Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Jump to navigation Jump to search
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 21 26 47
TfD 0 0 2 10 12
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 13 3 16
AfD 0 0 0 55 55

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
  • NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
  • Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
  • Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
  2. For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  3. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
    6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
  4. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  5. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
  6. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
  7. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  8. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
    4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  9. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  10. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{Ffd|log=2021 June 16}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:Ffd2|File_name.ext|uploader=|reason=}} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:Ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader=}} for each additional file. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add {{Ffd|log=2021 June 16}} to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:Ffd notice|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:Ffd notice multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{FFDC|File_name.ext|log=2021 June 16}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

  • Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
  • Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
  • Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1928, not 1922.
  • Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
  • Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.


Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
  • Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
  • Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
  • File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions[edit]

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

June 8

File:Hololive 1st fes Nonstop Story poster.png

[edit]

File:Hololive 1st fes Nonstop Story poster.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Goszei (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I don't believe that this has a valid fair use rationale. My main problem is with the purpose in the article as I don't think that it is at all necessary to include this in the article as it does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • In this use, I think the poster increases reader understanding by conveying information on Hololive's branding, in particular its unique Japanese idol/J-pop marketing. This aspect has been the subject of critical commentary in RS ([1]), currently quoted in the article as a major part of the agency's success so far: [Hololive has] harnessed the entertainment value of both streaming and J-pop idol groups. I believe that the current visual identification rationale I had added should be replaced by this critical commentary rationale, as per WP:NFCI#4's instruction on non-free posters. — Goszei (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most people don't know what a VTuber is or what they look like. An article about them needs to show some kind of visual representation. I think Goszei's FUR is sufficient. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand the NFCC#8 reason either in line with the nom, especially given this isn't in the article's infobox, and what exactly it's identifying remains unclear in the article. Not bolding a vote due to a lack of confidence as someone without any subject matter expertise making an independent judgement. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - The image itself is a huge group of the virtual personalities and is not justified by any significant sourced commentary. As used, it fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. As for having people not knowing what a Vtuber is or what they look like, Virtual YouTuber is the solution to that. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 7

File:Himilo Qaran logo.jpg

[edit]

File:Himilo Qaran logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AmirahBreen (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Commons - which has a larger version under this name - assumes that this logo isn't copyrightable because Somalia does not have copyright laws. If we agree with this the local file should be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Somalia does have copyright laws, but isn't subject to Berne, but everything else here is otherwise correct, and I'd second this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Um, if Somalia has copyright laws, would this image be PD under their terms? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Face Off Breaking Bad.jpg

[edit]

File:Face Off Breaking Bad.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image fails WP:NFCC#8 as simply a visual of two characters standing/sitting in the same room. Another non-free image with a more valid non-free rationale is already in the article which passes WP:NFCC and can be used instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Note - the uploader has previously shared their reasoning in March 2021 (and later that May) that they are adding more images to articles as visual bookmarks to identify episodes, a practice that violates WP:NFCC and possibly copyright guidelines. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Borderline speedy keep here. The fact that this person is citing the reason of the image being a "visual of two characters standing/sitting in the same room" as a criterion for failing NFCC#8 should be a reason to close this discussion. @Some Dude From North Carolina: is grossly misrepresenting the purpose of the image in the article in an effort to have it removed. For following voters - please take a look at Face Off (Breaking Bad) for further details. WP:NFCC#8 requires contextual significance and sourced commentary. This image is of one the main characters, Gustavo Fring, prior to arriving to kill Hector Salamanca, another major character in the series, for talking to the DEA. Contextual significance for WP:NFCC#8 is established already. As stated in the article, this episode marks the final appearance of both of these characters in the series. "This episode marks the final appearance in the series of Giancarlo Esposito as Gus Fring, and recurring actors Mark Margolis as Hector Salamanca and Ray Campbell as Tyrus Kitt. Esposito, Campbell and Margolis would reprise their respective roles in Breaking Bad's spin-off series Better Call Saul, beginning with the latter show's third and second season respectively."
In the following scene, we know that both Fring and Salamanca are killed by a bomb, and there is plenty of sourced commentary in the article to satisfy WP:NFCC#8's requirement there. "The episode received unanimous acclaim from television critics. Seth Amitin of IGN awarded the episode 9.5 out of 10, describing it as "the perfect blend of Breaking Bad".[8] Alan Sepinwall, reviewing for HitFix, said the episode was "fantastic, from beginning to end".[9] Matt Richenthal of TV Fanatic awarded the episode a 4.8 out of 5 and described Breaking Bad as "the best show on television".[10] Donna Bowman of The A.V. Club awarded the episode an "A".[11] James Poniewozik of TIME magazine described the finale as "stunning, morally searing and, well, explosive ... with a few holy-crap moments for the ages",[12] while Tim Goodman of The Hollywood Reporter reckoned that the episode "did a lot of things right, course-correcting most ... worries and giving viewers not only an action-packed, satisfying episode but putting the show on the path to finish ... in a nearly perfect dramatic state."[13] In 2019 The Ringer ranked "Face Off" as the third best out of the 62 total Breaking Bad episodes.[14]" LJF2019 talk
LJF2019, the uploader, most likely has a failed comprehension of WP:TLDR and the meaning of WP:NFCC along with other copyright guidelines (we can't simply upload non-free images for every article). Copy-and-pasting an entire paragraph of the article, with no mention of the image/moment (most sources rather mention the explosion/aftermath/visual effects), is just once again showing that this image fails NFCC#8. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the nom that NFCC#8 is not met here, especially given the alternate image in the article which has attached commentary. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

