 3b doesn't say that an image is preferable to a video, even a generous interpretation of 3b does not say that an image is preferable to a video. It says bit rate, am I taking crazy pills here? The video does what a still image cannot, it meets the requirements of NFCC, why are you fighting this? Just to win at this point? You continue to parrot on here without returning to me with guidelines/discussions/rules anything that even remotely supports what it is you are claiming, or this screenshot that can do all you say it can. Your involvement in this discussion is no longer required Masem, you can add nothing, you're too used to bullying people with 3b to contemplate you are wrong about it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you not read "Don't use a whole work when a portion will suffice" and not come away recognizing that a screenshot is much less an issue than a video file, assuming both serve the same encyclopedic purpose? --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because a 50 second video of infinitely repeatable content from a 12-25 hour is a 'portion'? It's an insignificantly minor piece of the game even if you went with the lowest hour estimation using unspecific content, it is not the whole work, nor is it a whole trailer or gameplay video ripped from youtube or anything else. The real question is how that isn't a portion to you. And if the video is not played, it is no different than a screenshot, you are seriously strainin' to do some 'splainin'. If it wanted an image, it would be just a tad more specific than that, instead it is deliberately applicable to ANY usage of NFC that can be used on Wikipedia, images, sound, and video. You know this is true or you wouldn't feel it necessary to keep trying to justify yourself. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 16:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And a screenshot is a portion of a video file, so that's even better. And no one is say "no NFC can be used on this page". Art elements, etc. can't be easily explained by text. Detective Mode is also not easily described by text, so non-free imagery to help the reader understand these more abstract elements are good. We're saying that one does not need to see the actual motion within the game to understand what resources are available to the player when in combat, as things like punching and gadget use and counterattacks and takedowns are common, straightforward terms that don't need to be visually seen to be understood. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The combat is independently notable, don't know how many times I have to say that, it should be visible to non-gamers. Your complete bias is as a gamer, you understand so screw anyone who doesn't. You're also talking about using multiple items of NFC to replace one. Video or Image, there is no guideline that suggests one over the other, just that it is appropriately used and as minimal as it can be. The guidelines are actively NOT against the usage of video, especially when the video has a defined purpose, use and a justification. The video DOES NOT fail 3b, and so the basis for this deletion discussion is null. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 16:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally ignoring the fact that some of guidelines in
WP:NFCC is probably in consensus by typical editors in discussion pages (like you). If it was agreed on by User:Jimbo Wales maybe I would describe something that can avoid IAR with that but I will agree to disagree. This guideline is decided by majority of editors just like any guideline. Jhenderson 777 15:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
NFCC is a policy and perhaps one of our few so-called "super-policies" like BLP and COPYVIO that allow exemptions from edit warring to maintain to a degree. They are required for en.wiki to have by the Foundation, which has more say than Wales (though historically Wales helped to shape NFCC from the start). --MASEM (t) 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legal threat to Wikipedia from this video, so there is no justification to evade discussion and get rid of this by fiat. And to those who say "a screenshot of a video would suffice": guys, think twice (or once, at least). This editor created a video as an excerpt of a game to show details of gameplay. So the game is the whole work. The video is an excerpt of this, under fair use. To just yell "video no, screenshot enough" does not really indicate that any higher brain functions were used. But I have no doubt that somewhere there is an "excerpts of excerpts are mandatory" policy than I'm sure someone's gonna dig up. Keep (however stupid those pseudo-votes are).Nettings (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It harms the free content mission of the Foundation. This is why we seek to minimize non-free use whereever possible to minimize the harm to the freely redistributable work. It is true it is not as much a legal issue but in staying to the vision of what the Foundation wants. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree, since the gist of most of User:Masem's argument, which he makes in good faith, would apply to any non-free video clip whatsoever. NFCC allows "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available." There is no blanket prohibition, or virtual blanket prohibition, as seems to be suggested.
And here's something that's been lost in a discussion that's been largely by, from what I gather, video-game fans and not general readers: A video game is an interactive audio/video experience, and so it's reasonable to deduce some aspects may not be sufficiently described by words only. I am not a video game player — and so much of the language used to describe the game experience is completely lost on me. ("Chained attacks"? "Finishing moves"?) A non-gamer has no idea what any of that means. And forcing readers who aren't video-game fans to go look up terms in a video-game dictionary to understand the article isn't reasonable when a few seconds of audio/video illustration makes something clear and encyclopedic. That, I believe, is fulfilling the mission of the Foundation. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the argument being presented. I fully support the use of the clip at Dredd, and in the FFD below, I also support the use, but because both 1) show an audio/visual experience that is not easily described by text or a small # of stills and 2) is a sequence/scene critically commented on in secondary sources to strengthen the NFCC#8 requirement. It also helps that these are directed sequences carrying the vision of the creator. On the other hand, the issues with video game clips is that very often, you can demonstrate the mechanics with a text, a screenshot, or referring to one of the many gameplay mechanic articles we have; secondary, it is rarely the animation of a game that is critically discussed; art style, yes, but that's conveyed by a screenshot, video not needed. Further, unless we're using the developer's own video, there is no directorial control on the output, so the scene is not filtered to necessary show the developer's vision. To the point that the non-gamer may not understand things like chained attacks or finishing moves, this video doesn't help because it shows all of these without a filter. I'm not saying this is necessarily an exceptable replacement, but if one showed the tail end of the video, where Batman finishes off the last man, where it switches to slo-mo, whereas we can then say "this is a finishing move", that's infinitely more helpful than a random battle otherwise. But we can also explain this that when the player defeats the last foe, the game goes to a new angle and slo-mo to show this last takedown, via a still and text. And as one additional point - our video game articles are less focused on the details of gameplay and more on the game's history and legacy; plot and gameplay are their to help the reader, gamer or not, get a flavor for what is going on. Other sites do the better job of gameplay breakdown if needed, leaving us to focus on the important sections that all readers, not just gamers, can appreciate. Hence why using a video clip begs if it is really helping the majority of readers, most who aren't gamers, if we're just using it to document gameplay elements. --MASEM (t) 19:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your trying to help, but the explanation above is itself confusing to a non-gamer. I know what "filter" means in other contexts, of course, but not what it means here. And I'm not sure how anything called "chained" — which I presume means several related things happening in inextricable order — can be demonstrated without a video or a series of stills, which would seem to be unwieldy and take up an awful lot of article space. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody avoid everything what I said beside the compromise. If you can think of a better replacement for the video. Maybe you should show us. BTW I know NFCC is a policy but that doesn't mean every guideline within that policy is. Like the one that all you editor's are pointing. Maybe that's the one flawed guideline within there. It obviously had to go with a lot of consensus for each and every part of the policy without realizing that not everything will be clear for future editors like what's going on now. Jhenderson 777 20:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've already identified the compromise position - using a screenshot to show unique, hard-to-describe elements like detective mode (As used on the first Batman game). Members of the video game project have been able to develop articles on video games w/o resorting to non-free video use before, and there's nothing special about this case, given the quality of the first two articles. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a compromise, it's just doing what you say. People have been able to stare at the moon without going there for millennia. Then we went there. A thing existing, per
