Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:15, 30 December 2017

< December 28	December 30 >

December 29

File:2008 KD logo.gif

Superseded by File:Kings Dominion logo 2007-2011.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sui Dhaaga 2018.jpg

Fan-made poster Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have the fine print as seen in real movie posters like this one. Would that make it obvious enough for G3? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photographs of Club Ponytail in Harbor Springs, Michigan.png

I really doubt the public library holds the copyright to everything a newspaper produced. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless someone comes forth that the Petoskey Public Library owns and licensed the photos of the Petoskey News, this should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photograph of Public Artist Martin Firrell by Will J Jackson.jpg

Orphaned with questionable licensing. The license is given on the subject's site, not by the photographer, and it's unclear whether the photographer released it under that license. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Generali Tower Milan 02.jpg

The structure of the tower itself is PD. That much is agreed upon. But the image itself is dual licensed. The photograph holds its own copyright license and we would need to know that that was also correctly released. The image itself was originally uploaded to Commons by Skid22 but the EXIF data indicates that it came from Facebook. A directly link to the image in question either here or through OTRS (which I'd be able to process) would be appreciated for confirmatory purposes. Majora (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I just uploaded it from Commons since it was listed for deletion for reasons other than those pointed out by you and that I was not aware of. Anyway, I fear I am not able to trace back the origin of the picture. It appears to be everywhere on the net. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Don't worry about it. FOP and country specific laws can get crazy once you fall down that rabbit hole. I tried to trace it back too before putting it here and I wasn't able to. For precautionary reasons if it can be verified I don't think we can keep it. --Majora (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: maybe it came from here? https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=581773498613300&id=153904631400191 This is the official Facebook page (in italian) of the Municipality of Milan. But I have no idea of which kind of licence is involved here.

Hmm. Well if that is the case then I'm afraid we definitely can't keep it. There is no release on the image. And the only Italian governmental works that are auto PD are edicts. Images that don't have an explicit release default to an "all rights reserved" type license. This is for the photograph itself not the building design which is PD in the US. Both licenses have to be taken into account. --Majora (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GE - Good Ending v1 cover.jpg

