Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 23

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23

File:Tagaru film.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant to File:Tagaru poster.jpg and needs immediate deletion to prevent re-adding to Tagaru. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2019 (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:Victor Manuel Vazquez Mireles.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. MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This man, a suspected drug trafficker, is probably imprisoned by the Mexican government, but it won't publicly release the information that this is the case. He is wanted for drug trafficking and assault in the US as well. Although I don't have a position on this, I am concerned based on Marchjuly's comments on WT:NFCC that there is not consensus that such images (despite the difficulty/impossibility of obtaining a free image) meet NFCC. As this article is nominated for GA, as the reviewer I have to make sure that all non-free images meet the criteria as determined by the community. I apologize for nit-picking but it has to be done. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bring this to the discussion board. I will provide my rationale for the use of this non-free image:

(1): As far as reliable sources go, this person is imprisoned in a maximum-security facility. Access to this individual is limited to prison staff, lawyers and family members. A free image at this time would be virtually impossible since authorities would not allow anyone to go inside the prison with a camera since it would pose a security risk. We don't know when he will be out or what his status is at this time, and Wikipedia cannot expect us to violate the law to get a picture.
(2): If this person were to be released from prison in Mexico, he would still be considered a fugitive under U.S. law since he is wanted by U.S. authorities since 1999. Finding the whereabouts of an international fugitive from a paramilitary group, and then taking a picture of him is in my opinion an extremely difficult task since that person would likely be in hiding and/or armed.
(3): Taking pictures of Mexican drug kingpins is particularly dangerous too. Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. The Gulf Cartel has been particularly violent against people who report on them (I've taken security measures myself to protect my location and identity). Any Wikipedian who attempts to take a picture of these individuals can potentially risk the lives of themselves/their families. MX (✉ • ✎) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fugitives, inmates, and recluses rule is firmly enshrined in consensus. Search FFD archives for cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 November 2019 (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:Huckleberry Hound.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 -FASTILY 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps replacing the title card image of Huckleberry Hound with this, and rather than getting into a hassle with ANI and page protection, let's just delete it. It's unneccessarily high-quality for a basically decorative image. We have image:Huckleberry Hound Title Card.jpg which is lower quality, and title cards are the preffered image for the top of an article. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, the title card image does not have a non-free use rationale for the Huckleberry Hound and so its usage in that article not compliant with WP:NFCC#10c. I have removed it from the article for now. Having said that, the image could be used for both article as the title card contains an image of Huckleberry Hound. Usage of the title card in this way would comply with WP:NFCC#3a and negate the need for a separate character image. As such, I recommend deleting File:Huckleberry Hound.png and adding an NFUR for File:Huckleberry Hound Title Card.jpg for use in the Huckleberry Hound article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Huckleberry Hound Title Card.jpg, what rationale do you want? It already says

The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing The Huckleberry Hound Show, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey... Because it is a non-free logo, there is almost certainly no free representation. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary... Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above... This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots for identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contentson the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States.

And some other stuff too. I mean, what more do you want? I literally don't know what else to put in. This is the standard boilerplate (I think) for title cards, book covers, and so on. And as a matter of fact, we use title cards in thousands and thousands of articles on TV shows, I think.

But anyway, that's File:Huckleberry Hound Title Card.jpg which is a different image. If you want to nominate that for deletion in a separate discussion or something, fine. We could not have an image in the article, whatever. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you simply skimmed what I wrote without understanding what I wrote, or you are not familiar with the non-free content criteria. WP:NFCC#10c states "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use." There is no non-free usage rationale for the use of this image the Huckleberry Hound article. There is only a non-free usage rationale for its use in the Huckleberry Hound Show article. -- Whpq (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. You are correct, I'm familiar with the general thrust of the non-free content criteria but not necessarily with precise the wording of the various criteria and how it's interpreted, and the resulting plethora of tags. I'm familiar with a lot of other stuff, but yeah, I can't be familiar with the minutia of every rule. But thank you for finally speaking plain English. Apparently there is something in play about the difference between "Huckleberry Hound" and "The Huckleberry Hound Show", and apparently different tags are needed for use in each article, right? Fine, whatever. I added two more tags so hopefully this is satisfactory? I'm not familiar with all the various tags and you apparently are, so it'd have been easier you to just do this, but whatever. It's not an existential problem so it's not worth going back and forth over, let's just have no image in the article or whatever, although seeing what the little blue dog looks like (in a way that doesn't violate the commercial-potential rule) would be a service to the reader. But OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the extra NFUR because this whole issue is under discussion here, and has not concluded with any concensus. And indeed, there is a contrary view below. -- Whpq (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A character image in the infobox for their article is not a decorative image. Title cards are not the preferred image for character articles since there seems to be a consensus through the Animation Wikiproject to have character images instead of screenshot in FAs and GAs (Bart Simpson, Homer Simpson, Sideshow Bob, Troy McClure, Kenny McCormick, Kyle Broflovski, Lisa Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Marge Simpson, SpongeBob SquarePants (character), Stan Marsh, Ariel (The Little Mermaid), Aurora (Disney), Barney Gumble, Belle (Beauty and the Beast), Kang and Kodos, Krusty the Clown, Ned Flanders, Patrick Star, Pearl Krabs, Rapunzel (Tangled), Squidward Tentacles, Anna (Frozen), Cheryl Tunt, Edna Mode, Elsa (Frozen), Ferb Fletcher, Flynn Rider, Kim Possible (character), Mr. Krabs, Mrs. Puff, Perry the Platypus, Phineas Flynn, Plankton and Karen, Princess Jasmine, Professor Frink, Scar (The Lion King), Simba, Sven (Frozen), Waylon Smithers.) Aspects (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, whattya know. In my opinion all those are violations of NCCC #2 ("Respect for commercial opportunities: Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material"), since one could easily make commercial-quality notecards, party invitations, web pages, etc. from those images (some of which have multi-million-dollar licensing income I suppose). To my mind they ought to be downgraded -- fuzzed up and shrunk or whatever, which still would allow the reader to get a good-enough visual overview of the entity, while better meeting NCCC #2. I lack the skill and interest to do that even I didn't get swarmed and skeletonized in five minutes, which probably. But whatever; if everybody wants to be loosey-goosey with NCCC #2, well far be it from me to gainsay the community. Consider me educated, and sorry for the trouble. Herostratus (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Want to see a bit more discussion on the WP:NFCC#2 point
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominated file is 256 × 325 pixels. It's thumbnail rather than print quality and cannot be used to compete with any professionally made legit merchandise.