WP: OTHERSTUFF, is not an excuse to remain intransigent to change, stop improving and evolving, or be deliberately obstructionist. Your fear seems to be that one video means every article will suddenly have a video, that is also not an excuse, and the existing policy will defend against the inappropriate use of video. But what you offer is not a compromise, it's conformity. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's conformity to standard practice of how we minimize non-free use to meet the ultimate purpose of en.wiki - created a freely redistributeable encyclopedia. This is the fundamental reason we're all here, and we all need to edit towards. You haven't introduced anything in regards to this video that others have suggested in the past that necessities changing the status quo of how video game articles are presented. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate purpose of wikipedia is to be fscking awesome. If that means embracing innovative things like video to illustrate an article, and policy cannot deal with that, we don't just delete the content, we fix (or at least discuss) policy. Guys, all considerations of NFC aside, can you please for a second consider that you are massively ganging up on a fellow wiki contributor who has spent time on creating awesome content, and basically forcing him to toss his work because of a very minor issue perceived by a few people, which is far from consensus? The thing that really freaks me out in these janitorial discussions is how everybody is creaming their pants about how many laws they know, and nobody seems to give a fuck about motivating and appreciating the work of fellow contributors? This issue is not a threat to Wikipedia or its freedom. It's good and interesting content, presented in a way which original enough that you guys don't have a rule for it yet. Live and let live, and don't over-enforce rules when there is no benefit and all it accomplishes is stifle people's willingness to contribute.Nettings (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The ultimate purpose of wikipedia is to be fscking awesome." No, it's not. It's to be a free content encyclopedia, and several things that we are not are listed at
WP:ATA, in particular that we seem to be pissing all over DWB's "hard work"; there is no such consideration in terms of what content is appropriate in WP. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I have to agree with Masem. Awesome? That's what you got. That was hillarious though bro. ;) Jhenderson 777 23:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting changing the status quo, I'm including a video within the guidelines presented on this Wikipedia, it is no more freely redistributable as an image than as a video. In distributed form such as print, the video is no more than an image so I'm unclear on where else it would cause a concern? I'm not arguing for every video game article to have a video either any more than I do for the many film articles I have worked on, and that wouldn't happen, partly because of the guidelines in place that would defend against any inappropriate usage (The Walking Dead's most notable aspect is it's dialog system and a screenshot actually can convey that), and because of the sheer impracticality of both capturing, editing and formatting a file for inclusion, as few editors have the required hardware and software, and most importantly the knowledge to accomplish such a task. This particular video has been on Arkham Origins article for a few weeks and there has not been an influx of video content. Again, the article will not pass FA if the file is genuinely superfluous, at which point this discussion will be actioned anyway, but as it stands, it is my opinion and the opinion of at least a few other editors, that the video is both useful and falls within the definitions provided in NFCC and the available guidelines. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told several times how a single frame is a "portion" of a video file and thus more appropriate under NFC. You also haven't demonstrated why a screenshot or two is not educationally equivalent to a video file considering that all the terms are pretty much standard english language. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately ignoring my comments does not mean I haven't answered your demands. You've been told now that one piece of NFC is not freer than another, and that NFCC3 encompasses video as well as images, there is no guideline that recommends one over another, that is purely opinion, so no, an image is not more appropriate under NFC than a video. You make me laugh because you cite NFCC3, then recommend using multiple pieces of NFC, when NFCC3 says do not use multiple NFC items when one can do the same job. In this case the video does the job of multiple NFC images, so you're arguing that I stop violating NFCC3, by violating NFCC3. If that doesn't prove you don't understand NFCC and are just trying to enforce your own personal preference I don't know what does. And from Tenebrae's comments, the terms aren't pretty standing english in this context. Step back, take a breath, and realize you are suggesting I violate NFCC to stop violating NFCC, and understand now that the video accomplishes multiple tasks. You know this is true, because you're suggesting it needs replacing with multiple images. I'm trying to be understanding here, I'm trying to assuage your fears that this will lead to some video take over, but you are unwilling to listen to anything I say, and your idea of compromise is "do what I want". DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Came here from a post at the Help Desk.[1] Instead of multiple screenshots provided in the video, a screenshot and text could just as easily illustrate the gameplay per
    WP:NFCC#8 issues - What is/are the reliable sources that are independent of Batman: Arkham Origins used in the Batman: Arkham Origins article that would support an objective claim that the video's presence in the Wikipedia article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? We can all make subjective arguments the video's presence in the Wikipedia article would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. However, Wikipedia articles are not a summary of Wikipedian's think of a topic or what those connected to the topic think about the topic. Rather, Wikipedia articles are a summary of what third-party sources independent of the article topic say about the topic. If they do not say enough specifically about the proposed video clip, there is no objective basis to include it in the Batman: Arkham Origins article. -- Jreferee (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You are missing the point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is here to convey a summary what a particular group (independent, reliable sources) write about a topic. The effort to convey in the Wikipedia article all those elements in a multiple or even a single NFC screenshot is misplaced. The effort to develop the article should be to provide a representative survey of the relevant literature, not provide a representative survey of information about a topic. If the independent, reliable sources have no views on the video clip, why should Wikipedia? Even if elements in the video might be discussed by notable third parties, the 49 second NFCC video clip itself is not. Your view is not based on independent reliable sources so it is a subjective view, not an objective view. Technically, those asserting that a screenshot and text could just as easily illustrate the gameplay is a subject view because those views are not based on independent reliable sources. However, that is because there are no independent reliable sources discussing the video clip now listed for discussion. The way to rebut those asserting that a screenshot and text could just as easily illustrate the gameplay is to cite independent reliable sources discussing the video clip itself. An argument citing a scholarly book that discusses in depth a video clip, where that scholarly book discussion is summarized in the Wikipedia article, could justify using a video clip in Wikipedia under WP:NFCC#3b. The underlying principles expressed in WP:NFCC#3b is to strive for a minimum NFCC content - multiple to one, entire to portion, higher resolution to lower. Technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines - the lack of "screenshot" or "video" in WP:NFCC#3b -- do not override the underlying principles they express. -- Jreferee (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a ridiculous and unsolvable argument, of course there is nothing directly discussing the video clip itself, you cannot get a pre-made clip of gameplay unless its a cutscene and if its a cutscene it is literally there for decoration, a game is not a film and you cannot compare the availability of their content. The content in the clip is discussed, to so broadly dismiss it because those third parties do not discuss the clip I made, but do discuss content is present is weak, and as mentioned repeatedly, it is infitely repeatable content in a game that is itself 12 hours estimated play time, so it is as minimum as it is going to get. I could understand if I put a clip of the 1990s Spider-Man animated series on the Venom article, but this is content directly related to the article featuring content covered independently by several third party sources, it isn't remotely tenuous as a claim of fair use. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is solvable by first finding independent, reliable sources that discuss a particular NFCC item and seek to use both in the article. Please post/identify the several third party sources in this discussion. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such piece of NFCC exists, and that would hold true of an image. Independent third party sources talking about a game are not going to being discussing the content of a single image or gameplay video, you may at best get discussion of a trailer but a trailer would not serve the correct or appropriate purpose, unless your intention was to simply add something cool looking to an article. Like I said, it isn't a film, reviewers of a film can discuss explicit moments and that moment can be captured with exquisite ease, this is not possible for games unless a game is strictly linear such that a moment is not unique but infinitely recreatable such as a dialog scene in The Walking Dead video game. I sadly don't have time to recover all the references, simply ctrl+F "combat", "gliding", "gadgets", "detective vision", "detective mode", all these items are mentioned and referenced in the article in most of the major sections outside of the plot, and combat, involving gadgets and detective vision, is discussed in the critical reception section as well. A cursory, but anecdotal google search reveals 12.4 million articles for a search on "ARkham Origins Combat", and every single review mentions it because it is THE core component of the game and series. I haven't added this video simply for the sake of adding it, I genuinely believe it enhances the article for the initiated but particularly for the uninitiated who I try to write the articles towards, hence explaining that someone is a superhero or a supervillain, rather than assuming the reader reads comics and inherently knows. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stand comments like "you are missing the point of Wikipedia" and comments that editors know Wikipedia more than other people on here. For one thing
