- File:Eega_and_Naan_Ee_merged_film_poster.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
The article describes two original films, Eega and Naan Ee. The infobox picture should therefore represent both films as one film poster doesn't represent both films. Both pictures represent the article, while one alone would mislead readers that there is only one original film in Telugu language (Eega). It should be very clear by seeing the infobox image alone that there is a second film (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose_of_an_infobox). Per WP:NFG there is an exemption for non-free montages for special cases like this. The merging of two separate articles became necessary only after it was observed that the content was very similar, else there would have been separate articles with separate pictures. Experts on the subject support a merged poster at the talkpage: Talk:Eega#Two_films.2C_two_different_posters. Previously merging the articles was decided here: Talk:Naan Ee. Dravidian Hero 12:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin here. We generally don't allow mashups of nonfree content as an extension of policies on nonfree galleries. Additionally, it's concerning whenever we directly modify "fair use" content and create new work based on it, hence my original close as "delete". I would further state that this doesn't seem that different from our frequent conversations disallowing album covers, DVD covers, movie posters, etc. for a second- or third-language release of a work. No matter how many languages a film is released in, we only "need" one image for identification. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no law which says infoboxes must have pictures, let alone they must represent everything in the article. If (and it is if) the use of images can be justified under NFCC, then put two separate images in place, if need be put no image in the infobox, but put the two images elsewhere in the article. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for feedback. IP, it's standard to use posters for films in infobox throughout all wikipedias. I would like to show an analogy to make the case clearer. Let's say a very notable film was made in Mandarin and Russian at the same time with identical content and persons. How would you handle this? Which poster(s) would make it into the infobox? When you choose Russian, the Chinese would probably declare war and vice versa. Infact we had a similar problem here, when I initially used only one picture for both films. I only see a merged poster/gallery as a solution here and it is legally possible as described above. -- Dravidian Hero 18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point me to the policy, guideline etc. which says you *must* have a picture in an infobox. You won't be able to, because no such policy exists. In fact I've seen discussion of those wishing to remove the picture element from infoboxes to remove the common misconception that being there it must be used and uploading images which violate the NFC policy just to fill in the blank. If (and I'll repeat if) I could justify the two posters for the film, I'd put them in the body and remove any from the infobox, no dispute then as to which one appears since neither do. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox_film#Image -- Dravidian Hero 19:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a policy or guideline, doesn't say you *must* and also points to the fact that they must meet the NFC criteria to be used, so no that isn't setting a standard. Out of interest I had a look around to see this standard throughout all wikipedias, I picked Mission: Impossible III, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Live Free or Die Hard as examples of films of the past few years with broad distribution and an international audience, going through the interwiki links, ES, FR, ET, HU, NL, PL, SV at least don't have any picture in the infobox. Some have pictures within the body of the article. (Exception here for one where FR wiki has a free image of a behind the scenes shot showing the filming) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Set aside the infobox, which obviously is a settled matter in at least EN, your proposal of adding the two posters in the body doesn't solve the NFC problem. It would be equivalent to a gallery or a montage, if you use more than one NF image. So we have exactly the same problem we are discussing here.-- Dravidian Hero 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the word "obviously" doesn't make it so, the wasn't and still isn't any requirement to have an image in infoboxes. Yes you may still have NFC issues with two separate images which is why I was quite clear about the if the two could be justified. The gallery or montage part however is unlikely to be the issue, there would be no need to slap them side by side, you'd place them in the body as separate images, not a gallery and not a montage. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) (a GA) has two posters, why can't this have? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The best reason for showing both posters is if there are differences between them that are worth discussing in an encyclopedia. If that is so then the article should discuss the detail of the two posters and the cultural or other reasons for the two different versions. If this is not worth discussing I don't think we need two images. If it is then the "critical commentary" aspect might gain support for having both images. I rather agree a mash up of fair use images is probably not a good idea. Thincat (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This discussion should be solely about the use of two film posters for the different releases of the same film in the same article, not at all about the number of image files involved. Just because the two posters are copied in the same image file doesn't mean they are a "mashup" or that the file constitutes a "new work". They were just placed one above the other, a completely unoriginal arrangement that is really just a mundane copy of the two posters, not a new work that rises to the level of a derivative work; inclusion in WP article layout is instead much closer to a derivative use than the combination image file here possibly could be. So it's irrelevant for copyright purposes (and should be for our NFC policies as well) whether those posters are in separate image files or combined in one. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
