Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 February 27

February 27

File:Oct 31, 1973 (Today Series, "Tuesday") On Kawara.JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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, we can revisit this after c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oct 31, 1973 (Today Series, Tuesday) On Kawara.png is closed -Fastily 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is too simple to have a copyright, so there is a HR copy on Commons: c:File:Oct 31, 1973 (Today Series, Tuesday) On Kawara.png. Yann (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wholly disagree that this image is ineligible for copyright (per Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States_of_America: Not OK for most paintings. Even seemingly simple paintings consisting of geometric shapes are often copyrighted due to details that may not be immediately obvious to the viewer), and will accordingly be nominating this Commons image for deletion. Thus, we should keep the local file to continue using on the English Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image on Commons will be kept, so... Yann (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to await outcome from Commons deletion decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Studio Website Screenshot.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 11:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a web site for a online ecommerce company. There is no sourced commentary about the web site design. Image use is purely decorative and fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be added to the source? Chamelion738 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Poison Song Cover Image.jpeg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 March 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. As not an actual cover. Whpq (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are used in the cover= parameter but are not cover artworks; they are video thumbnails. They are used as decoration, as an excuse to have an image because the songs do not have individual covers (they were released on albums and not individually). There is precedent in the pop music sphere on Wikipedia that we do not use video thumbnails in the cover= parameter. The uploader has claimed these should somehow "be an exception" despite there being plenty of songs that are far more popular than these soundtrack songs that do not have cover artworks that have not been considered exceptions. The "Hell's Greatest Dad" image is also used on a separate article to identify the character, and I don't think the file is justified for use there either. We usually don't use video thumbnails with text to identify a character in this manner. Ss112 11:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Nominator note: I withdraw my nomination per WP:WITHDRAW as the uploading editor has moved the images out of the cover= parameter, which was the sole reason for my objection to their use. The uploading editor has moved the images out of the cover= parameter and integrated them as non-free image thumbnails on the article, which I have no issue with. I would like this to be taken into account when an admin closes the discussion. Ss112 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — (Passes WP:NFCI 1, 4, 5, and 9) The files and thumbnails in this instance is just a moment from the actual music video with the logo of Hazbin Hotel and Amazon Prime Video added to it. This is, directly, a single frame from the video that has a logo which is being used to identify the song in question. They are even used by the media, which seems to show maybe they are the covers from the songs. Either way, this clearly does pass the criteria for non-free media, at least for the songs. The use of Hell’s Greatest Dad on the character though I am not sure on that. But for the songs themselves, it clearly passes the criteria. So my direct !vote is to keep the four files for the songs, however, I would be ok with removal from the character page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. — Nominator also directly stated these violated “an unwritten rule”, which may mean there is no policy-based reasoning for this files for deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Passes WP:NFCI 1. It's not cover art. It's a rectangular video thumbnail not used on music platforms where the song is uploaded.

4. Just because it's "other promotional material" doesn't mean it should be used in cover=.

5. Nobody's disputing it's a video screenshot. That doesn't make it equivalent to a cover artwork.

9. "Images that are themselves subject of commentary". You are misinterpreting what this means. Commentary means the article contains discussion of the actual image, not that the article is about the topic that the video thumbnail is related to.

