Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5

File:It's Gonna Take a Miracle - Deniece Williams.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation (freely licensed cover is available). No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 05:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a JPEG version of US vinyl single several years ago, but didn't have a nerve to replace the Dutch single sleeve (45cat) at that time. Now, after FFD listings, like this one, I figured that a PNG version can replace the Dutch sleeve, which uses a variant of the cover art of the parent album Niecy. The uploader contested the deletion, asserting: unwarranted replacement of attractive sleeve with fair use without clear policy violation, which has remained uncontested for five years. The front cover identifies itself as part of one of single releases, i.e. the Dutch release. However, being "attractive" still would neither absolve "contextual significance" issues nor make the sleeve irreplaceable. Also, neither would being "uncontested for five years". I remain unconvinced that, now with freer US label (the "ARC" logo is not original enough for copyright IMO), displaying the singer and the song title will save this "attractive" image from deletion. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Freer"? It's either free or it's not, George. Fair use is fair use. And labels absolutely are copyrightable. Your assumption that ARC's label is not under copyright is one I would not make, and your policy violation claim about the Dutch sleeve appears baseless. I really do not appreciate having to constantly be at cross purposes with you lately. Upload side labels as you wish (though I truly do not understand your penchant for them), but please stop trying to undercut the contributions of other editors at every turn. I protest these actions because they are tendentious on your part and time wasting and fatiguing on ours to so frequently have to attempt to counter them. So please back off! Thank you. - JGabbard (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the "ARC" logo, please use the "nominate for deletion" tool on the (left) sidebar in Commons if using desktop. Link: c:File:Its Gonna Take a Miracle by Deniece Williams US vinyl.png. From what I see, all the text about the release/recording itself within the label is too factual and unoriginal info. Copyright notice, runtime, audio channel, credits, numbers categorizing the release... How do these facts establish copyright? Also, the curves in the letters don't look original enough for US copyright. Also, look at the gallery seen at c:COM:TOO US. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please stop trying to undercut the contributions of other editors at every turn. Have I intended to undercut yours (and probably others)? All (or most of) I ever have done has been striving for more visual accuracy and for regional representation (hopefully as part of primary context), regardless of whether I have "penchant for [labels]" or not. I know labels has less visual appeal, lacks special individuality, and has been fallen out of fashion nowadays. Still, striving for generally consistent interpretations of NFCC and historically visual context have been my goal, yet that and other obstacles have put a lot of pressure and stress on me. If you don't see that, have it your way then. Meanwhile, I wonder whether this Dutch cover art will follow the same fate as some (or many) of your non-free uploads. George Ho (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nom's another comment: For update, an unrelated image (a US label) that I uploaded is deleted per another FFD discussion. Saddened that singer's origin is no longer relevant to whether a free content is okay to use or whether a non-free image is contextually significant. However, I'm still okay with the results there. I'm mentioning this here just for reference and because maybe... I don't know what words to come up with. I just am worried about how that case would affect this and would affect how I argue in future nominations. I tried finding a suitable free portion of an overseas single release without avail. Still, I do prefer a single of singer's origins presented to retail consumers at initial releases... just NFCC-compliant ones. Nonetheless, a free portion of one release would make a non-free portion of another release replaceable, a hard lesson I took.

