User talk:19h00s/October 2023

Proposed deletion of File:Vision of the Tomb, 1965, Ibrahim El-Salahi at Phillips 2023.jpeg

The file File:Vision of the Tomb, 1965, Ibrahim El-Salahi at Phillips 2023.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:DECORATIVE a the work is not discussed on the page and is not. Non-free images of paints are generally allowed when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the top of stand-alone articles about the topic they represent, but other types of uses are much harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS. There's no sourced critical commentary specifically about this paint in the paragraph about the Salahi in the "Artistic production" section of the article, and there's nothing about what's written about the paint that requires the reader to see its picture to understand; so, there's no real loss of encyclopedic understanding caused by omitting the poster from the article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: Thanks! Added critical analysis. Removed deletion proposal. 19h00s (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I really do not think you met the requirements of non-free image. I would advise you to have a look through similar examples where this kind of images where used. When I said “Non-free images of paints are generally allowed when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the top of stand-alone articles about the topic they represent” I was not exaggerating. I wonder if you can put my tag back until you create an article about this picture or create a section with critical analysis about the painting FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. There are many examples of non-free, fair use images across Wikipedia that have similar amounts of critical discussion specifically about the style of an individual work. In this case, the work is a clear example of the artist's style, a style that is explicated generally throughout the paragraph and specifically in the cited analysis - curved geometric shapes, subtle references to the crescent symbol, and a distinct dusky background. The quote specifically points to the piece as typical of this style, and the image serves as a reference for the style and the work itself. I also wonder why you find issue with this image, but did not find issue with the clear copyright violation that existed on this page before? The previous image included on this article was not suitable to be hosted on Commons, as it was a clear copyright violation. I replaced it with a clear fair use image, along with cited analysis of the work in question. Was just trying to be helpful and keep us in line with copyright rules. 19h00s (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@19h00s it will be good if you can mention couple of examples of the non-free, fair use images across Wikipedia that have similar amounts of critical discussion

I also wonder why you find issue with this image, but did not find issue with the clear copyright violation that existed on this page before? I simply was not aware of the problem and thank you for flagging that. This is a separate issue and please do not feel like it is a vendetta.

As far as my experience with Wikipedia, scrutiny is good and normally appreciated. The text above on my objection is a direct quote from similar cases including something I uploaded myself. So I am not unfairly targeting you, I am just questioning your rationale.

Please put that in mind, as not to feel that people who flag an article for deletion are against that article, they are just examining if certain things are appropriate for inclusion.

I think I will leave it for someone else to weigh on this, as I think you seem to consider my pinion as some kind of retaliation. but please give the examples of the non-free, fair use images across Wikipedia that have similar amounts of critical discussion so to help them with their decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma Again, I think you're misinterpreting the non-free content rules. The text you've quoted was written in the context of a non-free image of a movie poster. You changed the phrase "movie poster" to "paints," but the quote does not apply to paintings and other visual art in the same way. A non-free image of a movie poster certainly only has two uses here: to identify a movie in an infobox, and to serve as a visual aid if there is significant discussion of the visual elements of the poster. A non-free image of a painting on the other hand, has slightly different rules. The most basic purpose of a non-free image of visual art (including paintings), as defined at Wiki:NFC#Images, is "For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." This can include demonstrating an artist's technique at a particular moment in their career. In this case, the painting serves as a stylistic example of the artist's work from the 60s to the 70s, as clearly defined in the article's text. The painting is referenced in quoted analysis, and the image serves as a visual example of the artist's style.

Non-free images are not all the same, and they aren't all treated the same. Visual art has different standards for use than movie posters; movie posters are promotional products that can generally only serve as a visual aid for a specific film, while paintings and visual art can be used as general examples of an artist's stylistic periods or techniques.

Here are several other examples, uploaded by other users, of non-free images of visual art with similar amounts of sourced critical commentary:

• Elegy to the Spanish Republic No. 110 (1971), featured in the Robert Motherwell article.
• 1957-D No. 1 (1957), featured in the Clifford Still article.
• Condensation Cube (1963-1965), featured in the Hans Haacke article

19h00s (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the picture when you add it to the article (without subsequent edits due to my CfD) meets WP:NFCC#8?

I am glad you expanded the text to allow for the picture inclusion. I don’t think you knew that before, and I don’t think arguing now that my propose for deletion is wrong because after it you amended the text is good reasoning FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I don't feel like continuing this with you, so. I'm done. Have a good day! 19h00s (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)