May 28

File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg

[edit]

File:James Oliver Huberty.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lord Gøn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously nominated as part of mass-nom FFD discussion that was closed as "no consensus". To me, regardless of the size of the section of the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre article, the perpetrator image doesn't add much understanding to the already tragic event that occurred. It may fail WP:NFCC#8. However, a few or several editors wanted the image kept in the other discussion, so I may stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The spirit of the prior discussion linked above is that the perpetrator's likeness is often immaterial to the event. Unless the likeness is itself the subject of discussion, warranting supplemental visual context (WP:NFCC#8), the likeness has no necessary bearing on understanding the topic. czar 01:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg

[edit]

File:Micah Xavier Johnson - 2016 Dallas shooter.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously nominated as part of mass-listing FFD discussion, which was closed as "no consensus". In that previous discussion, a few or several people favored keeping the image. However, I still don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8. The 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers was already tragic enough as it is, and the perpetrator image wouldn't improve/affect the understanding, especially when deleted, even with massive size of the section about the perpetrator. George Ho (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The spirit of the prior discussion linked above is that the perpetrator's likeness is often immaterial to the event. Unless the likeness is itself the subject of discussion, warranting supplemental visual context (WP:NFCC#8), the likeness has no necessary bearing on understanding the topic. I don't see the case for including a {{infobox criminal}} in these cases either. If the perpetrator is notable, they receive their own article with a detailed infobox. czar 01:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Santo Spirito Firenze interno.jpg

[edit]

File:Santo Spirito Firenze interno.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License disputed by Sennecaster with the following rationale: "cannot be PD-Italy; Italy has no FOP and this is a dervitiave copyrighted, thus being URAA". Brought to FFD for discussion. plicit 23:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as original disrupter because it is definitely older than 70 years, I don't see any organization that would hold copyright and I completely misinterpreted how FOP works in Italy. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Explicit and Sennecaster, the license is still incorrect, no? It doesn't meet the date requirements of the "simple photograph" Italian license it lists. Why is the Italian license listed at all, though? The English Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law only, so the question is what makes it available under a free-use license in the U.S. And I'm not seeing evidence of a release that would make that so. Am I missing something? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Czar: We use the Italian license to explain why it may be out of copyright in Italy and would be okay under URAA. I have no idea how the extremely limited FOP and simple photograph works, but assuming the church is older (yes), then the image is out of copyright in Italy and URAA restored in the United States. Nice catch on that one! Still shouldn't be deleted imo, needs a NFUR though. Sennecaster (What now?) 12:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png

[edit]

File:Gavin Long - shot 6 police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17 2016.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WClarke (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Previously part of mass-listing FFD discussion that was closed as "no consensus". To this date, methinks, the perpetrator image still doesn't improve understanding of the already tragic 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers. It still fails WP:NFCC#8, meaning that deleting the image still wouldn't affect what was already tragic, especially to the masses. George Ho (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep As one of the editors who took part in the previous mass-nomination discussion, this was one of the files that probably had a rough consensus that it could have been closed as Keep. The perpetrator has enough prose with reliable sources in the shooting incident article that it could be split off into its own article thus passing WP:NFCC#8. It would have been nice having been one of the editors in the previous discussion, to have been notified of this discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Beach Boys Maharishi.jpg

[edit]

File:Beach Boys Maharishi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Beatles August 1969.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:David Anderle.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ILIL (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