Moments from a music video are not equivalent to cover artworks. This is like saying it would be totally okay to take a screenshot of a scene from a song's music video and use it in the cover= parameter if that song doesn't have a cover. Why choose that frame when there are thousands? Odd logic. "Used by the media"... and you found one shoddy-looking Wordpress blog that used the thumbnail as the header image, which doesn't mean or imply that it's the cover artwork at all. They probably, like you, wanted to use an image on their piece, and found the "next best thing". You're really saying "This blog used the image, that must mean it's the cover"—what kind of argument is this? Why would the parameter be titled cover= if we can use any image related to the song in it? It's not image=. Ss112 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ss112 — Under your assumption, if it somehow isn’t cover art, why does it need to be deleted and not just be changed to be usable under a standard non-free image? You admitted it passed number 4 and number 5. Just asking. If your reasoning is due to the title, that can be moved (actually quite easily) and if it is due to it being placed in the “parameter cover =“ then you could have very easily removed it and made it an image. So you really need to explain exactly why deletion is required and why the image itself does not pass any non-free media requirements. Skirting around the idea of it being not being cover art, therefore automatic deletion would mean any non-free media that isn’t cover art should be deleted as well on Wikipedia. I am wondering if this was a failed WP:BEFORE FFD and could have been taken care of off FFD. I shall await your reply, but you have admitted it passes non-free media guidelines now, so exact reasoning why deletion is required and a move request/article edit is impossible to solve any possible issues. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Because you're using it as a cover and at least until now, it hadn't crossed my mind and I wasn't aware you would be OK with the images being located anywhere else but the infobox. That being said, if the video thumbnails are changed to thumbnails in the articles, the articles are short enough that they're not going to display in any kind of good manner. They'll show up squeezed beneath the infobox past the text and I don't think you want that. But if you don't mind and want the images to stay in, well, why's that up to me to change? I don't care about "helping" the images stay, but you seem to. I'm also not so sure I won't be reverted by somebody else who wants them in cover=. If you move the images out of the infobox, I'll withdraw my nomination, if I can even do that now. My objection is the thumbnails being used as covers. Ss112 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider that. I personally do consider these as the cover images, given media usage and usage on YouTube as the thumbnail, aka “cover art” on a website where the music is uploaded. Another editor also seems to agree with me, albeit another agrees with you. I would consider this an alternative to deletion, so if it comes down to consensus being “delete” on grounds of it not being the cover image, then this idea (removal from the “cover” parameter) would be put in place and the images themselves would be in the article and not removed from Wikipedia as a whole. For me, the discussion basically goes two ways with whatever consensus developed: Images remain as is (“cover” parameter) or images are removed from that “cover” parameter and placed in the article, without full deletion. That would be the way I see this discussion going, since there is agreement the images themselves do not violate non-free media usage and the question is whether they are cover images or not. Would you agree to that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the argument of The Weather Event Writer, who says it better than I ever could. The argument of the nom is completely, and utterly, wrongheaded. Historyday01 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: The argument of the nom is completely, and utterly, wrongheaded. No it isn't, and it really isn't that serious—"completely and utterly"? Come on. I'm sorry that I can't link you to the exact dates and previous times that video thumbnails have been deleted when they've been used as replacements for cover artworks in the absence of those songs having actual cover artworks, but this has happened many times previously, and there is absolutely precedent for not doing this in the pop music sphere. These songs don't have cover artworks, and their videos don't serve as makeshift covers. A scene from a video with logos on it is not a replacement cover. Ss112 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with what The Weather Event Writer said, to keep the four files for the songs, but be ok with the removal from the character page. It is an effective cover artwork (pretty obviously), regardless of what you are claiming. Your argument that you can't link the previous times and exact dates "that video thumbnails have been deleted when they've been used as replacements for cover artworks in the absence of those songs having actual cover artworks" and further claim that there "absolutely precedent for not doing this in the pop music sphere" is a version of the "Trust Me Bro" idea. I don't trust anyone's word like that anymore.

These images clearly fall within the non-free-use rationale. Burning people on this non-free-use rationale could have a negative impact. You call Animation Magazine a "shoddy-looking WordPress blog" which is incorrect. It often reports on animation and IS a credible source.

If you have issues with how the parameters are defined (which it seems that you do), I recommend you take that up with The Weather Event Writer (or fix it yourself) rather than wasting everyone's time with this unnecessary nomination. Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Where did I dispute that they are used fairly? I didn't. My issue is that we don't use replacement images as cover artworks when songs don't have cover artworks because there is precedent—trust me bro—for not doing this. I edit in music all the time and I've seen this before. Realistically nobody could be expected to pull links up or save them in the first place because I didn't think somebody would be doing this image-substitute business again.

OK, point taken about Animation Magazine, but the website still makes it look like a shoddy blog. I suppose it's fitting that a print magazine that pre-dates the wide usage of the Internet looks like this, but that's neither here nor there in regards to this nomination. Still, so what? They used the thumbnail. That doesn't make it the cover or equivalent to a cover.

I already commented on WeatherWriter's talk page several days ago that we don't do this in cover=. WeatherWriter restored the images, so now I've nominated them for deletion and that's why we're here. I also can't unilaterally change what cover= in the infobox documentation is defined as, so fix it yourself is a silly thing to suggest.

Unnecessary nomination A user below has nominated to delete. Clearly it's not a waste of time if somebody else agrees that they should be deleted. I am not withdrawing my nomination, and I don't think it's a waste of time to dispute these images' use in this manner. If it's a waste of time, then I don't know why you're here disputing the matter, because then surely to you that must mean there's no chance the images will be deleted. Ss112 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom Poirot09 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use as cover as they...aren't cover artworks. Deletion would hinge on whether or not they can be used elsewhere, within policy, or not. If they can't, then delete. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the image does not qualify as a cover art and therefore the licensing is incorrect. It can be reuploaded and used outside of the infobox if a suitable rational can be sought however the rules around copyright are crystal clear. Images from a music video are NOT the identifiable imagery associated with work of art. 12:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment for nominator — @Ss112: — I concede as it appears consensus is on your side. So, all four images have been moved out of the “cover” parameter. Since it also appears consensus is that they are not cover images and that they still qualify as non-free images, I would like to take your offer up about a withdrawal here. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Per WP:WITHDRAW I can't archive the discussion and prevent any other !votes from being added, as users have voted for things other than keep. I have struckthrough my nomination and added a note. Ss112 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/replace as stated by votes above, the files are not song covers but YouTube thumbnails and should be replaced by the covers of the songs itself. Spinixster (chat!) 09:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Yes, And? Remix.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 ⚡ 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already one non-free image present in the article. The remix did not earn sufficient coverage about its cover art to warrant a second image. Furthermore, it does not appear at the top of the page. Its omission would not harm the topic and its inclusion does not add to the conversation or topic. Therefore on multiple accounts, it fails WP:NFCC. It was previously nominated for deletion here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the points made in the nom. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.