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but with statements like these sometimes I wonder if editors know this. Yes they are probably such things that are referred to as "super policies" (as one editor put it) but that one 3b could be that one needle in the haystack that we could allow rule breaking and consensus that we need in that so called "super policy" to improve Wikipedia. I personally don't think it's clear enough yet. It ain't really saying that a image is a better substitute than a video at all. Where is this image that should substitute this video? Why haven't I seen it yet. You say there is a screenshot but are not showing it. You guys need to prove the case to say that something can replace it. Not just show off a policy that isn't quite saying it the same way everybody is saying it. There could be a commentary on this video file that couldn't have worked as much on a image. The video may need trimming to be closer to the policy...but still I think it can be a working progress. Jhenderson 777 23:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We're not required to show what the replacement is, as long as it is reasonable to exist. Here any still from that video could be it. Most likely the point where the player enters detective Mode as that's not easily explained by text. Though with this game the more interesting bit is the analysis of crime scenes. It regardless, no one ever before has questioned 3b as not implying a single image is better than a video file in term of minimum use, it's common sense. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One point I'd like to make before I shut up about this: Masem, your interpretation of minimum use is somewhat incomplete. To reduce your argument ad absurdum, a single pixel from this screenshot would be even better than one frame. By this, I want to point out that any reduction under minimum use must retain whatever information the NFC was originally meant to convey, otherwise that minimum use would be nonsensical. But the decision whether NFC use can be reduced is an _editorial_ decision, because we must determine whether the intended information is still being conveyed by reducing it to a still. It is a content dispute at least as much as it's a policy issue, and the policy problem is not at all fundamental but more of a quantitative thing. I'd argue that the video should be retained as-is, unless somebody who objects to it demonstrates by an edit of the article (or the video) in question that it can be done without compromising the article, and any further discussion can then be held on the article's talk page. My point is that the burden of proof is an insurmountable problem here. It is way too easy to just kick stuff out that you don't really care for, and almost impossible to argue against it if you do care for it - this page is a great example how people automatically sling templates without really addressing (and possibly refuting) the arguments. Nettings (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Here any still from that video could be it." But this video could have more example to the readers compared to a still being helpful for a reader regarding the same subject (section) I am definitely for keeps if so because the less fair use files for a section the better. I wouldn't know. It depends on what commentary was on the article. I didn't see it...and it probably shouldn't be remove on a article until it was decided to be deleted so people could judge the commentary. Jhenderson 777 00:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Nettings, the technical "minimum" is zero non free, but no one is saying that. We ask the question if free or freer media can be used to replace non free with the same educational value. To that end, a non free screenshot can do the same along with free text that the video does, therefore that replacement must be done. NFC is policy and while has subjective measures, is very objective measures to remove improperly used media, this is a case of that. Videogames for years can be described in encyclopedic manner without resorting to videos, and given that the past Batman games which use the same combat system are FA without video suggestsd that no video is needed here. Nonfree screens to show abstract elements are fine, but not video. All the arguments for using the video yet justify how one or two screens and text can't do the same thing particularly as this combo has been able to do it on the other two batman pages. Yes, it a helpful but not necessary to understand combat in batman and thus further fails NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 07:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. Some articles haven't used video before and so we should never ever change. Just like film articles will not have used video until video was supported and more easily creatable, and so film articles do not use video. Unless they do. You are deliberately manipulating the facts, such that just because noone added video before, they never wanted to add video, and so video should never be added. If you would prefer I can create a combat video for Arkham Asylum instead to set a precedent there, and then you can argue that later games didn't need video so why does the original? A non free screenshot is not capable of doing what a non free video can in this case, it requires multiple non free images, which violates NFCC3, and nowhere in NFCC is video either prohibited or preferred, that is your personal interpretation of it. There seems to be a clear bias here, that film articles can use video even though films are significantly more straight forward in their content and understandable to a wider audience, but games must, and may only ever, use screenshots. How many editors here have access to video editing software? The lack of use of video is not an endorsement of no video, and I do not think video should be used with abandon either, I spent a good hour the other night making a video featuring the same content and getting it to exactly 30 seconds if that would be more palatable, and I cannot tell you how hard it is to find a group of enemies that you can perform all those gameplay functions on and beat in 30 seconds. The existing video has also been both shrunk and reduced in file-size, for other readers notice, and its commentary expanded. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 17:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between film and video games is that films are fully, carefully directed sequences of image and audio, while video games are not since the experience will change from player to player. In the former case there can be critical discussion of the video sequence that transcends text and imagery alone due to that careful direction, and as such a video clip can make sense in such cases. In video games, outside of cutscenes, there is no such direction, and all the video is doing is to demonstrate gameplay elements which more often that not is easy to do by text and images. There is a bais but that's the nature of the medium. Also claiming thateasdy video editing software has been what limits video use is nonsense since there has been video capture and editing tools since wikipedfias inception. We avoid it due to it's limited accessibility and when non free, its impact on the free content mission. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is a heated subject. I mostly request that this might stay after the holidays...for those editors who would join if they weren't having holiday breaks. Just a thought. Jhenderson 777 20:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Darkwarriorblake: Please take a break from this. It's a wrong and unfortunate day to be upset about anything. Ask other people's opinions or something...but I recommend to not take part for this TFD to Christmas eve and day. This is not a good place for you on having Christmas cheer and I don't want that for you. Jhenderson 777 20:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In the spirit of openness DWB requested my impartial opinion. I read the related section first, and honestly, not being a game-player—Tetris aside—I didn't have a clue what much of it was about! Watching the video certainly made the textual description much clearer to me. I don't think it's just a case of the video significantly furthering my understanding, frankly I needed to watch the video to understand it all! I don't think a single screencap would have sufficed, since I doubt it would have been sufficient to illustrate gameplay; that aside, 30 seconds in I think I had a sufficient grasp on what was being described so the clip could be shortened I feel (we don't actually need to see Batman kill everyone do we?). I noticed above that someone pointed out most other game articles don't have video clips, and I think that's a shame if the game play is as complex as it is here. I am wondering if some of the "deleters" are gamers who find this familiar and fail to fully appreciate how that reads to someone unfamiliar with modern video games? Clearly, a short clip of under a minute isn't going to have any commercial impact on the game and it is a helpful clip, so I honestly don't feel it's breaching the spirit of fair use. If it could be shortened slightly that would be great, but I do think it would be to the detriment of the article if the video were removed completely or replaced with a screencap. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arb break

