Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

April 30

File:State doctrines.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, seemingly only used in the uploader's sandbox at one point. ✗plicit 01:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (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:Port modification.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Port modification2.GIF on Commons. ✗plicit 01:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (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:US-MO-Kansas City-Entire City.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. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superseded by File:US-MO-Kansas City-Entire City.png on Commons. ✗plicit 02:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (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:Flag of Saint Lucia.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 ⚡ 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant & unused - available from an SVG on Commons as either File:Flag of Saint Lucia.svg / File:Flag of Saint Lucia (1979–2002).svg Lewis Cawte (Talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (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:FlagofBalochistan.gif

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 ⚡ 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant/unused, low resolution of File:Balochistan flag.svg (commons) with poor colouring. Lewis Cawte (Talk) 16:37, 30 April 2022 (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:Flyington A330-200F.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused - dubious licensing, appears to be some sort of marketing render or other commercial image. Unlikely to be in public domain, uploader is permanently banned for repeated COPYVIOs Lewis Cawte (Talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:21, 3 May 2022 (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:Charlie Hebdo Tout est pardonné.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: No consensus, with no prejudice to re-nomination. Participants are advised that any future instances of canvassing will result in blocks. -FASTILY 01:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the use of this image on Murder of Samuel Paty to be in violation of WP:NFCC#8, since there is no analysis of this non-free image and it does not otherwise contribute to the understanding of the murder. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Murder of Samuel Paty per nomination, but don't delete without questioning its purpose on the other five articles it appears on first. If there are similar violations on all of those then feel free to scrap it. QuietHere (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was never proposing deletion, although I guess I could have been clearer in my nomination. I just thought it should be removed from that article, and per the discussion that closed WP:NFCR files should be sent here for review on these and similar matters. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image from the Samuel Paty page, as the nom could've done (and is free to do elsewhere of course)—although in a couple of cases a discussion would be needed, I'd imagine—but there's one place where it will always satisfy NFC: it's here. SN54129 14:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove it from there; it was reverted, and so I brought it here for input from additional editors. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Keep on the Murder of Samuel Paty article OP says it does not otherwise contribute to the understanding of the murder... How does the image not contribute to the understanding of the murder? The caption of the image on the article says: One of the Charlie Hebdo drawings of Muhammad shown by Samuel Paty to his students.[41] Depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous in Islam, and readers are curious, and will want to know/see what cartoons were shown by Paty to the students that made the killer so angry; this specific cartoon was one that was shown. The OP also says: in violation of WP:NFCC#8, since there is no analysis of this non-free image. Unless I'm looking at the wrong file or something, the image information page has a "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box at the bottom with the Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) stating: Samuel Paty was a French middle-school teacher who was beheaded and murdered by an Islamic terrorist for showing Charlie Hebdo's 2012 cartoons depicting Muhammad as part of a class discussion on freedom of speech. This particular image was one of the cartoons shown to his students. (emphasis mine) I've added to the WP:NFCC#8 rationale: As depictions of Muhammad are considered blasphemous in Islam, the cartoons were seen as "offensive", and the murderer used this as justification for the murder. Religious groups and apologists used the perceived offensiveness of the cartoons as justification for showing support and sympathy for the murderer. This image aids in the readers' understanding by illustrating to them what exactly was shown to the students; the image shown is the front cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine issued after the shooting and was widely spread by the French and international media, not a random pornographic image of Muhammad that was claimed by some apologists. [1] Some1 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC) add, Some1 (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that explanation in the FUR on the Image's page doesn't actually support its inclusion on the article. It's sourced commentary on the article that matters, where it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" WP:NFCC#8. The page does say that it is one of the images he showed to his students, so that's a point in favor of keeping it. The simple fact that a reader would be curious about it is not a valid supporting reason to include it per WP:NFCC, and that could be easily dealt with by linking Depictions_of_Muhammad#Charlie Hebdo, so that's a point against it. The sourced commentary in the article is almost entirely about the alleged "random pornographic image," as you put it, and is referred to in the article text as "one of which portrayed Muhammad naked with his genitals exposed", which is clearly not this image. As far as I can see that is another pretty big mark against the inclusion of this image, since that would clearly be the more relevant image regarding the news coverage and outrage which led to the entire incident. In fact, upon re-reading that section, I would even say that the inclusion of this image rather than the more explicit one (if it exists) is a violation of WP:NPOV, since it seems to me to give a misleading impression that the images displayed were entirely tame when sources apparently differ. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The murder wasn't over some alleged "pornographic cartoon". That's a red herring. The whole outrage happened and Paty was murdered because he showed cartoons depicting Muhammad (specifically Charlie Hebdo ones, such as the one that's being discussed right now) in a class about freedom of expression and, as I've mentioned before, depictions of Muhammad (naked or not) are considered blasphemous in Islam. The majority of the article content talks about freedom of expression regarding depictions of Muhammad, not about the alleged "naked image". And that's another reason to keep the image, because it illustrates to the reader what exactly Paty had showed to the students and they can see for themselves whether the image he had shown is "offensive" or not. Some1 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I linked to it immediately above, I believe you can safely assume I'm aware of the controversy surrounding Depictions of Muhammad. You say that the other image is a red herring, and yet many of the (presumably reliable) sources in the article support its existence. It is not our place to reach a conclusion not supported by those sources.