Also

These images are above the NFCC guideline, and the uploader is objecting to a small reduction to meet the guideline. As the guideline says You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this. There is nothing in the FUR to support the need for an oversized image - the image is only used in the infobox (at a much smaller size than the image page), with no critical commentary in the article that necessitates the use of an oversized image. A standard reduction to meet the guideline would reduce the images to a size that is still in excess of the actual size used in the article. I am therefore looking for a consensus to either reduce or keep - this is effectivly an extension of a previous discussion - see Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_2#File:Kobayashi_ga_Kawai_Sugite_Tsurai_v1_cover.jpg. Pinging interested parties from previous discussion @BU Rob13, Begoon, Whpq, and Fastily: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce all in the absence of a rationale to keep them larger. Further, I think this is becoming a behavioral issue if an editor is contesting literally every image size reduction. I'd recommend taking this to ANI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The behavioral issue is on the other side considering they're making mass edits that have been shown to be controversial and other editors agreed with me in the previous discussion. They've also been edit warring, such as on File:Tokyo Love Story v1 cover.jpg, File:Trash Market cover.jpg, and File:GE - Good Ending v1 cover.jpg. A rationale is not needed since not even one of them is excessively large that it would warrant one. Opencooper (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close As has been mentioned in the previous discussion, 100,00 pixels is only a recommendation. In fact, the actual Non-free content policy states that "Low- rather than high-resolution" is necessary, while the Non-free content guideline even states in the first line:
There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.
It's only oversized by your own arbitrary standards. Fair use only requires that the image not be large enough to harm commercial use by the original copyright holder. This image is nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP Commons requires for featured images. This is just an overzealous crusade by the nominator to split hairs and reduce image quality such has been done on this file, where the line art is illegible and faces obscured, both important aspects of an infobox image that has to illustrate characters, demonstrate artstyle, and be recognizable. The image is already small enough to meet fair use, even Wikipedia's more strict non-free content recommendations. Like the uploader states, it's only a difference of 50 pixels, which is very minor compared to images 1,000 pixels wide or any other obvious case needing reduction. It's more important that we understand the spirit of the topic rather than the letter, and this upload is small by any qualitative rather than quantitative metric. This response is already getting long, so for reasons why lack of critical commentary or use only at smaller size in the infobox are dubious reasons, please see the previous discussion.
This nomination should be procedural closed since it is contrary to guideline and each image needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. This mass nomination is just an extension of RonJones' edit warring and harassment of me. Let me repeat, you can't mass-nominate a bunch of images to create a sham consensus that contravenes the actual applicable guideline; if you don't like the guideline, change it. Mass nomination is disruptive and this is clearly RonJones' attempt to get even since i dared contest his edits as an admin. Opencooper (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce all: Actually the NFC guideline says that all images should be as large as they need to be and no more. Could it work just as well if it was 50 pixels smaller? Of course. So that is the size you should go with. --Majora (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: So how do you know that all these images are as large as they need to be? Did you examine all 49 of them individually and argue each on their own merits? By your own logic this is an inappropriate nomination. Why is 250px "as large as they need to be"? There's no guideline stating that. Opencooper (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I look at all of them? Of course I did. Don't assume I didn't just because there is a lot of them. It is very clear to met that they can all be reduced without losing any information about them. Ergo, reduction fits within the non-free content guideline. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So where are your arguments for each individual one? You can't just say "they all can be reduced" without actually reducing and checking them all. Each individual upload has its own factors like line variation, character size, important elements, that a mass nomination doesn't consider. Opencooper (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for each individual one would still be reduce. If you want to make a whole lot of disruption to this page then feel free to split them all into individual sections. I'll put the same comment in all of them. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you agree that this should be a procedural close. Thanks. And wow, no need to be so WP:POINTY. Opencooper (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in people's mouths. It makes your argument incredibly weak. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not what you said, then you're being inconsistent with yourself. Read over what you wrote. Then again, can't expect level-headedness from someone who wrote "I'll put the same comment in all of them". Quite disruptive of you. Opencooper (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've striked out File:Vincent Canby portrait.jpg from this nomination. A mass-nomination of images is already quite frivolous and disingenuous, but sneaking in a picture of a human amongst a bunch of manga covers is quite sly considering it's not the only picture of a human I've uploaded at 300px. These all should be considered on their own merits but this one is especially flagrant. Opencooper (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I’ve unstruck it. The image fits the overarching theme of the nomination which is “Opencooper pointedly reverting normal reductions in non-free image size”. It is your job to argue why they cannot be smaller, not be other way around, according to the guideline. You may not arbitrarily remove images from the list to try to disrupt the FFD and require more work of other editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - These aren't "normal reductions", these are RonJones overzealously crusading over 50px and making mass edits that were proven controversial. Nice try painting it otherwise though. Opencooper (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where were they proven controversial? I'm not sure I've seen that, I do know I've had plenty of "thank notifications" after tagging oversize images. I also note that the uploader is keen to always quote one part of the guideline, while ignoring the rest of it where it states
      You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.
      . Had he used the proscribed template and reasoning, then I would have left those images alone, instead he added a {{nobots}} template (which has no visible banner), I think to try to disrupt the reduction process. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the previous discussion as well as with me disputing it. That means it controversial. Words aren't hard. And my images aren't oversized so i don't need that template. Sorry that you're so small-minded that you only see a number and can't actually see the rest of the whole guideline which I've quoted for you numerous times. And I see, so it was retribution as I guessed, thanks for admitting it. I added the nobots template because you would just hit-and-run my uploads before I could even dispute it, and I'm tired of indiscriminate bots and mass-edits to policy like you've been doing. Wikipedia is crawling with people who can't actually think for themselves or use nuance these days, especially admins. Sure you would "have left them alone", like you ego would allow. Opencooper (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ***These aren't "normal reductions", these are RonJones overzealously crusading over 50px and making mass edits that were proven controversial. Nice try painting it otherwise though. [[User:Opencooper|Opencooper]] ([[User talk:Opencooper|talk]]) 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 ****Where were they '''proven''' controversial? I'm not sure I've seen that, I do know I've had plenty of "thank notifications" after tagging oversize images. I also note that the uploader is keen to always quote one part of the guideline, while ignoring the rest of it where it states<blockquote>You also may wish to add the {{tl|non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.</blockquote>. Had he used the proscribed template and reasoning, then I would have left those images alone, instead he added a {{tl|nobots}} template (which has no visible banner), I think to try to disrupt the reduction process. [[User:Ronhjones|<b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron<span style="color:red">h</span>jones&nbsp;</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones|&nbsp;(Talk)]]</sup> 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
+*****In the previous discussion as well as with me disputing it. That means it controversial. Words aren't hard. And my images aren't oversized so i don't need that template. Sorry that you're so small-minded that you only see a number and can't actually see the rest of the whole guideline which I've quoted for you numerous times. And I see, so it ''was'' retribution as I guessed, thanks for admitting it. I added the nobots template because you would just hit-and-run my uploads before I could even dispute it, and I'm tired of indiscriminate bots and mass-edits to policy like you've been doing. Wikipedia is crawling with people who can't actually think for themselves or use nuance these days, especially admins. Sure you would "have left them alone", like you ego would allow. [[User:Opencooper|Opencooper]] ([[User talk:Opencooper|talk]]) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)