Speaking of that, I really hope that the US label I uploaded in Commons is okay to use. I appreciate one's opinion about the label being non-free, but I have yet to see "ARC" logo as minimally creative enough for copyright. I will find out the font used for the logo. --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was told off-wiki, the logo was (supposedly) rather hand-drawn instead of using a typeface or font. However, even when hand-drawn to resemble an "arc" (or dome-ish) just with capital letters, I think the execution of the "drawing" (or the logo) still doesn't appear sufficient for US copyright law, which expects kinda more (if not much more) to guarantee protection. George Ho (talk) 03:44, 18 February 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:SeaDogsBall.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 ⚡ 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictured logo is likely above the threshold of originality. Image is not used anywhere. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 10:13, 5 February 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:Mike oldfield qe2 album 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: convert. to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. ✗plicit 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the album cover is eligible for US copyright. The colors are plain and don't overlap each other. The album title and singer's name are also plain-looking and ordinary and don't look original enough for US copyright. However, unsure whether the album cover is eligible for UK copyright, whose originality standards rely on the sweat of the brow doctrine. Either tag this as "PD-ineligible-USonly" or transfer to Commons. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 5 February 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:Two out of Three Ain't Bad - Meat Loaf.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: Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. No prejudice to restoration if the article is significantly expanded to explicitly discuss this image in-depth -FASTILY 05:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This cover art was used for the 1991/1992 UK single re-release (45cat, ebay (1), ebay (2)). It was never used for original 1978 releases (45cat, discogs). Furthermore, for precedence, normally sleeves of reissues have been discouraged or deleted, like "Stand By Me" 1980s reissues (this FFD discussion, that FFD discussion). Also, I bet the sleeve was chosen because... it looks sleek and appealing, huh? Being sleek and appealing still wouldn't ease NFCC issues, like amount of non-free content used in the article and contextual significance. Furthermore, the 1992 UK reissue performed worse in the chart than the original UK release. (BTW, "Stand By Me" performed better in 1980s, but it also performed well back in 1960s. To this date, only the original 1960s release is displayed.) George Ho (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stridently oppose. Nominator has for many years exhibited a tendentious penchant for side labels to the removal of picture sleeves, making only tangential appeals to policy. Yet he himself acknowledges the fact that picture sleeves, when available, are preferred by the majority of readers. Neither of the cited discussions represent consensus or establish any kind of precedent, nor are the situations even comparable or applicable in this case. The picture sleeve representing Meat Loaf's original recording needs to stand. Imagine if George sought to replace every color photo on Wikipedia with a black and white image, simply because that is that is his individual preference. What he has been doing with song articles, systematically seeking to replace picture sleeves with side labels, is not much different. - JGabbard (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JGabbard: The picture sleeve representing Meat Loaf's original recording needs to stand. Seriously? As I said before, this cover art belongs to the less successful 1991 British single re-release. No original 1978 single releases have used this cover art AFAIK. Your misidentifying the cover art as part of "original recording", i.e. "original" release, implicitly shows your preferences to good appearances clouding your skills of visual accuracy, but you're not the only editor who has such clouded judgments. Indeed, I have nominated cover arts that have been misidentified by editors and/or fakes. When you uploaded the cover art, I didn't see a caption or description accurately depicting it. What did you think that was? No, wait... I think I already answered it for you, didn't it? BTW, I see you resort to commenting on me more than on the cover art. How long shall you do that in every nomination/listing I make? --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if the 1991/92 re-release had been tremendously more successful than original 1970s release, the '90s cover art should've reflected that, like some other articles. But the '92 reissue failed to do so, yet I'm unsure why you didn't bother to describe what it is supposed to be specifically. --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What he has been doing with song articles, systematically seeking to replace picture sleeves with side labels, is not much different. Not exactly true. I don't intend to replace cover arts with labels for 1990s songs and thereafter. Just most of the songs from 1980s and prior primarily to represent regions based on songs' or singers' origins. Too bad some fanbases of certain famous singers or bands are hard to please. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are disingenuous, George. Vinyl singles had ceased to be a primary medium by the early '90s. That being the case, my statement about your unjustifiable M.O. is entirely accurate, even according to your own testimony. And you have no policy mandating any such mission to match images with singers' regions of origin. Lacking clear policy, if it's only your own preferences vs. appearances, then I suggest that you need to first gather consensus or support on the talk page before moving in with a bulldozer. Otherwise, in continuing your current tactics you will continue to piss off your fellow editors and may eventually end up in WP:ANI. - JGabbard (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must you think a closer will take your words about me seriously, including the ANI thing? Your latest comments about (and possibly your attacks) on me have absolutely nothing to do with this cover art, and neither are vinyl singles being no longer "a primary medium by the early '90s". Also, you think you're right about me? Well, have it your way then. If you have further issues about me, then please go to my talk page. BTW, here's proof of a lack of caption (normally encouraged by MOS:CAPTION): diff1 (no caption added),diff2 (I had to add it). And here's one FFD discussion about one possible fake and another about misidentified cover art. Your suggestion that I first discuss the matters first with consensus wouldn't help much only if it means proposing a rule that can potentially be instruction creep, like any proposal rule intended to resolve the "preferences vs. appearances" matter. AFAIK, any further attempt to clarify, amend, or add the rules in order to make up unclear rules (or lack of clear rules) would normally fail. I've seen it before, and I'm unsure about taking that risk. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, telling from your comments, implicitly, you act as if omitting the cover art would affect the contextual understanding of the song. Unfortunately, I've not seen you clearly argue why omitting this reissue cover art would do so. Oh wait, you have thought the cover art as a portion of "Meat Loaf's original recording" (I guess you meant original single, right?). I'm unsure whether that counts as your argument about contextual significance. I have argued about which actual release the portion (i.e. cover art) belongs to. Nonetheless, you made direct comments about me, treated one of my FFD nominations as if this is one of mere schemes or tactics to replace all cover arts with labels, treated my interpretation of "contextual significance" as "unjustifiable M.O.", tried to discredit me as "disingenuous", and all that. If you're not gonna discuss solely the cover art, then I don't know whether we must converse/argue each other here further. George Ho (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Another comment made at another FFD discussion (diff), and another (diff).) George Ho (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC); updated, 08:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...And another comment made (diff). George Ho (talk) 19:59, 7 February 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:Leslie marries two male penguins in "Pawnee Zoo".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 ⚡ 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a screenshot of a female lead character marrying two penguins in front of kids at a zoo. Now unsure whether the scene is easily conveyed in text and whether deleting the screenshot would affect the contextual understanding of the episode. No objections to deletion, especially if no one objects. George Ho (talk) 08:36, 5 February 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:Parks and recreation media blitz.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 ⚡ 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shows female and male characters in a talk show. Having a caption further explain what the screenshot is about more than what it merely illustrates demonstrates free text easily and adequately conveying the plot and the scene without this image. Doubt that deleting the screenshot will affect contextual understanding, but I can stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 5 February 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:April and Andy getting married.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 ⚡ 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shows two characters at a wedding. It may illustrate the scene itself, but I wonder whether identifying the characters and the setting in the scene is necessary to contextually understand the whole episode. Furthermore, I also wonder whether free text is adequate and whether the screenshot is needed anymore. Default to favoring its deletion, but other opinions are welcome. George Ho (talk) 08:49, 5 February 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.

