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~~ re-release of the singer's old album 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); edited, 06:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same uploader uploaded the same image as File:I Love the Nightlife.jpg. Well, as I must say, there are black bars on the left and right, but the cover art is the same 1999 reissue album cover. George Ho (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Love Won't Let Me Wait - Major Harris.jpg

Previously tagged with "rfu" and then deleted very soon as File:Major Harris Love Won't Let Me Wait.jpg. Let's evaluate the Spanish (Spain) single picture sleeve's (discogs, 45cat) compliance with WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 (and WP:NFCC#3a if applicable). I uploaded a portion of the US single release (File:Love won't let me wait by major harris US vinyl side A.png) in Commons, intended as the deleted sleeve's replacement. With the side label still eligible for use in Commons, I figure that the Spanish sleeve is replaceable. Furthermore, I still remain unconvinced that deleting the Spanish sleeve will affect the understanding of the song Love Won't Let Me Wait (and its releases), especially in context, even when the cover seems harmless. The US single is already displayed as identification of the release itself. Unless the it is needed to attract mass appeal (of the project) and show the singer's appearance, I still am concerned about the necessity of the Spanish sleeve. George Ho (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waseda University Official Logo.svg

Does not seem to qualify for WP:Non-free content since File:Waseda University Logo.svg already is there. Jonteemil (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kasey Cisyk - You Light Up My Life (cover).jpg

De-PRODded per JGabbard's rationale (diff): image varies enough from promotional image for parent album. However, the cover art is the exact variant (or cover art) of used for the parent soundtrack album You Light Up My Life (ebay, discogs, 45worlds). This variant has "ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK" banner above the album title. As I'm convinced, the image belongs to the soundtrack. BTW, it looks similar to the film poster.

Single releases of the eponymous song use different variants of the same artwork (discogs (1), discogs (2), 45cat). (The Italian single uses a different one (eBay).) Well, the Portuguese single's picture sleeve (discogs) looks almost similar to the parent album, but the record label Arista's logo looks slightly different: on the Portuguese single, the text below the logo appears dark or black; on the vinyl soundtrack album, the text below the logo appears white. Still, the "ORIGINAL SOUNDTRACK" banner appears in both variants, and I'm unsure whether the difference on the record label logo between the two would compensate that.

Overall, the cover art's compliance with NFCC, including WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#5, and/or WP:NFCC#10a, comes into question. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC); corrected, 09:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo-0394 (2)4.jpg

Orphaned user photo, uploader has not edited in nearly 15 years. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. ✗plicit 05:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:PiDigits.png

Orphaned, superseded by File:PiDigits.svg. ✗plicit 05:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]