Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

December 2

File:Kobayashi ga Kawai Sugite Tsurai v1 cover.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: reduce file size. ℯ xplicit 01:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is almost 50% above the NFCC guideline, and the uploader is objecting to a small reduction to meet the guideline. As the guideline says You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this. There is nothing in the FUR to support the need for an oversized image - the image is only used in the infobox (at a much smaller size than the image page), with no critical commentary in the article that necessitates the use of an oversized image. A standard reduction to meet the guideline would reduce the image to 251 x 397 – a size that is still in excess of the actual size used in the article. I am therefore looking for a consensus to either reduce or keep oversized. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued on the nominators talk page, 100,00 pixels is only a guideline. In fact, the actual Non-free content policy states that "Low- rather than high-resolution" is necessary, while the Non-free content guideline even states in the first line:

There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.

It's only oversized by your own arbitrary standards. Fair use only requires that the image not be large enough to harm commercial use by the original copyright holder. This image is nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP Commons requires for featured images. This is just an overzealous crusade by the nominator to split hairs and reduce image quality such has been done on this file, where the line art is illegible and faces obscured, both important aspects of an infobox image that has to illustrate characters, demonstrate artstyle, and be recognizable. The image is already small enough to meet fair use, even Wikipedia's more strict non-free content recommendations. Like the uploader states, it's only a difference of 50 pixels, which is very minor compared to images 1,000 pixels wide or any other obvious case needing reduction. It's more important that we understand the spirit of the topic rather than the letter, and this upload is small by any qualitative rather than quantitative metric. This response is already getting long, so for reasons why lack of critical commentary or use only at smaller size in the infobox are dubious reasons, please see the previous discussion. Opencooper (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we take your argument to its logical conclusion (adding the fact that you have asked for all your non-free files (82 of them) not to be reduced on my talk page) - then you are saying that all files smaller than 150,000 pixels should not be reduced. That would leave 121,516 files oversized. I think that we might have to open to a wider audience as a guideline change, going for no reduce here could set an awkward precedent.Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one trying to set a precedence here. As the quote I've shared twice shows, there is no firm guideline on size. Go to the guideline and try to change the wording to be more strict if you don't like it. Opencooper (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce. The NFCC are clear here that the only allowable purpose of non-free content is for use in articles. See WP:NFCC#9. We do not store versions of non-free images larger than what's used in mainspace. The mainspace version is smaller than the file currently stored on our servers, so we must reduce the size of the file at least to the size being used in the mainspace. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy that says "We do not store versions of non-free images larger than what's used in mainspace". In fact, many users have a higher default thumbnail size, it could foreseeably be increased in the future considering at 4k 230px is only 5.6% of the screen, and it presents an accessibility issue for those hard of seeing. You're also ignoring that Wikipedia is used on multiple types of media and reusers, including paper and televisions. Opencooper (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content is not there for re-use, so the use of content in media does not count - they should get their non-free content direct from the source and use their own system for sizing. Viewing at full size on a 4K monitor is just silly (I have one!) The text is too small to read comfortably - one has to zoom in and then the image increases back to a sensible size. WP:NFCC#9 does say very clearly Non-free content is allowed only in articles, the file page is just there as a vehicle to get the image uploaded. If you want to have bigger NF images then the route should be to suggest a change to policy - as I said before, your argument could be applied to over 100,000 oversized images, otherwise it just seems to be a case of WP:JDLI. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've already clarified this once so you're just being disingenuous now. The one who needs to get a "change to policy" is you. There is no policy limiting the size to the specific number you chose. There is no policy saying images need to be the maximum of the thumbnail size. By mass-reducing every image to your own preferred size, you are the one trying to create your own standard. That's an improper use of mass-editing tools as there is no consensus to do that for the thousands of non-free images we have. Let me quote the guideline a third time since it's not going through to your head:

There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.

I really might need to report you to ANI as it's clear you lack competence to edit yet somehow you got AWB permission and an admin bit, and are making mass-edits contrary to policy. Opencooper (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what you quoted: "as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale". The rationale is for use in an article, as that is the only acceptable rationale per WP:NFCC#9. You've yet to provide any explanation why the image needs to be larger to be "useful as identified by their rationale". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is being discussed here. What's being discussed is the nominator's threshold for image size. If you feel this specific image is too large, that's certainly something you can do and should be done on a case-by-case basis. (what this single nomination doesn't show you is that the nominator has been tagging hundreds of images for reduction for a few months now, and when I contested to this, they opened this discussion as some sort of test case; the funny thing is how they twisted the facts to make it look my opposition was contrary to policy when it's their mass reduction that is actually abnormal) What I don't support is their arbitrary limit for image size and their personal interpretation of a supposed policy that they are using to mass-reduce images without any consensus and clearly against the very guideline they are citing. Opencooper (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write (or have anything to do with writing) the guideline of 100,000 pixels back in 2011 - so it's not my arbitrary number. As for case by case - they are all viewed in a scrolling gallery, before tagging starts, to see if I think the reduced version would be badly corrupted - I agree, I do misread the odd one (we are all human), but they have all been fixed - sometimes you cannot exactly guess what a reduced version would be like until it's been done. As for this specific image, I still feel it's too large - I'm sure it will reduce, and still be perfectly useful in the article. The only reason for the fact that a lot of images have been tagged, is that there were a lot of oversized images uploaded over very many years, with no easy way to track them down - only since the devs improved the search engine, not so long ago, to be able to locate these using a fileres: parameter has it been possible to see the extent of the problem. Since you like quoting part of the guideline, it also states