How would you compare this use of this image in this article to the unacceptable use of a non-free image to illustrate an article passage when an image has its own article? Obviously, in this case, the image does not have its own article, but the entirety of the controversy at large is certainly treated in more detail in the Depections article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Keep per Some1's logic. There is an obvious 'fair use' argument for keeping at least a low-resolution copy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fair use" is not the standard we need to use to evaluate the image. It's the non-free content guideline and policy which is substantially more restrictive. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing. It is entirely reasonable and indeed a widespread practice (that IMO should be mandatory) to note on associated articles talk pages that there is a discussion underway elsewhere that may reasonably be expected to have an implication for that article. Frankly, this whinge just reads as amateur wikilawyering. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how this message came after I've already explained to you on my talk page (i.e. User talk:Some1#Murder of Samuel Paty non-free image) why I've notified those articles' talk pages after you didn't bother to notify the Murder of Samuel Paty talk page for whatever reasons. My notifications were neutral and appropriate per WP:APPNOTE, and the list of articles notified were the ones that directly include the image. Also, "votestacking"?[7]? You need to re-read what Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking is, because I didn't post any notifications on any user talk pages about the discussion. Some1 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny. Intentional. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite funny that you threw around baseless claims of canvassing/votestacking because you apparently didn't like the response on my talk page. Anyway, cheers. Some1 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 30 April 2022 (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.

Non-free images Michael O'Connell (artist)

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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. As discussed below, if you are the copyright holder and/or have been authorized to publish these images on Wikipedia, then please follow these instructions to get the images restored. -FASTILY 05:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Database Report as of this morning has it at 22 images. The single one for identification seems fine since he's deceased, but I'm not sure that any of the meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. There's a bit of passing commentary on most of the images, but no real sourced critical commentary that I see which is what we should be looking for per WP:NFCI. It looks like there's a touch more on the artwork entitled Pandemonium, so it seems but I haven't checked the source to see that the discussion is actually about that image rather than his artistic style in general. That seems to make it a decent candidate for an image illustrative of his technique, but I don't know that the text supports any more examples. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your query.

In the contributions I've made the text is not always about the specific image; rather the image has been used to illustrate a point made in the text. It seems to me that it's difficult to write about an artist's work without illustrating it, but I see that Wikipedia articles about recent artists do contain remarkably few images, which I think is a pity. Most of the images I've used are photographs of artworks where I own the rights to both the artwork and the photograph - I used a professional art photographer for many of them, but he formally assigned his rights in the photographs over to me. Would it be possible for me to license the photographs under a Creative Commons licence and then upload them to Wikimedia Commons? I can see from the Wikipedia advice about all this that it's not at all straightforward and I would welcome any guidance about how to do it.