In response toBettys comment, it is best to understand that the video game as a project as a whole write articles less about specific gameplay elements (

WP:GAMEGUIDE) but to establish the broad nature of the gasmein an encyclopedic manner. Coupled with NFCC#3b, which inferes single screenshots are better for minimizing non free over video files, we simply do not need to visually showcase how the games work at the level video is needed. That Batman fights with a combination of melee, gadgets, and other attacks is important, but the specific elements of thoingsd like chain attacks, countermoves, etc are excessive for a gameplay section, because it is not our goal to explain out gameplay in that much detail. I do recognize that as that level of detail that the video file is useful, but that's too detailed for our guidelines and often what secondary sources go into. And I pose the question again, that video games have continued to be passed by FAC without video for a wide variety of games, and if it was the case that a video would explain the gameplay more, these FACs would have asked for video long ago. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

(outdent) Recently, File:Batman - Arkham Origins combat screenshot.jpg was uploaded and added to the article, but the edit was reverted forty minutes later without an edit summary, [2]. This might not be the best screenshot, but it should have been deleted without an edit summary, especially considering the discussion here. Aspects (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and useful video with rationale is up for deletion, but you're complaining that a blurry dark image showing an unidentifiable figure maybe kicking a prone, mostly obscured body, that was added with the edit summary "Caption needed", was deleted without ceremony? Not only complaining, but pointing it out like some grand conspiracy? Not only complaining, not only pointing it out like some grand conspiracy, but ignoring that the video was left anyway? A NFC of absolutely no use with a bare bones NFC use rationale and no caption should have been left there? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion has been about whether or not the video could be replaced by a screenshot. The fact that a screenshot was uploaded should be brought up into the conversation so it can be debated. Deleting the image without an edit summary could leave other editors to believe that you are against the concept of a screenshot replacing the video instead of this particular screenshot replacing the video. Aspects (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people could look at the "image" and know exactly why it was removed, on top of its lack of commentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that choice of screenshot was poor. However, one that doesn't crop out the UI elements (including the health , score, and combo meter, the gadget selection wheel, and the compass/waypoint markers, along with showing a more distinct omageof Batman fighting would be a fair replacement of the video file. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only losing the gliding, detective vision, new combat scoring meter and combat, which are the main elements the video is cited as conveying, to replace them with an image of things the video isn't trying to show, nowhere has the video mentioned health meters, waypoint markers, gadget wheels or combo meters. You're arguing to replace a video conveying difficult to understand elements with an image conveying easily understandable elements that do not require an image. Again, a single NFC image cannot convey these things and any amount of images that isn't a slideshow cannot convey combat. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gliding is easily described as well as not a new element. I would consider a shot of detective mode, though in use of crime scenes, would be appropriate in addition to a shot during combat. Everything else in the bid is straight forward described by text. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that multiple non-gaming people have now said that the video was of benefit because they didn't understand the concepts from text alone. You are speaking from a knowledgeable stance and ignoring any user who isn't yourself or aligned with your view. And again, you are arguing in violation of NFCC 3, by recommending that multiple items of NFCC be used to replace a single NFCC item that does the same thing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as a screenshot is one frame of a video file, it is far much less fair use-taking. Even two shots is far much less. This is a fact of NFC that you've yet to accept, it is not just the number of "file:" links but the overall portion of the work taken. And given that the othge Batman articles with the same combat system were passed as FAC that probably means the ytext here can be improved to not need the video file to understand. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"gliding, detective vision, new combat scoring meter"? What the hell is "detective vision"? You gamers are way too close to this stuff to appreciate that non-gamers — which would be the majority of Wikipedians — have no idea what this technical jargon means or, as importantly, looks like in this context. It's a little off-putting that when someone tries to show a non-gamer what this action looks like onscreen that some people want to keep their little club closed to outsiders. I still don't know what "chaining" means or looks like in this context. This is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article, but the hard-core gamers here seem determined to make it as impenetrable as a video-game magazine to outsiders. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm saying screenshots to show those things to accompany explaination in text is sufficient. "Detective vision" is a completely unclear term, and hence why showing what it is is appropriate, but that can be done with a screenshot, not video (as done on Arkham Asylum). The other parts of the UI could also be shown and describe in text to explain these by a screenshot. Chaining is a string of uninterrupted combat movies without either letting too much time go between attacks or taking damage from others. Text. No need for a video to see that. --MASEM (t) 07:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are applying a personal interpretation of NFCC3, that a screenshot of a video of a game is better than a video of the game. I am applying a literal interpretation of NFCC3, which says use as few NFCC items as possible, do not use multiple items to do the job of one, and which does not say anything about replacing an image with a video or vice versa, that is a misinterpretation of minimal usage, it does not say this, this is the fact of NFC you've yet to accept. You're also repeatedly ignoring
WP: OTHERSTUFF, those articles are not required to have a video any more than they are required to have an image, they could probably have passed NFC without the images, just like they could have passed WITH the video, you cannot use hypotheticals and misinterpretations of guidelines to support this ever shaky stage on which you stand. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You are absolutely wrong. We use the smallest portion of a work to meet the goal of non-free. That's exactly defined in #3b. There's no personal interpretation of that, this is how NFC has been handled for years. When we talk screenshots, we ask for the lowest usable resolution that still makes the image clear. When we talk audio clips, while we allow for up to 30 sec or 10% of the work for the clip, we still encourage editors to trim down to the barest segment that does the job. We avoid using full video if a few screens do as effective a job as video clip. That's the core of NFC policy, to minimize NFC and how much fair-use taking we do. You're refuting to understand this. This doesn't say video can never be used if to capture the same essence of information you need many many screenshots or even something that is not obvious by screenshots and text (aka the slo mo scene in Dredd), just that if we can distill that essence to freer forms of media, we must do that. If you want to argue if this is flawed, take it to
WT:NFC. --MASEM (t) 07:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, as a non-gamer, the phrase "without ... letting too much time go between attacks" is meaningless without having an idea of how much time is "too much." I have no idea how a screenshot is supposed to clarify "too much" or "not enough" time. Time is a dimension best explained, it would seem to me, by demonstration in real-time. Text saying, "no more than 1.5 milliseconds between punches" ... I just don't see how to translate that into anything meaningful.
I understand all this must make me seem like, "Geez, what a moron," but that's because this is all second-nature to gamers. A non-gamer going to an encyclopedia honestly can't be expected to have a feel for all these terms. It'd be like going to a basketball article and reading "in the paint" or "fast break" — terms I know and understand but non-basketball fans would not. This may not be an exact comparison, but I hope it conveys the idea.