You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning

. and your FUR does not do that. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline clearly indicates 0.1 megapixels is the standard and gives you a method to indicate where you've purposefully exceeded that threshold for reasons of quality. If you've reverted this particular reduction because you'd like to prove a point about reductions in general, then see WP:POINT, as that's a rather rapid road to being blocked. If you've reverted this particular reduction because you believe it's supported by policy, you still need to give an explanation for why we must store this image at a medium resolution when its only use in the mainspace is as a low resolution image. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I agree with most of what you say here, and Opencooper is clearly being a deliberate pest for the sake of it. That doesn't change how wrong you were with "We do not store versions of non-free images larger than what's used in mainspace." or your failure to understand that user thumbnail settings render any such argument ludicrous and bizarre. I've seen you argue wrongly on image policy like this before, and I wish you wouldn't. It's worrying, from someone who seeks such high office. - Begoon 15:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones, you're still pretending 0.1MP is a policy? I'm done talking to you, it's clear you lack reading comprehension or are purposefully being obtuse at this point. Rob13, I don't think you understand WP:POINT, the one mass-editing without consensus was Ronhjones. I objected to this and despite them trying to edit war, I was the one who posted on their talk page first. Now we're here to discuss the image on its own merits which is how it's supposed to be done. And it's not at medium resolution and that's quite blatant when I quoted the figures of what actually entails high resolution earlier (e.g. 300dpi, 2MP) and how close or far 300px is from low resolution; stop making me go in circles with you too. @Begoon: Excuse me, I'm the one being a pest here? Fuck me for not letting some incompetent admin mass-edit multiple images (121,516 by their count) while not even understanding the relevant policy. Opencooper (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. You don't need to add me to your Christmas list or anything. If you read my comment again without the red mist you'll see I support part of your position if not your approach. Ciao. -- Begoon 15:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce - There is absolutely no need for the image to be kept above the recommended sizing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce per above. Uploader also seems to be suffering from a case of WP:IDHT. -FASTILY 20:20, 10 December 2017 (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:Dpaulat.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the supposed photographer appears in the photo, it seems unlikely they actually took it and own the copyright. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2017 (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:Unir cinema.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: keep. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover. Should be converted to non-free use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing changed to non-free magazine cover and a fair use added. Discussion should be good to close. Salavat (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2017 (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:Straight no chaser.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: keep. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover. Should be converted to non-free use. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing changed to non-free magazine cover and a fair use added. Discussion should be good to close. Salavat (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2017 (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:Olgiati bridge.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 ⚡ 22:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a suitable free image could be obtained, since the bridge still exists, hence the use of a non-free image here is unjustified, and fails NFC #1 Begoon 02:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's obviously replaceable since the article contains a gallery that oincludes free images of the bridge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There's no reason to use a non-free image to just show the bridge in this case per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#3; moreover, in this particular image itself does not seem to be the subject of any sourced critical commentary in the article, so the context required by NFCC#8 is not satisfied as well. The file was also being used in U.S. Route 27 in Tennessee, which I have removed per WP:NFCCE, and also there's no way a valid non-free use rationale could be written for that type of usage even if this did meet NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 in the stand-alone article about the bridge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2017 (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:Toby Jones Signature.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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Jones is a living British actor so per Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#United Kingdom this image is probably copyrighted under UK law. Unless the uploader is Toby Jones {{pd-self}} would not be appropriate in any case. Nthep (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2017 (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:Libertarian Book Club books sq.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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, given as "fair use" and source as "Florida Libertarian Book Club". MB298 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2017 (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:Screen shot Jack Holt.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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot is used in the cast section of Flight (1929 film) with a caption of "Jack Holt in his flying livery". There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it is being used to show an actor in the film, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photo caption has been revised to say: Jack Holt in his flying livery, in his laconic hero role, during a period in his career with Columbia Pictures, where he was being touted as a leading man. After a famous feud with studio head, Harry Cohn, Holt's career with Columbia Pictures took a dramatic downturn, as he was reduced to taking secondary roles.<Blottner 2011, p. 7.> FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changing of the caption and adding of the note are not enough for this screenshot to pass WP:NFCC. There needs to be critical commentary in the prose to justify the screenshots use in the film's article per WP:NFCC#8. The new caption/note are trivial information about the actor and studio head and does not help the readers' understanding of the film and your comment does not explain how this image passes WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't the significant context or discussion about the image itself that would meet WP:NFCC#8. Removal of this image would not detract from a reader's understanding about the film. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sufficient information about Holt's role as the heroic pilot is provided and the illustration enhances that appreciation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No critical commentary about the screenshot itself which shows that Holt's appearance in costume was essential to his portrayal of a "heroic pilot" so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking. Without such commentary, any assumptions directly tying his appearance to such an interpretation are either WP:SYN or WP:OR, which are two things not considered acceptable justifications for non-free use. Holt was an actor, and would be expected to look the part of whichever role he played. His fear of flying and how it might've affected his choice of roles he decided to play is interesting and maybe is something that could be mentioned in the article about him (if it can be properly sourced); however, it certainly isn't relevant to the non-free use of this particular screenshot, unless (once again) this screenshot was discussed in critical commentary regarding Holt's appearance and his phobia. If that connection cannot be established through text, then an image shouldn't be used to try establish it either. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2017 (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.