NFCC concerns – is it acceptable to use a non-free image to visually identify the subject of an article, even though there's no supporting commentary about the image? JG66 (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm raising this issue (with these files as examples) for discussion. These are not my uploads but I admit I am tempted to upload other non-free files that would be used in the same way in their respective articles, and would similarly lack 3rd party commentary devoted to the image and its significance. JG66 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Should be allowed under WP:NFCI #8 (Images with iconic status or historical importance ... which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events) and #10. (Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely.) ili (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, just for the record, David Anderle is a non-living person, but if the concern lies with the painting next to him, well, that painting is discussed in the article. ili (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, what is says in full there at WP:NFCI #8 is (with my emphasis added): Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. Following that link from "contextual significance" gives (again with my emphasis): Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It's questions raised by those areas I've emphasised, especially the last point, that I'd like some clarity on, and I think we all need some clarity on them. JG66 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've left a notification at WP:MCQ in the hope that editors with some expertise in this field might add to the discussion here. JG66 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 07:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've since added more commentary about the painting to Anderle's article. ili (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Screenshots from The Wire

[edit]

File:Unto Others.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Corner Boys.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Know Your Place.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Misgivings.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:That's Got His Own.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Final Grades.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by LJF2019 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

All of these non-free scrteenshots are being claimed to be used for identification and in most cases there is an addiitonal claim that it is mentioned in the plot. These images are not logos, title cards, posters, or other such images thatr are used for identificaiton. As well, these images are not the subject of significant sourced critical commentary and their removal does not detract from the reader's understanding. Simply illustrating plot point with no critical commentary is decroative usage. Fails WP:NFCC#8. See also Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 March 16#File:TheWire28.jpg -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong Keep. WP:NFCC#8 only states that images must show "contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Additionally, the image must serve a purpose. There is no requirement of "significant sourced critical commentary". In general, each image serves to show a plot point, but we'll go through each image for you!
- Unto Others. This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode - it's linked at the bottom of the article. it depicts Herc and Sydnor interviewing Randy about the security camera, which is mentioned under the "Major Case Unit" section of the article". This is an actual image from the episode - not from any other episode. To reiterate, THIS IMAGE IS FROM THE EPISODE. By definition, this is contextual significance. There is a case to be made that removing this image would indeed detract from a reader's understanding, given that the image is illustrating a plot point from the episode. Again, significant sourced critical commentary is not a written requirement.
- Corner Boys. Well, where do we go from here?
1. This image is literally referred to in the title of the episode and article - it depicts Namond showing up to school without his uniform on and being disruptive. Under the title reference section, it states ""Corner Boys" references the terminology used to describe the disruptive students in school, and the focus taken by Colvin's group to relate to them in terms of what they know: the streets of Baltimore. The term comes from Baltimore area slang for the street level drug dealers, usually adolescent males, who literally stand on street corners and sell drugs." The image there is of three of these said "corner boys".
2. Under the Epigraph section, it states "Zenobia makes this statement in Colvin's class to back up Namond, claiming that the students' drug dealing is related to the activities of larger legitimate systems." Once again referring to the scene in the image.
3. I'll copy and paste the massive chunk of text from the "school" section of the plot which you clearly chose not to read -
Namond tells Randy and Michael about the discussion on their way home from school. When De'Londa catches her son Namond working on his package in his bedroom she angrily tells him that the police could seize their house if the drugs are found there and insists he hand the task on to a lieutenant.
Michael gets home to find that his mother has sold his groceries for drug money. She threatens to take the DSS card from him. He insists on keeping the card. The next day, when Michael gets home from the gym, Bug tells him that his father has returned. Michael is dismayed and repulsed when the man goes to touch him. He confronts his mother, telling her that she has broken her promise by allowing Bug's father to return. She is unconcerned and tells Michael that things are going back to the way they were. Michael is stunned and his mother says that Bug's father will now hold the DSS card.
The next day an energized Namond raises the hypocrisy of a system that promises to reward him for good behavior when it fails to live by its own rules much of the time; he states steroids, liquor, cigarettes and Enron as examples. Darnell points out that even Colvin's police work focused on drugs, so in a way, drugs paid Colvin's salary. Zenobia claims that the street life is just part of the larger system. Prez discusses his class's difficulty with the test with his colleagues. They reassure him that performance is low across all subjects. Hanson and Shapiro tell him he must follow the curriculum. Sampson and Hanson offer typical sage advice: Prez's first year as a teacher has to be less about the children and more about him surviving.