Maybe we simply need an article defining these video-game terms using video clips, and can just bluelink things like "detective vision" and "chaining" to that article. That way we wouldn't need to use video clips for multiple video-game articles, but just for that one article? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the chained attack timing is on the order of a few seconds but what it is exactly is not well defined, and to get any more precise starts delving into OR and being a game guide. It doesn't matter exactly, only that to the player longer chains mean more of a score boost at the end of combat. You don't need video for that. And I've said detective mode which changes the screen presentation and look does need illustration via screenshot, but its a unique element of these three games, so doesn't need a separate article. I do note for general game concepts we do have several articles but that's where we can use free replacements or mockups to show this (if we were to have one on cvhained attacks, we have a freely licensed movie from the game Dustforce that uses chaining to demo, for example.). --MASEM (t) 14:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as several factors combine to make this video specially adequate for an encyclopedic purpose - and therefore compliant with the spirit and letter of the non-free exception.
  1. the combat system depicted has been subject to direct coverage in reliable sources, making it a relevant factor in the article, more than the gameplay in other video games. It's therefore justified to provide the best explanation we can make, with increased detail, and require a thorough explanation, in a way that wouldn't be equally adecuate in similar sections at other articles. Replacing the video with text would hurt the capability of non-gamer readers to understand the topic, as other editors have argued.
  2. the combat system combines movements and techniques developed during the whole history of video games (gliding, selecting and using tools, scoring, making combos, chaining, targeting enemies...); it's therefore a complex system. Understanding it from text requires that the reader has a quite strong familiarity with gaming in general and fighting games in particular. Conversely, watching the movements in the video can be understood with no background required. The prospective of reading a wall of text spread over the many articles that explain those concepts cannot be equated to watching them in a short video sequence - seeing the movements performed by the player will necessarily be easier and provide a better description of the game than trying to read about those movements in articles where they are explained as generic movements, out-of-context and unrelated to the Batman game. The nature of the content is one of movement, and a dynamic medium like video is needed to properly convey it. I could agree to have a shortened video with maybe just one combo against several enemies; *that* would be a compromise solution between the two positions.
  3. the interactive nature of video games means that the gaming system itself is what is being praised and analyzed by critics, not any particular exhibition of movements performed with it, or this or that video recording of a gaming session. The gaming system itself creates emergent gameplay and a new combat with each play. The requirement by Jreferee, that a concrete video clip has been subject to review by third parties, is unreasonable - it would be equivalent to requiring that all text in Wikipedia articles is copied verbatim from the references. If we have leeway to explain a topic with our own words (and it's even encouraged), it should be permissible to showcase gameplay through an editor's clip created explicitly for that purpose. I'd argue that it's freer than a gameplay video from a publisher, as the editor can release the copyright of the movements performed within the game for explanation (the transformative part of the gaming session).
I agree with Tenebrae that the concept needs to be explained to non-gamers, and the video does a better job at summarizing the concept of combat in the game than reading all the related articles would. I also agree with Jhenderson that those editors proposing to replace the video with text should show how exactly they propose to achieve that feat, so that consensus can determine whether they are as truly valid replacement conveying similar meaning in an equally understandable way. As the argument to keep the video is that it improves the encyclopedia, to apply the rule 3b under Masem's interpretation it would require an equivalent level of improvement so that IAR is not justified; merely deleting the video without having a replacement in place won't do. (The incident above about the removed screenshot hints that it may not be as easy thing to do as the proponents suggest).
People wanting to delete videos often present the interpretation that a video must be replaced with an screenshot plus text to satisfy rule 3b, and that one single video is more usage of non-free content that several still images replacing it, but that idea never manages to gain consensus by itself when discussed; if applied as such, it would mean that video could never be used, which is clearly not the spirit of the NFC policy. Therefore I'd suggest the editors wanting to use that interpretation a rule to propose it at NFCC talk, so that a consensus can be developed as to when it's a reasonable rule, i.e. when we can expect text to be an adequate replacement. Until then, I hope that it's not assessed with the weight of policy but rather as an argument that has been contested. Diego (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, per
WP:GAMEGUIDE we don't need a detailed explanation of how combat works; those that aren't gamers aren't going to be playing this but they need to understand the various features at a 60,000 ft level. We do need to explain the critically-acclaimed freeform system it uses and highlight points, but like on the previous iterations of the game, a paragraph is all that is needed, and a video is far too much detail atop that. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
But that only reinforces the suitability of the video. Substituting the video by a description in text of the combat system would require explaining the movements and concepts involved, in order to achieve an equivalent description, and would therefore be much longer. A mere paragraph citing concepts as "chained attacks" or "finishing moves" without explaining them would be against
MOS:JARGON
, which requires us to avoid using terms that general readers won't understand; and explaining them in-place would be less clear and still not "60,000 ft level". The video would be the equivalent of the "write one level down" suggested by the guideline instead of using the technical gaming terms. (Also note that WP:GAMEGUIDE *does* allow for description of gameplay elements that are "notable in their own right", such as this game's combat system, so I don't see that keeping it a strictly high-level description is needed per WP:NOT).