Another issue: Are the administrators happy that these edits are being made by me, the subject's son? In the Talk page of the article I say that most if not all of the new material will be taken from Michael O'Connell's biography by Prof. Harriet Edquist and so I hope that the administrators won't decide that my contribution is an unacceptable breach of the conflict of interest policy. If necessary I could ask the editor who created the article in the first place, username Adamkoszary, to add the new material on my behalf, but that just seems like legalistic circumvention. I shall be asking Prof. Edquist to review the article when I've finished editing it, and I shall make any changes suggested by her. Once that is done I'm sure she would be happy to make a statement saying she's happy with the article. A well-known London gallery-owner and dealer is a collector of my father's work and I'm sure that he would do the same. However, neither of them is a Wikipedia editor, though they might have an editor on their staff. Tpsoconnell (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, regarding the images - we have fairly restrictive policies regarding the use of non-free content, specifically WP:NFCC#8 which means it can be used "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's why most modern artists don't have many images, because viewing their art is certainly beneficial but it can be hard to argue that you can't understand the fact that somebody is an artist without a picture of their work. Once you get sourced discussion about the artwork itself, rather than about the artist, then it's much easier to meet that requirement for contextual significance.

Now, if you are the copyright holder for both the photographs and the artwork itself and are willing to donate the image under some free license then you can upload them to Commons (and we would love that!). There's a process outlined at commons:COM:VRT/CONSENT to help that process go as smoothly as possible and make sure that there's appropriate documentation regarding their copyright status for whatever license you choose.

Second, regarding you editing the page - this isn't really the place to go into a detailed conversation about it (your talk page or mine or the article's would be better), but the basics are covered at WP:COIEDIT. You are discouraged from editing the page directly, but not banned from doing so. If all of the material you are adding is supported by reliable sources (such as the biography) then there shouldn't be any real issues, although given your relationship you should do a double-check that you are giving due weight to all reliable sources, whether they provide a positive or negative portrayal. The approval of Prof. Edquist and/or a dealer aren't particularly relevant, unless their published sources are being mischaracterized. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 30 April 2022 (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:Grove House School.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: relisted on 2022 May 14. FASTILY 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grove House School.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Evolutionbisson.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. Possibly PD, but currently unused with no obvious encyclopedic use. -FASTILY 05:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused derivative work of bottle label. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note Bottles cannot be copyrighted. Logos on the bottle are de minimis. However, it isn't being used either and is marginally encyclopedic. Should an article need a photo, another should be easy to acquire. Buffs (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The shapes of bottles are generally considered utilitarian per c:COM:CB#Utility objects as posted above; so, they're not usually eligible for copyright protection in their own right. Logos and labels on bottles, on the other hand, are often protected by copyright as explained in c:COM:Packaging, and I'm not so sure the logos in this photo are considered to be c:COM:DM. Since the file isn't being used in any articles, it's hard to determine from context whether the logos matter or not. If not, then they can just be blurred out; if they are, a non-free license could be added for the labeling itself in addition to the {{PD-self}} license for the photo as long as it was the uploader's "own work". It looks like the uploader added this file to Vodka back in 2007, but it's no longer is being used in that article; it would need to be used in at least one article if it's treated as non-free and that use would need to meet all ten WP:NFCCP. File:ZBG-700 B.jpg is another photo used in the "Vodka" article that has bison imagery on it's label; so, maybe that replaced this one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- After asking about this on Commons, the copyright status of this might fall under s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. in that it’s impossible to photograph the entire bottle without also including the label imagery; so, the label seems to be considered incidental as long as the photo doesn’t focus specifically on it. That, however, is US case law and I’m not sure how or whether it applies to photos of non-US products imported from other countries into the US or taken outside the US. If none of that makes any difference and the copyright status of the photo is not being questioned, this could probably be kept and moved to Commons. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2022 (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.