At lunch, Prez watches Dukie show Crystal and her friends how to shop for jewelry on the internet. He notices that Michael is despondent at the back of the class. Prez asks if Michael is okay, but Michael hesitantly declines to confide in him. Prez leaves his offer open and suggests that Michael could talk to the school social worker. Michael goes to pick Bug up after school but learns from Miss Ella that his father has already taken him. Michael runs out of the school after them. He finds Bug doing homework with his father and pulls Bug away from him.
Parenti, Colvin and the special class teacher discuss their progress. The academics are impressed with their results but have noticed that some of the children are not participating — those with deeper problems in particular. Parenti wonders whether they can convince the corner kids to take an interest in subjects beyond drug dealing.
Namond gives his package to Kenard and tells him that he is a lieutenant and warns him not to cheat him on the profits. Namond delivers his takings to his mother and she notices that he has made less than she would expect from a full package. He blames his territory, but she goes to tackle Bodie about territory."
- Know Your Place. An image of Daniels being promoted to C.I.D. colonel.
1. Let's take a look at the title reference section. "...the title also refers to Carcetti keeping the high-up police in line, as well as Carcetti being challenged by Nerese Campbell in the first budget meeting."
2. Politics section - "Carcetti, Norman Wilson, and Delegate Watkins agree that firing Burrell is off the table because of the potential backlash of his black voters at the idea of a white mayor firing a black police commissioner. Carcetti tries to coax Burrell into stepping down, but Burrell understands the racial situation in which the mayor-elect finds himself and refuses to leave quietly, claiming that he will only do so if he is fired. Instead, Carcetti tells William Rawls that Burrell is to undertake no initiative as Commissioner without clearing it through him first. He then requests two promotions: Stan Valchek to Deputy Commissioner of Administration for helping him throughout the campaign, and Major Cedric Daniels will become C.I.D. Colonel, filling the late Ray Foerster's position. Carcetti claims that he wants to give Daniels carte blanche to reform the investigative units. Daniels tells Rhonda Pearlman that there's a chance Baltimore might be able to turn itself around under the new administration. She, Carver, Greggs and Sydnor are present at the promotion ceremony.
- Misgivings. Herc gives Bubbles a grape soda, attempting to apologize after repeatedly breaking his promises to him. As a result, Bubbles seeks revenge against him.
1. Directly mentioned in title reference section. The title refers to the feelings held by various characters in the episode. Marlo's misgiving about Little Kevin led to his murder. Bodie worries about the appropriateness of his new boss's actions. Doubts spread about Randy's character lead to bullying at school. Miss Sheperdson has misgivings about the appropriateness of the special class while many teachers feel the same way about her insistence upon teaching test questions. Michael makes an uneasy decision about Bug's father. Marimow and Bubbles doubt Herc's integrity. Burrell worries about his job security while Daniels doubts the effectiveness of his new strategy. Wilson and Carcetti worry about trusting Davis. Bubbles also deliberately gives Herc misinformation about a drug bust.
2. Major Crimes section. "Thomas "Herc" Hauk visits Bubbles and tries to enlist his help in retrieving the missing camera. Bubbles is outraged that Herc is asking him for more favors when Herc has broken his promises. Bubbles again asks for help with the drug addict who has been robbing him and Herc makes another promise to help. Herc provides Bubbles with a phone and some money and instructs him to call as soon as he sees his tormentor.
Herc discusses his problem about the missing camera with Officer Kenneth Dozerman and Detective Leander Sydnor. Sydnor urges Herc to go straight to the lieutenant before the situation gets worse. Herc is worried about Lieutenant Marimow's reaction.
Herc tries to confess to Marimow and is faced with hostility. Bubbles spots his antagonist and attempts to call Herc during the meeting, but Herc ignores his calls. Marimow threatens Herc with an internal investigations division case and Herc is intimidated into withholding the information about the camera.
Bubbles becomes frustrated with Herc and decides to get revenge. He calls up Herc about a fictitious drug resupply in progress, giving Herc the license plate of a minister's car. Herc jumps on the opportunity and organizes a traffic stop. Herc is aggressive towards the minister, throwing the minister's possessions on the sidewalk as he searches his car.
- That's Got His Own". Image shows Omar cocking his shotgun while robbing Prop Joe's narcotics shipment with his crew. This was the final scene in the penultimate episode of the 4th season and had major plot implications.
Omar section: "Omar Little and Renaldo follow Cheese to a meeting with Stanfield. Cheese's jocular manner is met with stony silence from Marlo, Chris, Snoop, O-Dog and Monk. Marlo pays Cheese more than was expected and then orders a bigger shipment of narcotics. Cheese cannot promise, but tells Marlo that he will discuss it with Proposition Joe. He gives Monk a burner phone and tells him that they will call when they have the drugs. Stanfield's people are newly dubious about using phones and Cheese reassures them that they do not have to answer the call; the call itself will serve as the signal that the meeting is ready.