NFCC#1 and #8 require that the potential free substitute for a non-free content equivalent usage purpose and explanatory power - in order that removing it won't be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. You cannot deny that video is a more adequate medium than words for description of movement, so I'm not convinced that your proposal of a possible wall of text that we haven't seen can provide an explanation that is equivalent to a short video actually showing the combat system by example. Diego (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that every video game FA has been able to explain complex gameplay using only image stills and text continues to point how unnecessary the video is when an image should be able to do the same per #1 and #8. Batman Origin's combat system is not that complex up to a certain level (understanding that 1) batman uses a number of melee movies, acrobatic stunts, and gadgets in combat and 2) that the player is best awarded by keeping a chain of attacks going and reacting appropriately to counter attacks and blocks; if you start talking about it any more, it does become very deep but at the same time that becomes a game guide. And while I recognize the combat system was praised, they didn't go into the details that much for it, so again it would be undue for us to do the same. It is similar to the typical fighting game; at a high level the reader only needs to known that using a combination of button presses and controller moves unleashes a number various attacks, while going any more deeper you'd have to start to explain how button timing and pacing, and sequences, and all that start to come into play. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read again the comment above by DWB, explaining why your argument about FA's is bogus - it only shows that
jargon to explain how you would describe the combat system. Diego (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And I again point to the fact that Batman: Arkham Asylum which has nearly the exact same combat system less a few new gadgets and moves passed FA without the need for a movie as why a movie is not needed here. Yes, we have to explain the jargon a bit , but from the B:AA article: "The game's "Freeflow" combat uses three main buttons: attack, stun, and counter.[11] The system lets Batman move quickly between enemies, chaining attacks together until all enemies are unconscious. Combining the three main abilities can keep Batman attacking while moving between enemies and avoiding being attacked himself. The more combo attacks that are chained together, the faster and more agile Batman becomes, and special attacks—such as a throw, grapple, and an instant takedown which can immediately defeat an enemy—become available. Combat is rewarded with experience points, which are used to unlock gadgets, combat moves, and health upgrades. Higher combos, a wider variety of moves, and avoiding damage delivers more points.[8][10][12] Enemy attacks are preempted with a warning icon, which indicate the attack can be countered.[1] Some enemies require different approaches to overcome; knife-wielding thugs must be stunned before they can be attacked,[10] and others must be struck from behind. Some enemies are armed with guns which significantly damage Batman.[11] Enemies react to Batman's elimination of their allies, which raises their fear level and alters their behavior; for example, they will adopt new patrol routes, requiring the player to adapt to the changing situation.[10][18] During combat, Batman's health is diminished by attacks, but is fully restored once the battle ends.[11]" (There's links I didn't copy over for terms like "comboing") that is a satisfactory explanation of combat that doesn't even need a picture to understand, and at the level of detail appropriate for an encyclopedia. I know "other stuff exists" is not always a valid argument, but this is a one-to-one application of a near identical game to this one, in considering what NFC is necessary. It's also worthwhile to note this was passed as FAC rather recently (last August) so we are looking at current updates to policy and the like. It's also interesting to note that DWB brought that one to FAC and didn't see the need for the video there, so I cannot see how this video can be justified. Note that I am extremely worried about the slippery slope issue that if we determine "this" article can use a video where a similar game did not need one, other authors will be videos are necessary on other game articles. We've been able to do without videos in the VG project for a long long time, and I see no need to move away from that status quo. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why
WP:NFC policy is a big "ignore the free content rule, to make a better encyclopedia"). Related articles can also count with the existence of this video to illustrate the freeflow combat and be sure that the readers have understood it with one example, so there should be only one video in the whole game series - but there needs to be at least one. Diego (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Wrong, NFC is not there to make the article "better". A video will always make the the article "better" as well as more NFC use and the like, but that's not what NFC allows for. "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia" says nothing about article quality, and NFCC#8 requires "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The goal for any article to is to avoid using any non-free but when non-free must be used, to use the most minimal amount to aid in the understanding of the article. A screenshot or even two is a smaller amount of non-free taking as a video file, so that's what can be used here, and to actually see the game in action is unnecessary, particularly when we can link to external clips and trailers that show it better. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned by multiple editors now that it has improved their understanding because they do not know about games in general, your personal interpretation that it is not helpful does not speak for everyone. It meets all the NFCC criteria, if it didn't meet them you wouldn't feel the need to keep justifying yourself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It fails NFCC#3 and #8; screenshots and text do a sufficiently same job as the video as demonstrated by previous articles. I'm speaking this not from interpretation but established policy handling. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It fails neither, people have explicitly said in counter of #8 and your wilful ignorance and/or lying about that does not change that and I consider it extremely bad faith and abuse that you would cite NFCC#8 since you have DIRECTLY responded to people who have said that it has enhanced their understanding. Your misuse of policy is not an endorsement of a misreading of said policy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's another reason to explain why people might need the video, and that's because the present text in the article could be considered poor to aid in understanding. I just re-read what is on the Origins page, and it clearly a lot weaker than the text I quoted above to explain the free flow combat system as described. Putting my mindset in "never played any of the games", I would certain agree that a video would be helpful with that text as currently given. But the text can and should be improved to match the clarity that was met with the first game (Arkham Asylum) that clearly describes the combat system without the need for video. That's the problem with the current state of this article is that it is written for the game player that likely has played the Batman games before, and not the non-gamer, while the Arkham Asylum one is. And when you aim it towards that audiance and work from the 60,000 ft level, it will be clearly without the need for NFC. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double wrong,
WT:NFC to assess what is the real consensus around it and compile it as policy. Diego (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
IAR might be reasonable to justify including a NFC item where one previously was not allowed, but it definitely doesn't apply to when two possible NFC inclusions exist and one is clearly a "worse" solution than the other in terms of how much non-free is taken. 3a and 3b have to be taken together. Yes, 3a says "number of items", but when 3b talks about "portion of work" and minimizing that, it is clear that 2 non-free screenshots are better than one 30sec video in terms of overall minimization of non-free. I was going to verify the current practie that video is worse than screenshots in terms of how much non-free was taken at WT:NFC but was afraid that would be taken as BITEY in context of this FFD. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop saying that "it's clear" that screenshots have less weight of usage than short videos, as that point is directly contested? What irks me is that you present that as if it was part of the policy, when it has never been widely discussed and when what's clear is that it's merely your take on the guideline, nor anything subject to wide consensus. Yes, you could present what are common
WP:OUTCOMEs at FfD, but that would only be a measure of the opinions held by the regulars there, not the result of a community-wide decision; we could equally measure how many non-free videos are added to the project each day as a measure of how editors feel about such content, and it would be equally irrelevant. Myself, I believe that this obsession against video is doing a disservice to the project, which could be a reference showcase of multimedia content by including it at those places where it's the best illustrative solution, taking full advantage of its nature as a digital medium while holding exactly the same amount of free content. But then we would be overstepping the purpose of this discussion, which is to assess the comparative amount of knowledge presented by the video and its possible free alternatives, irrespective of how it affects other articles or is covered by this or that snippet of policy. Also remember that both items in NFCC#3 are conditional, i.e. they apply if - the reduction of non-free content only applies when everything else is equal, i.e. when the reduced content would provide the same understanding ("if one item can convey equivalent significant information", "if a portion will suffice"). Reducing NFC content is not the absolute rule you want it to be; if it was, NFC would not exist, as the minimum is always 0. Thus to see if NFCC#3 applies at all we have first to assess whether the alternatives are equal or worse. Diego (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Reducing non-free is a rule, set by the Foundation's resolution. It doesn't say that non-free has to be "zero" (letting the specific project decide that) but it does say we don't use non-free where free works can do the same job, and that as soon as a free (or freer) equivalent alternatives becomes available to a non-free versions, we must use that instead of the non-free as to promote free content over non-free. This is why video is discouraged, because while its all technically feasible to include, it can be a crutch for using less non-free taking or free images/text to do the same job; this is outside the issues of accessibility and bandwidth for users on the lower-end of the computing spectrum. And this comes back to pointing out that the Video Games project has long determined that the goal of a video game article is not to explain in detail how to play the game, but to establish why the game is important, how it was made, and how it was received. A 60,000 ft discussion of the game's plot and gameplay is necessary in such a discussion, but we don't even need to go to the level that some reviews go to to discuss the gameplay, and to that end, a video of gameplay is more than likely too much detail for that purpose. Yes, this is a point of contention that for this specific case that this video is necessary to understand the text and images can't do the same, but as I've pointed out, I attribute that to how the current text about combat is weak compared to the text in the first Batman game that has the identically same system and was FA without the need for video. And of course a benefit for video games is that there are numerous clips of gameplay for most every game out there, whether from previews or reviews, through official channels, a resource that we can take advantage of via external links, and avoid the non-free issue altogether on WP. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of this video is not to showcase how to play the game (it's awful for that purpose, you'd rather need a video tutorial), it's to showcase how the game system differs from previous combat games (the specific gameplay element that makes the game stand out and be noted in the reviews, i.e. what we should be focusing at in an encyclopedic article), in a way that you can't get from generic gameplay clips from the web that haven't been tailored to be a summary of the highlights (and of course, external clips are not guaranteed to be always there nor to be relevant to the points we want to address).

