Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 5 August 7 >

August 6

File:21st Century Breakdown (Green Day song - sample).ogg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:21st Century Breakdown (Green Day song - sample).ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by YouAintBeautiful (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A 44-seconds sample is too much for a 5 minutes-long song.

© Tbhotch™ (en-3). 01:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.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: keep. Participants generally view the omission of an image of the character's look as detrimental to a reader's understanding of the critical discussion in the article. The non-free character's look was inspired by subjects who we have free images of, and some participants argue that the free content is sufficient (see

WP:NFCC#8
).

Those advocating deletion say reader understanding will not be harmed, but provide little evidence beyond intuition to support that claim. Editors advocating keep however point out that all critical commentary includes an image of the character, suggesting that including the non-free image is expected by readers. They likewise point out that its omission makes the free content confusing since the discussion is primarily about the character not the subjects illustrated by free content. While the numbers are about evenly split, the participants advocating keep provide stronger evidence of detriment to reader understanding. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Envy Adams performance Scott Pilgrim vs. the World image.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kingsif (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used in

consensus to include this image in the article. ƏXPLICIT 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no free image of the character. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The free image of Emily Haines seems to sufficiently illustrate the inspiration for the character. An image of the character is nice to have, but doesn't significantly increase understanding that Haines is the inspiration for the character. Abzeronow (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment below also addresses this :) Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image seems very clear-cut in not violating non-free image use policy, it has a very clear function of depicting something critical that is entirely visual in nature. It is one in a set of images that shows an inspiration-result relationship, the kind of visual representations that I have never seen a non-free file be challenged (let alone deleted) for before. As said above, there are images of Emily Haines, the real inspiration for the character Envy in both appearance and physicality. Just showing the free images of Haines (of which there are plenty on Commons) shows the subject of inspiration, but given that Envy is entirely based on her, we can and should make a direct comparison (not all inspiration-inspired things can, if the inspiration is not massive); as Envy is actually part of the film that the article is about, using the images is a useful visual comparative to illustrate how the character was influenced. In trying to keep this short, I'll summarize this block by saying that the images of Haines alone do not actually serve the comparative function that is the best analytical practice and, though showing some part of criticism, without an image of Envy it does not show the effect on the film that is the subject of the (relevant discussion and) article.
There is also a solid precedent for using both inspiration and inspired images in other articles; I still invoke the example on the
Captain Marvel (2019 film) article (the first that came to mind, possibly because of the Brie Larson connection, but not the only one). A Good Article, that article uses two non-free images (in section Post-production) to show the appearance of Sam Jackson in a 1997 film and his appearance in CM, which was based on the former. In the same way, Envy in SP is based on Haines and if it is deemed necessary to use the non-free screenshot of CM, why would it not be for an image serving the same function here? Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Neutral (might lean toward "week keep" or "weak delete") - The rationale to enforce
    WP:NFCC#8, part of the main rationale for deletion, which says that elimination of non-free multimedia content would detriment the understanding of the article subject, seems to be main concern. The character Envy Adams herself was briefly mentioned in the Plot section and then in the Music (sub)section. The rest of the paragraph mentioning Envy Adams and Emily Haines also mentions briefly the song "Black Sheep", which may or may not need a music sample of the song rather than a mere image. Then again, the brief description of the song would not sufficiently justify using the music clip.

    Back to the image of Envy Adams, right now I'm seeing two sentences describing Envy Adams's (fictional character) performance of the song: "The clothing, performance and style of Metric's lead singer, Emily Haines, is also the basis for the lead singer of The Clash at Demonhead, Envy Adams," and "On her stage performance of the song, Larson said at the UK premiere that she 'had no idea [her] body could move that way'." If I take the image out of the article, then the two free images of Haines would remain. However, once the non-free image is eliminated, a reader would be puzzled about the inclusion of Haines images alone and would question whether those images are needed to be included. Take out the Haines images, and then you'd see just one paragraph describing the versions of "Black Sheep" but also including brief description of visual performances that wouldn't justify using any image, be it a free or non-free image. A reader can click "Emily Haines" or go to c:Category:Emily Haines (Commons) to see her clothing for cognitive comparisons. If the Haines images are needed, then let's be sure that using the images helps the understanding of the context. Also, if the Haines images are needed, then the non-free image of Envy Adams would also be needed as well. On the contrary, if the Haines images are also taken out, the paragraph would be potentially understood without the images, but then the inclusion of one sentence about the inspiration and origin of Envy Adams and the inclusion of Larson's UK premiere quote make the paragraph more puzzling without the image(s).