Omar organizes a meeting at Butchie's bar to put a team together. Butchie offers him the men who helped Omar while in jail as muscle, but Omar declines, telling Butchie that he hopes to be more subtle. His old associate Kimmy arrives and receives a warm welcome. Omar and Renaldo follow Cheese while he prepares the delivery to Marlo. Proposition Joe calls Omar as promised; Omar does not take the call. Omar, Renaldo and Kimmy tail the van to the meeting place. Kimmy is dressed as a prostitute. Cheese and his associates prepare to load the shipment into the van. Kimmy approaches one of the guards and tries to distract him with the offer of sexual favors. Renaldo's people arrive posing as painters and block Cheese's van in. Omar demands that they open the truck. Cheese reports the theft to Proposition Joe who worries that the co-op will think that he is withholding the shipment for himself."
- Final Grades. Arguably one of the greatest television scenes/episodes of all time. The image depicts Bodie Broadus immediately before his tragic death. This scene bears heavily on its critical reception, and this is arguably your worst image tag here, and 100% should stay.
1. Critical response section. "The episode received unanimous acclaim from television critics. The Futon Critic named it the second best episode of 2006, saying "David Simon did it again. He made us think these four boys—Namond (Julito McCullum), Michael (Tristan Wilds), Randy (Maestro Harrell) and Duquan (Jermaine Crawford)—could have at the very least a future and ripped the rug out from under nearly all of them. He gave us a voice in Bodie (JD Williams), who rallied against the current state of "the game," only to silence it. He gave us a saintly mayor (Aidan Gillen), only to muzzle him with bureaucracy. In the end however he did give us the "old" McNulty (Dominic West) back and the promise to fight the good fight once again. And I'm sure he'll make us believe again—and rip the rug out from under us again. And I wouldn't have it any other way."
2. Title reference section. "Although most obviously referring to the test grades received by the school's students, the title also refers to the final evaluation of Parenti and Colvin's pilot program, Chris and Snoop's evaluations of O-Dog and Michael's skills, and to the end-of-year statistics which Carcetti leaves in Royce's name." (O-Dog kills Bodie, who becomes part of the end-of-year murder statistics.)
3. Western District section. Series of events leading up to Bodie's death. "Poot Carr and Bodie Broadus visit the site where one of the bodies was found. They have heard that Little Kevin's body was found inside. Bodie becomes increasingly agitated about the unjustifiable nature of the killing of his friend. Officer Jimmy McNulty recognizes Bodie when he vandalizes a patrol car as he is being arrested by other officers.
McNulty visits the staging area and asks Pearlman how many bodies have been recovered. She reports that 17 corpses have been discovered so far. He asks Pearlman to sign off on releasing Bodie without charge. McNulty quizzes his colleagues about the case they are building. They affectionately taunt him by saying that a real police officer would feel compelled to help them.
McNulty waits for Bodie as he is released from jail and offers to buy him lunch. As they leave, Monk arrives with the bondsman and notices Bodie getting into McNulty's car. McNulty takes Bodie to Cylburn Arboretum. Bodie tells him that he is not an informant, but admits his frustration with his life as a drug dealer and Marlo's leadership. He states that Marlo expects his people to stand behind him, yet he himself does not stand behind people who work for him. He tells McNulty that the game is rigged and that he feels like a pawn on a chessboard, showing that some of D'Angelo Barksdale's teachings were not lost on him. He offers McNulty information to bring down Marlo, but openly tells McNulty that he will not give any information on any former Barksdale associate. McNulty, out of genuine respect, tells Bodie that he is a soldier."
4. Stanfield Organization section. "Monk reports sighting Bodie to Marlo and a newly released Chris. Marlo instructs Chris to have Michael kill Bodie on the chance of him being an informant. Chris tells Marlo that Michael worked for Bodie so the task should go to someone else, as Michael's first kill should be a stranger. Marlo relays the latest news about the theft of their shipment and Omar's offer to sell it back to them. Marlo mentions that Proposition Joe said Omar offered to sell it back at 30 cents to the dollar, 10 cents more than what Omar actually told Joe.
Bodie returns to work on his corner with Poot and Spider. He notices someone approaching in the shadows and Poot sees someone coming from the other direction. Recognizing Chris and Snoop in the darkness Bodie and Poot realize that the pair have arrived to kill Bodie. Poot urges him to flee, but Bodie refuses to run from his own territory. Spider runs while Bodie fires into the darkness. Poot makes a final plea and then takes flight himself. Bodie, refusing to back down from Marlo and the Stanfield Organization any longer, stands his ground and fires at Chris and Snoop, yelling to them that he isn't running away from them and that they won't put his body in an empty row house as they have with their other victims. As Bodie is distracted by Chris and Snoop, O-Dog steps from a doorway and shoots him in the back of the head. Bodie falls, and O-Dog fires another shot at the back of Bodie's head, finishing him."
I have completely and totally justified each image's reasoning and I highly suggest you review and reconsider your deletion push. Thanks bud! LJF2019 talk 21:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@CatcherStorm: WP:TLDR and IMDB is a wiki. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: WP:TLDR is not Wikipedia policy. I don't know what IMDB being a wiki has anything to do with my justification. The reason there's so much text here is because a majority of it is pasted text directly from each article, which directly contradicts Whpq's claim of lack of significant commentary. The relevant sentences for each image are italicized, in case you didn't notice. The strongest case against deletion is the last one, Final Grades, which is conveniently bolded AND italicized for lazy eyes! LJF2019 talk 08:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@CatcherStorm: Indeed WP:TLDR is not policy, it is my opinion. And I'm probably not alone. You said This is an image retrieved directly from IMDB's episode entry for that particular episode which is more of argument in favor of deletion than against it, as a wiki is not a reliable source. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If the most effort you're willing to put into reading my justification is reading one sentence and giving up, then don't bother commenting anything at all. I don't see what your comment is contributing here. If you're going to target one arbitrary part of my argument and say it's because a wiki isn't a reliable source, and ignore literally all of my other justifications, then just don't say anything. LJF2019 talk 09:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@LJF2019: A case could be made for these screenshots (probably not a strong case per Whpq below), but a wall of text is not helping. And IMDb is also not helping. The source should include a time code, instead File:Final Grades.jpg links a YouTube video from some random user and File:That's Got His Own.jpg links IMDb. Authenticity is considerably more difficult to verify when unofficial sources are used and no time code is provided, that alone is an argument for deletion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above argument (after wading through far too much text) boils down to a case of the image supporting the plot description. It is worthwhile to look at the instructions at {{Infobox television episode}} in which all these images are used. The image parameter in bold states "There is no blanket allowance for an image per episode.". Given every TV episode article has a plot summary, clearly just supporting the plot is insufficient. So what is needed? The documentation provides the direction that images are added "typically if it is required to illustrate a crucial element of the episode that is the object of explicit, sourced analytical commentary and where that commentary is in genuine need of visual support." In all of these episodes, there is no sourced analytical commentary. What sourcing sourcing exists is just a primary source of the HBO website's epsiode information. Where is the analytical commentary? -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment “Where is the analytical commentary?”
If one sentence could describe the inane way you are approaching this discussion, that would be it. Time and time again, I find myself directly addressing your argument only to have you walk around it.
Once again, your last claim is patently false. The wall of text is there because a sizeable portion of it is copied and pasted from sections of the article directly related to the analytical commentary you are begging for. When discussing Wikipedia policy, I would prefer to go off of pages that say specifically that it is Wikipedia policy. So let’s go by WP:NFCC.
You’re correct in that “an image per episode” is not a blanket allowance, but no one is making that assertion here. Nevertheless, “an image per episode” is not prohibited under NFCC so long as its need can be demonstrated.
You may or may not have a valid case for the first 5 image, but I don’t think you have a case for the image on Final Grades given that it is illustrating a crucial plot point in one of the most critically acclaimed episodes of the most critically acclaimed season of one of the greatest television shows of all time. The analytical commentary you’re looking for is all over that article. This is true for the other images, but to a lesser degree.
It’s also important to consider the quality and structure of the article in general, and what defines “significant” in terms of sourced commentary. Some articles are simply written better than others. Every article for each Breaking Bad episode is well-written enough to the point where it merits an image per episode. For The Wire, an image illustrating a crucial plot point in an episode, coupled with mentions of the scene in the plot as well as a direct connection of the scene to the title and perhaps also the epigraph, which are sections in EVERY The Wire article, are sufficient for me. LJF2019 talk 23:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The only sourcing in the articles for this are primary source (HBO web site epsiode / script). There is no actual independent sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rationale in nomination is not convincing - the standard for non-free content has nothing to do with being a "logos, title cards, posters" (barring logos that are so simple as to be public domain, of course, like pure text). The standard is critical commentary, of which The Wire has in spades. There's a bit of a forest vs. trees issue here: if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot, but also doesn't necessarily lock down which one - any shot of Bubbles in an alleyway in season 5 might work (where they intentionally went for a different, handcam, documentary-style approach). Nominator sees this as a weakness, that this means any shot individually doesn't qualify, but this isn't correct: it just means that many shots could qualify as a representative shot of the style. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The comment in the nomination referring to title cards / logos is addressing the claim that these screenshots are used for identification. But that is secodary to the main thrust that these images fulfill the requirement for contextual significance by dint of being the subject of critical commentary. You note "if we have sourced commentary on cinematography, style, actor appearance, etc., that can very often support a screenshot". I agree. If such sourced commentary were to exist. But we do not have that here for any of these images. We do not have critical commentary "in spades"; what we have in spades is plot summary sourced to HBO, a primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The articles are already extremely detailed and can be understood well based on the text; removing the screenshots would not significantly reduce readers' understanding of the topics. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - images fail WP:NFCC#8. I would also suggest taking a look at LJF2019's recent uploads, including those for shows like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul where images such as this one are simply of characters sitting down without doing anything notable/pivotal to the plot. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: If you were going to choose a file as an example, I don't think choosing the one of Chuck testifying in the courtroom in one of the show's most critically acclaimed episodes is your best option. Nice try though. Did you even watch the show? Take look at the critical reception and analysis section:

