Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 27

< March 26	March 28 >

March 27

File:Rflgirls.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 06:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art of Race for Life's take on Girls Just Want to Have Fun insufficiently supported by sourced critical commentary. Version charted in only one country. Not contextually significant to the song originally sung by Cyndi Lauper. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George, perhaps this image signifying a fundraising benefit for medical research and charity has social significance above and beyond the scope of pop culture, regardless of its limited release or performance on the music charts? The creator of the art, sponsors of the project and the uploader evidently all do. An undertaking of a humanitarian nature in the interest of saving lives would surely merit the representation provided by a promotional cover. - JGabbard (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate their fight for the good cause and the front cover's presentation. However, even after I added more info about the single release, I'm unsure why deleting the cover art would affect readers' understanding of the song. I previewed the section without the cover art, and even I think the free text is already substantial to provoke heartfelt reactions about something that has affected everyone for years and to convey the making and release of the version. Furthermore, there are already wikilinks to other related articles, including one about the charity. I searched for any other sources that would've improved the section but came up short. George Ho (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George, you need to take this discussion to the article's talk page to secure support if not consensus for what you propose. You don't get to be judge, jury and executioner on every image you think is unnecessary. I for one believe that Cyndi Lauper would be proud to see this image here. - JGabbard (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why an article talk page? That would lead to a local consensus only to be overridden by wide consensus, wouldn't it? Furthermore, I have reasons to take this file to FFD, which is normally the right venue for NFCC enforcements. This is no exception. No comment on your assumption about Lauper's opinions, but she would be proud to see (text) information about the version there... and the cause. Isn't that enough for her? George Ho (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, many article talk pages I've seen have been hardly visited and hardly active. As I figured, FFD can attract many others. George Ho (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 27 March 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:Lotus Land Story.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 -FASTILY 06:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This file corresponds to the promotional cover of the whole Lotus Land Story game, not just the game's Bad Apple!! soundtrack. The file could be useful for illustrating the whole game if it had its own article (which it does not), but it is not suitable for representing Bad Apple!! alone. I am also nominating this file since it features the same concerns as the first one, just that instead of a game, the cover portrays the 2007 Bad Apple!! remix' album. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 17:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded these, and these files represent both the cover of the game's soundtrack, and the cover art of the album from which the pop song (which basically is the real focus of the article) is from. They are both low-quality images to satisfy fair use and are used to represent things discussed in the article because they are their cover art, and the article is the sole article that they represent - I personally don't see how these meet WP:FFD deletion criteria. Kettleonwater (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kettleonwater:, you say here that the first image shows the game's soundtrack, but that conflicts with the file description, which says it is the "cover art for the game." I think clarifying that would be relevant to this discussion. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 27 March 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:The Amazing Race 14 logo.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title card orphaned and replaced by a DVD cover as lead image of The Amazing Race 14. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @George Ho: It's not clear why you've started an FFD about this. You're the editor that uploaded the DVD cover to replace the non-free one title card in the article's main infobox, and that's why the title card is now orphaned. Orphaned non-free files are deleted after five days per WP:F5, whereas an FFD discussion like this needs to run at least seven days; so, the non-free will likely be deleted before this FFD is closed. If you weren't sure whether the DVD cover should be used, it might've been better for you to seek input on that before uploading it because now at least one of the two files is going to end up being deleted per F5, unless you're suggesting that both of them are OK to use in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Like the other image, a bot tagged the image for deletion in 2009. If PRODded, the title card would then be de-PRODded due to such technicality. I also wasn't sure whether leaving it as orphaned and then deleted without FFD is okay. If that's okay, must I close this as "procedural close/no action" and then wait for deletion? I still insist on using the DVD cover as the lead image especially for more context. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but figuring out which file to keep may (as I posted in the above thread) depend on how you interpret MOS:TVIMAGE since that seems to imply that an intertitle screenshot is preferred to home media cover art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said about the other image, for season articles, that isn't the case. An available poster or home media cover to contextually identify a season is more preferable. Furthermore, the title card was previously used for other season articles and the main TV article, but rule #14 of WP:NFC#UUI was cited to challenge such uses years ago. Also, the image doesn't literally mention any specific season. George Ho (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When a show has different changes in title cards over the course of its season, we allow the first season that uses a new title card to use that version (but not again on subsequent ones). --Masem (t) 13:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 27 March 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:The Amazing Race Family Edition.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title card orphaned and replaced by a DVD cover that I uploaded as lead image for The Amazing Race 8. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @George Ho: As I posted in the thread directly below about another file you nominated for deletion, it's not clear why you've started an FFD about this. You're, after all, the editor that uploaded the DVD cover that replaced this non-free one title card in the main infobox of The Amazing Race 8. Why do you think this needs to be discussed at FFD? If you're not sure the DVD cover should be used, then it would be better to discuss that before uploading it. Now at least one of the two non-free files discussed here is going to end up being deleted per F5, unless you feel there's a way to keep and use both of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: It's not that I want to take the title card to FFD. If PRODded, the image would then be de-PRODded (more likely by an admin) due to being previously nominated/tagged for deletion by a bot back in February 2008. I also wasn't sure whether leaving it orphaned and then deleted without taking it to FFD is proper or improper. However, I figured the title card can be deleted without objections. I'm just nominating this for the sake of nominating. And I still insist on using the DVD cover. Must I close this as "procedural close/no action" and then leave it orphaned until deletion? George Ho (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title card will be deleted per F5 in after five days have passed unless someone de-orphans the file. If somebody does de-orphan it or if a WP:REFUND is subsequently requested, this discussion might turn out to be one about which file should be used. Personally, I think it might be better to wait and see whether someone contests the F5 deletion before starting a FFD discussion, but perhaps your approach is better. FWIW, the only thing I can see that relates to this would be in MOS:TVIMAGE, where it states that the intertitle screenshot is preferred for main infoboxes about TV programs, and home media cover art is listed as the second option. All things being equal, that might be the main point of contention here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were you reading a paragraph about a show's main article or season articles? The title card was previously used for one of season articles. Usually, for season articles, a season-specific image, like either a promotional poster or home media cover, has been expected. An available but season-specific intertitle may be acceptable alternative. However, I recently uploaded other DVD covers. For consistency, I orphaned this title card in favor of a DVD cover specifically identifying the said season. George Ho (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the part about season articles which does support the file you've uploaded; so, thank you for clarifying that. Even in that case, though, the title screenshot is likely going to be deleted per F5 before this discussion closes, which makes me wonder further why this FFD was even needed to begin with, at least not until there were signs of their being some disagreement over which file to use. Perhaps instead of an FFD, you could've just explained why you changed the file in an edit summary or on the article talk page, then maybe brings things to FFD if someone disagreed with you. You're correct that PROD probably wasn't applicable, but just a regular F5 deletion seems OK. F5 deletions of that type seem to be quite common when there's a non-contentious replacing of an existing main infobox file with an updated version or otherwise more suitable file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 27 March 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.

Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing cover arts

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 File:Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing by Chris Isaak original 1995 single release.png -FASTILY 06:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded two cover arts just to bring them into discussion. As I know, using more than one cover art for the same purpose is discouraged. However, I'm torn between the two. The original 1995 release charted only in Australia. The 1999 re-release helped the song gain more attention due to being featured in the film Eyes Wide Shut... and probably a music video. The re-release charted better in Australia, but it went so-so (if not modest) in the UK, and it flopped overall in the US (but charted better in adult charts). I'd love to lean toward the 1999 reissue cover but only because it (literally) mentions the song being featured in the film. Apparently, however, neither release was successful more than the other. ~~If there are no other votes on either cover art, then the original 1995 cover art shall be used by default.~~ George Ho (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC); updated, 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't mind keeping both covers as the result. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original cover: I also found this a difficult decision, but the 1999 re-release did chart in three countries as opposed to one for the original. When it comes to successful re-issues, I usually add the re-release cover (e.g. Catch (Kosheen song)), and the original cover for "Fill My Little World" was deleted for similar reasons. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both covers: Even though the single would go on to chart even higher four years later, the original release did at least chart in a major Australian chart. It's not super common in songs. The only other one I can think of is Send Me an Angel, which charted internationally in both 1983 and 1989. Furthermore, it is used to illustrate how the song was presented in both years: a minor single in 1995 vs. a major single in 1999 through its use in the film "Eyes Wide Shut". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: Now that there have been votes, I will lean toward the 1999 re-release/reissue. George Ho (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 27 March 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:Paul K Chu 2020.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 ⚡ 13:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is seemingly the subject and this clearly isn't a selfie. Permission from photographer needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:22, 27 March 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:Paulkchu2007.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 ⚡ 13:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is seemingly the subject and this clearly isn't a selfie. Permission from photographer needed. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 15:25, 27 March 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:Murrayin20102.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 ⚡ 15:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source file deleted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too poor quality to provide anything of value to readers, uploaded by banned user.--N Ø 02:36, 28 March 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:Skibo-castle-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: keep -FASTILY 22:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free photos exist (c:Category:Skibo Castle) to serve as visual identifications of the article subject. The branding or marketing of the castle, which is represented by this non-free logo, is not the subject of discussion in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Wcam (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Policy allows the use of a single non-free item in the infobox or lead section of an article to identify the subject. The inclusion of a logo is standard practice. ✗plicit 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is automatically true for any subject of an article. According to said policy, there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. In an article about a company it may be ok to use a non-free logo as there is no free alternative work to serve as a visual identification (WP:NFCC#1), whereas in this case the article is about a building that still exists, and plenty of free photos of this building exist on Commons that can be used to identify the subject, there is no reason to use the non-free logo according to the policy. --Wcam (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I looked at the article, and just from at the word count, it's 2/3 about the building and grounds, and 1/3 about the club. So it's not just a logo entirely unrelated to the article and so it passes NFCC#1. Maybe just ought to be moved out of the infobox and down to the appropriate section replacing the other image already there. I think that might just squeak by satisfying #8, since there are actual sources discussing the club, and more could be added (such as ones about its exclusivity). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:02, 12 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:Japanese surrender signatory correction.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 ⚡ 01:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality photograph of a photograph. Also does not show the original image in its entirety. Replaced with File:SC 212246 Surrender of Japan, Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945.tif from Commons and no longer used. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 01:11, 28 March 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.