    In conclusion, right now I'm suddenly torn. How the context of the paragraph is understood becomes subjective to a various reader. NFCC is intended to emphasize free content but then would allow acceptable non-free content. While the non-free image meets the "no free equivalent" and "minimal usage" criteria, meeting the "contextual significance" becomes trickier, even when just two sentences visually describing Larson's performance would seem to be the small amount. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • @George Ho: The relevant paragraph has been edited since (I was going to try clean up the soundtrack article, and found sources with info appropriate here). Since you quote it, I thought I'd notify you. (And about the song re. music clip - again, a comparative of Haines vs Larson singing would have to be used, but then there's also "We Are Sex Bob-Omb" from the film which got noms and awards that would be a better candidate for clip inclusion for that reason. I was thinking of putting them on the soundtrack page instead). Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Keep – Now with improvements made, I can see substantial justification for using the non-free image. Whether one of the Haines images is sufficient enough is another story for another discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the first part, any uploader could just have easily got it from the film directly (but without a source link to post). To the second, it's not being used that way. The discussion is about how the character was made to visually reflect a real person, the image shows that. That's what images supporting critical discussions do. (I don't think I mentioned it before, but at least one of the scholarly sources used in the article, the kind of publication following the same non-free rules as WP, has images of Envy in the film and in the comics compared with an image of Haines. We're in good company.) Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NFCC#8, specifically on the second test, in that omission of the image does not harm the reader's understanding. The free images of Emily Haines from Metric give a good idea without seeing the film's screenshot of what Envy may look like. While having the image of Envy does enhance the reader's understanding (first test of NFCC#8), the omission does not harm it, so it should be removed. --Masem (t) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A genuine questions for Masem relating to this comment: without the screenshot, aren't the images of Haines in effect a 'take our word for it she looked like this', which is a bit OR? Since the discussion is about the comparison, too, isn't it an oversight to not provide that comparison, even if the Haines images could illustrate the physical attributes on their own? (I'll just assume discussion is fine here) Kingsif (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you have sources that say her looks were used for the character's design. Yes, you're not showing the character, but you're giving a couple images for the reader who has not seen the move to extrapolate what Envy may look like. --Masem (t) 05:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this response. Can I then bring back the comparative used in the first discussion and repeated above: if just showing the inspiration and then requiring the reader to 'extrapolate', on the Captain Marvel film article, to be consistent, we'd apply the same. So, remove the image of Sam Jackson in the film, show the one from 1997, and say 'he looked kind of like this', even though what is being illustrated (in both cases) from the critical discussion in the text isn't just the physical appearance but how the inspiration and the final result relate. Ping @Masem: for response if you want, because I would like to understand. Kingsif (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be very detrimental for the reader to judge the assessment that Haines' look inspired Larsen's look and feel without actually seeing Larsen's look. All of this is discussed in the prose with sources but boils down to actually seeing what those respective looks look like. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 05:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The comparison requires both images in order to make sense to a reader. There is sourced critical commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Several Images of mass shooters

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: relisted on 2020 October 2. Izno (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rodrick Shonte Dantzler.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Eduardo Sencion.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Michael McLendon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:George Hennard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Francisco Paula Gonzales.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Clarence Bertucci.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Patrick Crusius Video Surveillance Shooting.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Omar S. Thornton.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Gian Luigi Ferri.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)
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:ISS solar array manufacturing.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ISS solar array manufacturing.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Raphael.concorde (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per

talk) 14:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

To be honest I don't know why its so hard and frustrating to upload and maintain a copyrighted image on Wikipedia, since it was already resolved months ago by other users. I tried my best to put in relavant information about it and its source, so why is this new problem coming up now? Please could you rephrease exactly what is needed to be done on the image information in simple english (I don't understand all the codes and technical jargon on "
WP:NFCC#8". Thanks User:Raphael.concorde
— Aug 6, 2020 14:49 UTC
The problem isn't new, and I'm not sure what you mean by "already resolved months ago". I'm looking at the file history and see a few housekeeping edits from when you uploaded.
If you're not sure about what's meant by the shorthand I've used, you can click on the wikilinks and see the policies that I'm citing. The most relevant one is, The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered. Basically, unless there's a discussion about the specific image, non-free content should not be there and it's the uploader's responsibility to make an explicit case why the image is absolutely necessary.
talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ava Max - Kings & Queens, Pt. 2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ava Max - Kings & Queens, Pt. 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rangel Carregosa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Alternate cover art which is substantially the same as the main cover art. Fails

WP:NFCC#3a. Whpq (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: Fails
    WP:NFCC#8, which states that 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 cover used is for a second version of the song, which does not have any significant relation with the album cover. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PoFV Manual.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. Izno (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoFV Manual.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Loafiewa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This non-free image is being used in a list article without significant sourced commentary about the image. The non-free usage rationale makes the claim that it is a logo and it is being used for primary identification. It is clearly not a logo and is not being used for primary identification. Fails

WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_August_6&oldid=1017674845"