Australian Aboriginal Flag (2022)

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: Not actionable. Already discussed repeatedly at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg & here where it was determined that the files are PD -FASTILY 02:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! The situation will be very complex to explain, so I'll try to condense as much as possible. The Australian Aboriginal Flag had been considered copyrighted in Australia due to its very low originality standards (or sweat of the brow doctrine?) (c:COM:TOO Australia). The Commons copy had been deleted, but then another copy of the flag was uploaded. Somehow, as I found out, the Australian government paid AUS$20mil for copyright agreement from its flag bearer, Harold Thomas (activist). I haven't been certain whether the agreement was a full transfer, license, or whatever that's called, no matter what Australian Prime Minister promised.

The re-uploaded, latest Commons copy was re-nominated for deletion. Somehow, an involved admin Yann, who has been involved in prior Commons discussions about the flag and who voted in favor of keeping the flag, decided to close the DR discussion, citing the flag as "public domain". Not only I objected the closure, but two other editors have concerns about the closure (diff). To this date, I'm still awaiting admins' opinions on that closure. Meanwhile, we enwiki community shall decide whether the flag is now (re-)eligible for Commons transfer. If Australian copyright status is still uncertain at the end of the discussion, and/or if complete removal of local copy receives "no consensus", then either "PD-ineligible-USonly" or "keep local". George Ho (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding derivatives of the Aboriginal flag... George Ho (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report by George Ho above is biaised and inacurrate. See Jameslwoodward's opinion about this. Yann (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. Jim (a Commons admin) said that the discussion is entirely inappropriate but also that Yann's DR closing rationale is an opinion with their knowledge of the law and circumstances applied as required. Well.... seems that Jim hasn't yet disputed your rationale. I was hoping he has done so. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Carl Lindberg's very well informed opinion in the same thread, which also goes against George Ho. Yann (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see whether this discussing will result the same as or different from the Commons DR discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into this enough to form a proper opinion yet, but just noting that it seems this same issue was raised seven years ago and closed as keep. There is also a fair bit of discussion about this on the file's talk page. Turnagra (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the discussion in one place: Let the problems resolve themselves on Commons and then we can act accordingly. If they keep, holding a local copy is superfluous. If they delete, we can {{no commons}}. Anarchyte (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should only Commons handle this matter, not enwiki community? If local copies of the flag are deleted here and (re-)exported to Commons, that implies enwiki community's assumption of the flag being out of copyright in Australia. Don't ya think? Furthermore, I'm not the only one who has concerns about the closure. George Ho (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. If Commons has the file, then they've decided it's suitable for hosting. If they don't and we can see a recent deletion log, anyone who understands how enwiki exporting functions would not continue to export it. Anarchyte (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the FFD discussion here results in "PD-ineligible-USonly" (most likely by default), this puts Commons's hosting of the flag into question. George Ho (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point keep the file on en Wikipedia as there does not appear to be a written release of copyright by the owner or proof of what rights were transferred. But this is clearly PD-Simple so can be retained here without controversy or further proof or argument. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as PD-Simple outside Australia. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, remain in enwiki or transfer to Commons? George Ho (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging User:OwenBlacker, just in case... George Ho (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is only about enwiki, right — this conversation has no bearing on what Commons chooses to do. It looks like Commons is keeping it (c:COM:TOO Australia mentions that it's been retroactively PD'd there), but given there's a danger it might be deleted thence (given that there is a copyright, albeit owned by the Aussie govt) it feels sensible to keep a copy here. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: both pings showed up in my notifications, both here and on my phone, fwiw.

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:Go big or go home parks and recreation.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 ⚡ 03:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrates a male character displaying his own "Pyramid" presentation. I appreaciate the illustration, but I wonder whether the depicted screenshot can be easily conveyed in text and is contextually significant to the overall episode. I also wonder whether deleting the screenshot would affect contextual understanding of the episode. To me, the screenshot is more about the scene itself and displaying a male character in the scene than the whole episode; defaulting to favor deletion for now. George Ho (talk) 20:19, 5 February 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:Pilot parks and recreation.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 ⚡ 03:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the visual illustration of the "pit" setting. However, to me, the screenshot is more about the setting itself than about the whole pilot episode. I now have doubts about omitting the setting image as harmful to contextual understanding of the whole episode, which may be easily conveyed in text. As I'm thinking, if the setting itself were independently notable, the whole screenshot would've been used differently. Other opinions are welcome, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 20:38, 5 February 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.