If every advance in gameplay in the history of video games was showcased in this way, replacing the current non-free images in the article with a 5 to 30s video displaying the advances introduced in that game (not to explain how to play each particular game, but to show what was novel at the time; a "museum of gameplay elements" of which this video would be an example), I think it's clear how that would be an improvement to the project. Those novel concepts can be explained with words alone, but the explanation will not be of the same quality. In fact we do this with the video describing the platformers genre (free license, but an example of what I mean) or the smooth animation you mentioned above (non-free). This is also what we do for other artistic media, of either a visual or audio nature.

Again, that's a decision for the project to make and outside the scope of this talk, which is about this current article and its explanation with a video. What wouldn’t make sense is to merely delete the video in the current circumstances, when even you agree that the current text is not an acceptable description, as we all concur that deleting the video without a high quality text replacement in place would negatively impact the understanding of readers and make the article worse. Diego (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're absolutely not against using free video (either from commercial games but put out in a free licence by the game's creator, or user-created by a Wikipedian. When we're in the realm of free works, the issue of screenshot-vs-video is non-existant, though one should still consider
WP:ACCESS
and that not all gameplay elements need video (eg a video of text adventure game would be rather pointless). And we are trying to build up the use of free video in articles on core elements of gameplay and genres for exactly this purpose. That all changes when you talk about non-free where we have to minimize the non-free taking, and hence why for specific games, we become less worried about the specifics of gameplay.
The argument this is showing a "new" combat system is bogus - there are a few new elements but this is essentially the same combat system in Batman: Arkham Asylum, using the same chained-combat attack system. And that was described just fine with text and stills. To focus too much on the small elements that have been added or changed (when, from my read of the sources, it was still the overall combat system that was praised and not any specific changes) is UNDUE and that's again why we stick to 60,000 ft coverage of specific game gameplay. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP: OTHERSTUFF... again. Other articles not having a video is not in any way support for your stance. Had I the facility to make them when I had them promoted there would have been video in there, and they would have passed FA review as well. Because despite your attempts to maintain otherwise, there is no guideline against the use of video. Yet you continue to state it as if it is a fact. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We have to minimize non-free video "'when video is not the best way to describe the content. Those are the two ifs that I quoted above and that you carefully avoid every time you mention the policy. But when video is the best way to convey understanding of the topic as in this case, the goal to provide free content is balanced with the goal to provide high quality content. The requirement for including non-free is, by NFC#8, that the increase of readers’ understanding is significant; and by NFC#1 that it can’t be replaced by free content ‘’of acceptable quality’’ and for the same purpose. What we believe here is that the text-only description is not an adequate replacement. I have a great respect for your argumentation skills and your goals in defending free content, that I have internalized as the way to remove unwanted non-free usage that doesn't meet the threshold of quality improvement; but your arguments here would never allow for the possibility of using non-free videos ever, as they apply the same in every possible situation.
Your comment about Arkham Asylum is an involuntary red herring; I didn't mean to compare this combat system with that one, but both games with everything before them. The video is a good description for the combat system in the whole series; a video of Arkham Asylum would serve the same purpose and would improve the featured article to the same degree. Diego (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a red herring; the point is that if the gameplay description during FAC was considered to be insufficient to describe the text as given using a screenshot (note we don't even have a screenshot of combat in B:AA), then the FAC reviewers - who are expected to be non-gamers - would have spoken up about including NFC (image or video) to improve understanding; I've taken articles to FAC before and if they feel the non-free use is insufficient to describe the text they'll ask for more. So the fact that it wasn't asked for means that the explanation given in the text was sufficient for understanding without adding NFC. Yes, normally OTHERSTUFFEXISTs would be a stupid argument, but this is a 1-to-1 comparison. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Well cars moved without solar panels so why would we bother installing solar batteries in cars so that we can save the planet?" Your argument comes across as a cranky old man resistant to change, and your deliberate avoidance of addressing
WP: OTHERSTUFF, that NFCC doesn't exclude the use of video, and that no guideline supports the use of images over video is getting to the point of obstructionism, as you are actively clogging this discussion with misinformation and repeating the same arguments over, even when multiple people have argued against the unsupported claims you continue to cite. Stating that because FAC reviews you've been involved in haven't asked for you to add videos or MORE NFC is a deliberate attempt to mislead, NFCC3 says don't use multiple NFCC items, and FAC reviews would not expect you to produce a video or otherwise your article cannot be passed. Your input has been provided Masem and it has been refuted by several editors, your claims to speak for the masses are misleading and inappropriate, it may be time to step back from the discussion and accept that you have had your say, but please discontinue using these very broad and unsubstantiated claims as it undermines both yourself and Wikipedia.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am trying to protect the Foundation's free content mission by pointing out that we didn't need to use as much non-free taking in a extremely similar article that is considered one of WP's best, so there's no such need to do more than that here on a similar article on a nearly identical target. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Protection by deliberate misinformation is not an acceptable route of protecting Wikipedia, nor is video by default a harmful item. And for the...10th time now?