1. "TVLine named Michael McKean the "Performer of the Week" for his performance in this episode, writing it was the "finest showcase yet for his fascinatingly layered performance as Jimmy's brother Chuck McGill."[5] Donna Bowman of The A.V. Club, who gave the episode an "A" rating, praised the courtroom scene, saying "it isn't just to give us the satisfaction of a courtroom drama, the neat ending where the truth comes out. The brilliance of this structure is to give us a slow-motion view of the heavens falling, an outcome methodically pursued by Kim and Jimmy, which nevertheless seems to give them no satisfaction".

2. "The episode's final scene is an homage to the climactic courtroom scene in The Caine Mutiny, in which a suspicious, authoritarian, by-the-book Navy captain cracks under cross-examination. Uproxx noted that even the facial expressions of "Chicanery's" three committee members mirror those of three judges in Caine.[9] (The film—which Vince Gilligan counts among his favorites—is also referenced in the Breaking Bad episode "Madrigal", in which Mike can be seen watching it.)[9]"

Now that we've established you paid zero attention to the arguments that were made above, let me go over it again for you:

NFCC#8 requires contextual significance. I don't know if you've watched The Wire, but I'm going to assume you didn't because you seem to have glossed over all of the "sourced commentary" that I provided from the articles the non-free content is being used in. Compare the use of non-free images in the articles of TV show CHARACTERS to the ones in the articles for episodes - they are always uncontroversial. Why? Because the the non-free content serves to identify the subject of the article.

In this same context, the non-free content is being used to identify the subject of the article - the episode itself, which satisfies contextual significance. Take into account the fact that the plot points illustrated in the actual image are literally being discussed within the article, and Whpq's argument seems less valid. I'll quote Wikipedia's File Upload Wizard - " Please remember that you will need to demonstrate that: The file will serve an important function in a particular article; (NFCC8)".


