Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15

File:Fresh Cream - Spoonfull Cream clip.ogg

Sample de-PRODded under assumption of sufficient, adequate critical commentary, including "swirling instrumental interplay, echo, fuzz tones". Sure, there's a section describing Fresh Cream's rendition of "Spoonful". However, I'm uncertain whether a sample meets WP:NFCC#8 and is needed to identify the recording. Hearing the sample, I also can't be certain whether the content in context matches what the text describes. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As George notes, there is section dedicated to Cream's versions. It contains four paragraphs and besides the recording and release material, it includes a brief commentary on the music, which George has quoted. In the sample, one may hear fuzz (distortion on the guitar and possibly bass) and the echoey reverb used, and I suppose some instrumental interplay. I'm not sure what more it would take for George to hear it, but he seems to be pushing for a highly restrictive interpretation of what constitutes "contextual significance".

He recently attempted to add his own "rule" with no discussion nor consensus to the WP guideline for music samples [1] (which he has reverted) and for "Spoonful", has moved the {{audio sample}} out of the infobox and changed it to {{Listen}} in keeping with his "rule". These issues really need a broader forum, such as at WT:Non-free content, rather than one editor's attempt to determine policy using a piecemeal FfD approach.

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I didn't realize until now, per instructions at Template:Audio sample/doc and Template:Listen/doc, the "listen" template is preferred to "audio sample", and the sample should be put into body. Furthermore, the Template:Listen/doc says: Do not position non-free audio or video files in the infobox. Whether samples should or shouldn't be in the lead section... well, just as long as non-free samples are outside, i.e. not used in, an infobox. I'm unsure whether a central discussion is necessary, but we can do so after this discussion is concluded. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Wait, those instructions were added in June of last year by Binksternet ([2],[3]). --George Ho (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the subject of sourced commentary, and serves to identify the topic of discussion for the section. Colin M (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charli XCX - Come To My Party (Demo).ogg

Appears to fail WP:NFCC#4, doesn't appear to have been published by the copyright holder before, and the source is simply listed as "online circulation". hinnk (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quanah Parker exhibit at National Ranching Heritage Center IMG 0245.JPG

Currently disputed copyright status. Original uploader Billy Hathorn was banned for copyright violations, the licensing explanation for this image was I did not know of any copyright on this. There is no name of an author. "No name of author" does not imply that the text is not copyrighted. No evidence of free licensing, I do not believe this is fair use either because it is replaceable. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:I Love the Nightlife - Alicia Bridges.jpg

The other file File:Alicia Bridges - I Love the Nightlife.jpg (German single) was PRODded and then deleted without contest. Somehow, a different file was uploaded just now. There's already a file uploaded as free, File:I Love the Nightlife by Alicia Bridges US 7-inch side A.png. I'm not convinced that the cover art was used for one of single releases (discogs, 45cat). Seems to me that it's for the singer's re-release using the same name, previously titled after the singer (musixmatch, Amazon, discogs, eBay). I think the cover, intended as an alternative to the "dreaded" side label, was mistaken as part of a single release when uploaded. Using the image in Alicia Bridges (album) as a second/extra image wouldn't comply with NFCC. As-is, the misuse of the cover art fails WP:NFCC#10a, WP:NFCC#5, and/or WP:NFCC#4. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]