WP: OTHERSTUFF. Your argument seems to rest on a complete hypothetical, that Arkham Asylum could not have passed FA with video content (for arguments sake THIS specific content), I assert that you are wrong, and every single guideline, rule and policy supports my assertion, while your stance, by your own admission, is that any means are necessary to get this video removed, because it contravenes what you deem acceptable, even though it falls within every guideline, rule and policy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No, one of the factors of a good FA is that it does use media appropriately, including non-free. If it needed a video file they would have asked for it, but they didn't. They didn't even question the gameplay section which talks about the combat system but doesn't even show it. This tells me that the video file on this article can be removed - with appropriate reworking of the text - without affecting the reader's understanding of the article, failing NFCC#8. You refuse to acknowledge that NFCC#3b clearly states to use the minimum amount of non-free from a work to get the point across (even if we are talking two screenshots verses a whole media file). Aiming for free content is the whole reason we are here, and ignoring that is not helping. It may seem to be an old fuddy-duddy thing to not use video but this is because we are limited by the IP goals that the Foundation is aiming for, not be the technical goals of using video. And as long as Foundation is paying the bills for storage and bandwidth, we have to give way to their requirements. You do not need the embedded video to understand this game; no other video game article uses non-free video in this manner and there's simply no way for us to go that direction until the Foundation changes their non-free restrictions. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again your wording of what it "is needed". We don't include non-free content because "it's needed", as it never is; we use it when it provides a "significant improvement" that we cannot get in any other way. And again you refuse that 3b (written in perfect accordance of the Foundation goals, which are the ones who created the Non-free content exception) clearly has an "if" guard that control when it's triggered and when it's not, and that two screenshots is more non-free content than one video, not less. Diego (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the words "significant improvement" is not part of NFCC. NFCC is only used when it is needed - when its includes aids the reader's understanding and omission harms that understanding. That's how NFCC is spelled out. If it was only for "significant improvement" I fully could justify tons and tons of non-free . --MASEM (t) 23:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're at that, the word "needed" is not part of NFCC either. But "significantly increase readers' understanding" are. The permission for non-free content from the WMF is "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" which is clearly the case here, and it "must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose" which is what is contested. This criterion will certainly not apply to tons and tons of cases, only to game elements that have been identified by reliable sources to advance the state of gaming, like this one. You've made it clear that the video is not needed for expert gamers that already have a general idea of how a video game combat system works (i.e. those who didn't need to read the article anyway). What remains to assess is how it impacts the understanding of someone without a background in gaming (say, a Batman fan) who wants to grasp what the highlights of this game are about; as general readers are part of our audience, not just gamers. Those will be baffled by your "chain of combos and selection of weapons as quick events" text-only description. Diego (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I hate to keep riding this point, but we have a game that shares 90% of the exactly same combat system (the 10% being a new UI and new gadgets), that has been passed at FA (read: non-gamers), that only has a text description of the combat system. If it can be done there, it can be done here. The OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument fails here because of the close similarity of the games. The rationale that a movie is needed (much less any other non-free) here to explain the combat system when it wasn't before in a situation reviewed by the global community is extremely weak. I wouldn't be stressing this argument if there was no other game in the series, or if there had yet to be any large review of the previous games, though there would be other reasons to avoid using the video. But when you have a prior case that shows how NFC can be used appropriately in talking about a game with nearly the same gameplay, that puts a lot of weight on using NFC the exact same way in this version. The question is begged "why is it needed here and not there?", one factor that I have put forward is that the quality of the text in this article discussing the combat system is weak compare to how it was done in B:AA. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add one thing: I completely understand the issue of clarity to non-gamers. Our text should avoid or otherwise explain jargon and provide links to things like "chain attacks" and the like. I am not advocating writing for the gamer only. That said, the reason B:AA having passed FA here is that FA reviewers are not gamers, and ignoring the NFC issues, if they had problems understanding the text of the combat system there, they would have asked for clarification (it might have been in the form of rewriting, it might have been adding NFC, or others). But it passed FA without any significant changes to the description of the gameplay there. The text here should model that, and only after that point, determine if NFC would be needed to explain the changes. What's being done here is putting the NFC in place first before shaping up the text to be as clear as possible. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arb break 2
Arguably what we should be doing is bringing in the video game project to judge if the video is necessary or if it can be reduced to less non-free, as they would be the best to affirm if the video is needed or not. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA reviewers DO NOT expect you to go produce video if an image is not available or not suitable, and people who do not understand contextual terminology will not necessarily mention it nor demand you produce a video to compensate for it. Your arguments are completely spurious. Again you say "well other things do it this way" and for the eleventh time I say
BioShock: Infinite, with stuff like File:Bioshock-infinite-industrial-revolution-screenshot.jpg, File:Bioshock-infinite-gi-cover.jpg, and multiple items for fictional propaganda File:Bioshock-infinite-propaganda.jpg and File:BioShock Infinite Columbia Propaganda.jpg, because if you want it, it's ok. If the video was against the terms of the foundation, there would be rules explicitly against it and you wouldn't be having to argue this hard against it, instead you are deliberately twisting existing guidelines in a struggle to stop any and all progress. The article falls within ALL available guidelines, and you continue to say that it does not, by stating the guidelines state what they explicitly do not. If you have successfully argued your case and are sure that the video falls out of the guidelines that it does not, then I do not see why you continue to debate, as you should have already won. And the video has already been reduced and trimmed, I even made a 30 second video of different content featuring the same stuff, but even if I were to provide that, which falls purely within your own invented guidelines, you would argue against it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
FA reviewers have asked for NFC to be included if they felt it necessary when NFC wasn't used before (I have had FACs that go that way), so this is a factor to consider, particularly considering that FAC reviewers are very sensitive to over-doing NFC. The Bioshock Infinite article was just brought up at NFCR a week or so ago and a few issues with that were resolved there. (even then, 7-8 NFC items are far less non-free taking than a video file). The point that I've been stressing is that from an NFC standpoint, you can equivalently talk about the game's combat with one or two well-selected NFC screenshots and fixing up the present text that is in B:AO as to align better with the clearer explaination at B:AA, instead of doing that with a video file which is a larger non-free taking than a few video screens. It will still use NFC (zero is insufficient for understanding here, and since there's no way you can do a free replacement, you need NFC), but it will be more inline with NFC and more accessible to all end users. We can link to external videos for those readers that need to see the gameplay in action as well. I know this seems like a lot of squibbling over one file, but the key here is that the arguments to include it weaken how NFC is presently handled on en.wiki and creates a slipperly slope for people falling back to video instead of crafting better text to avoid the video in the first place, when that is possible. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let’s accept for a minute that the status of the other articles is relevant to this decision and not unrelated stuff. What I see is that two featured articles happen to use non free content to describe the combat system, and neither has chosen to go with text only. Batman: Arkham Asylum uses File:Batman arkham-detectiveMode.png, and Batman: Arkham City uses two images (File:Batman - Arkham City combat screenshot.JPG and File:Batman - Arkham City screenshot.JPG) - so far for not needing non-free content to describe the topic.

The point you’re stressing, that changing video for images would be an improvement, only holds if we take for granted as a given your assumption that one non-free format is somehow less free than the other, but there's nothing in policy supporting that view and it doesn't align with the goals of the project or the foundation. As the wmf goal is to provide knowledge as free content, there is no advantage in choosing one format of non-free media over the other - neither could be reused by someone copying the article, so there’s no basis in the assertion that one is better for the project than the other; once you accept that non-free is required, both versions are equally off-limits for a reuser, so let’s go with the one that better describes the content (and one more time, the effect that this use could have throughout the Video games wikiproject

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY each decision is based on the particulars of each topic, not some overarching rules that are always applied the same way). There would be some advantage in that respect to use only a text description, but as you point out none of the FAs has found that to be an acceptable solution. Could and should we improve the text to its best possible status? Without a doubt, but that's orthogonal to this decision. The best written text would help those who only have access to the Free part of the article; but for those that can read our article directly and benefit from the allowance to use non-free content for contemporary works, we strive to provide the best possible result from the combined free+nonfree content. Diego (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2014 (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:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv

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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk)

File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Steve (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2013 (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:New Jersey Ruby Red 7s Scratch-Off Ticket.png

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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Jersey Ruby Red 7s Scratch-Off Ticket.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DavidinNJ (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2013 (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:2 Unlimited Get Ready For This Cover - France.jpg

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: Improper process. Let's discuss this at

WP:NFCR, which went there first. Withdrawn without prejudice to reopen. --George Ho (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

File:2 Unlimited Get Ready For This Cover - France.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wozza20 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:2 Unlimited Get Ready For This - German.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Get ready for this US cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:2 Unlimited Get Ready For This Cover - US2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:GetReadyForThis2001A.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Get Ready for This (Steve Aoki Remix).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

This cover is unnecessary, as well as above related images. We already got the top one, which is enough. George Ho (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_December_21&oldid=1142599317"