But as for the files listed by Aspects above, Herostratus might have a Wikipedia:NFCC#2 case when it comes to SVG files that are not sourced to SVG files released by the copyright owners. SVGs are problematic because: 1) they are print quality and we need proof that the copyright holders have intended to publish a reproducible design at that fidelity, and 2) there are two separate copyrights involved, one for the character design and another for the SVG code, both of which need to pass. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Finn has a point about SVGs, but File:Huckleberry Hound.png is a 256x325 PNG. No NFCC#2 concern for that size and format. I think File:Huckleberry Hound.png is appropriate for use at Huckleberry Hound, and File:Huckleberry Hound Title Card.jpg (small-size JPG) is appropraite for use at The Huckleberry Hound Show, which is how things are arranged now; one illustrates the character, the other illustrates the show. – Levivich 03:35, 20 December 2019 (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:Sans Forgetica font sample.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The font type is released under a CC-BY-NC license (http://sansforgetica.rmit/#section3). Would the image in question be under the threshold of originality to not be copyrightable? Otherwise, this needs to be changed to fair use. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was released under a free licence (October 2018), when this image was made. They went to CC (and CC-by-nc, which would be a problem for us) later on. Also, this isn't a font, it's a bitmap of one example phrase.

Maybe just PROD the article altogether? It's not as if WP needs this coverage - there's nothing in it more than RMIT's own release page. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Josve05a and Andy Dingley:If this was originally freely licensed it could be kept, but we need some kind of evidence for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at their own licensing. Even now, they have a non-free licence on the font (-nc), but the sample generator they have is freely licensed. Once again, a bitmap image is not the same thing as a font! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing copyrightable here. Raster renderings of characters from fonts are not copyrightable, c:Template:PD-font, and the choice of words and colors is well below TOO. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Finn and WP:PDFONT, rasters (e.g. .jpgs) of characters in a font are not protected by copyright, and fall below TOO. – Levivich 03:44, 20 December 2019 (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:Carrikerella ceratophora.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 ⚡ 08:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on Commons at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carrikerella ceratophora.jpg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the arguments and result of the Commons deletion discussion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 29 November 2019 (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:Billie Jean 2008.jpeg

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 ⚡ 08:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally planned to recategorize the image (of 2008 Kanye West remix release) as ineligible for copyright because I assumed that originality is lacking in the material. However, I'm unsure about MJ's signature. Therefore, I asked at WP:MCQ about the copyright eligibility of the signature compared to his other one. I was told that, if the signature's appearance looks complex enough for copyright, the image would not be transferable. If that's the case, then the image should be considered non-free. If non-free, then the image would fail WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3a. Removing the image wouldn't harm readers' grasp about the song "Billie Jean", and there are already other images in the article. Also, the critical commentary about the remix release is insufficient and inadequate enough to justify using the cover. Also, the remix itself didn't make much of an impact as the original itself. Even if the image were to be considered free to use, I wonder whether the image meets WP:IUP#Image content and selection. If not, then deletion it is. George Ho (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (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:East West Rail services Diagram map.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 as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have produced an updated version of this diagram, File:Ewr v2.svg, this old one is no longer required Csharpmar (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also add, the general consensus is, there are too many mistakes, and it quite rough, as past feedback I have been given on it says.Csharpmar (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image is presently in use on just one page, at East West Rail#Service pattern considerations - it's at the bottom of the section (which is itself a bad idea) where it pokes down into the "Approval" section. If it were used in no pages at all, it would be speedy deletable under WP:CSD#G7 since the page history has Csharpmar and nobody else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2019 (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:Volley Bergamo logo.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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused, superior version available: File:Volley Bergamo logo.svg FASTILY 22:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to SVG file. Salavat (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2019 (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.