Adding the image DOES improve the reader's understanding of the article topic. For example - of those who are rewatching a show and are following the show through Wikipedia, as I often do, having a screenshot from the episode helps readers quickly identify what episode the article is talking about, by presenting, for example, an important scene from the episode. Omitting it, therefore, would be a detriment to that understanding. LJF2019 talk 18:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • NFCC#8 is a two-pronged test. One part is to show that the reader's understanding is improved with the presence of the image - this test nearly always is easy to demonstrate. The test that is harder to show is the second part : that the reader's understanding would be harmed with the absence of the image. In the past, the average use of a random screenshot frm a TV episode in the infobox just to serve to identify the episode has been rejected because this fails the second test; most episodes can be understood without the use of such a screenshot. However, in cases where there are specific scenes that have been critically discussed and where the visuals would be helpful, then we would allow those screenshots. For example as a positive example, the screenshot used in Worlds Apart (Fringe) is of such a case. Now while I can't speak that well to the Wire as to specific scenes, I can speak to Better Call Saul and question the choices there. Eg to pick one, Bad Choice Road is not a scene discussed in depth in comparison to the confrontation later in Kim's apartment, and while as a editor looking for a visually stimulating image, that image you uploaded is more interesting than three people standing in an apartment, it fails NFCC#8 because that scene is not a subject of discussion and fails the second test of NFCC#8. --Masem (t) 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @LJF2019: The images in each article NEED to pass NFCC#8 – if the image was removed and it wouldn't affect a reader, it shouldn't be added. Describing it here won't do, and should be explained in the article in length. Take the image for "Full Measure", where the scene was analyzed by critics for its significance on the character development of Jesse Pinkman. Or the one for "Face Off", where the visual effects on the death of Gus Fring earned the episode an Emmy. For "Chicanery", an image is not necessary. For #1, an image of Michael McKean is already provided and can be used to state that his performance was praised. The excuse that it helps readers know what episode they're reading about is not a reason to include it. Articles with unnecessary images include "Gray Matter", "Seven Thirty-Seven", "Down", "Over", "I.F.T.", "Más", "Sunset", "Kafkaesque", "Fly", "Abiquiu", "Open House", "Shotgun", and "End Times". The plot section can explain in detail a pivotal scene and if an actor's performance was praised, a free image of them can be provided instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Describing it here won’t do? I’m quite literally copying and pasting content FROM THE ARTICLE into this discussion. Most of the images I’ve provided are from those scenes, and you conveniently chose the Chicanery picture as a perfect example. The picture is from the courtroom hearing and I copied and pasted content from the article describing that scene.

Yes, of course they NEED to pass NFCC#8. My argument is that they DO, even if it’s at the very minimum. I can make an argument that your removal of the image from the Smoke episode of Better Call Saul greatly detracted from my understanding of the episode. Having that image there allows me to easily identify which episode that was. “Ah yes, that’s the one where Jimmy’s at the church after Chuck dies”. Instead, after you removed it, I have to read the plot to figure out which one that is. I’m the only person speaking up about this, but like I said, the other 99% of people are lurkers/readers who are following the list of episodes as they watch the series. There is more than enough rationale for these images to stay. LJF2019 talk 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@LJF2019: That's literally the problem with all of your uploads and how they tackle copyright issues. Having visual bookmarks for every episode does not pass NFCC#8 and does not make a valid reason for including all of those images. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: They aren’t “visual bookmarks” when they are meeting NFCC#8’s requirement of contextual significance and sourced commentary. At this point the discussion is deviating from The Wire screenshots to my other uploads. Focus on the files I’ve uploaded and look at the rationale I provided. NFCC#8’s requirements are more than met. It baffles me as to why people seem to be drowning that out. READ THE TEXT. All the commentary for those Wire episodes directly relate to the image and the episode, satisfying NFCC#8. Have you watched The Wire? LJF2019 talk 01:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
"Having that image there allows me to easily identify which episode that was." That is what we call a visual bookmark. The sourced commentary has to be included in the article where the image is located with reliable sources to pass NFCC#8. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
A nit: if we are talking an infobox image, the sourced commentary is sometimes hard to include directly with the image, at least without having a superlong caption. But there should be enough to clue the reader where they may find more about why the image is important (and for us, where NFCC is being met). But it definitely needs to be sourced commentary and not what image an editor thinks is essential for the reader to identify the episode. --Masem (t) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Other cover arts of Ain't Nobody

[edit]

File:Diana King-Ain't Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wherelovelives (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:LX-BN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nez202 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Aint-Nobody-(Loves-Me-Better)-Felix-Jaehn.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Werldwayd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Since one of cover arts of Ain't Nobody was deleted per other FFD discussion (recently closed), I think now is the time to review other cover arts' compliance with NFCC. Well, the cover versions by Diana King, Richard X vs. Liberty X, and Felix Jaehn featuring Jasmine Thompson were successful especially in music charts. However, I don't think cover arts of subsequent versions of the song are needed, are they? The song was originally recorded by Rufus and Chaka Khan. One image of that original release would be enough. The song would be already understood without the cover arts that I'm listing here, and deleting them wouldn't affect such understanding and notability of the cover versions, methinks. In other words, like the one deleted in other FFD discussion, those cover arts may fail WP:NFCC#8 ("contextual significance"). George Ho (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would understand if they were multiple releases of the artist Chaka Khan herself. But I don't see any harm in having cover arts of the song if they are completely independent of the original artist. Saying it doesn't contribute to the understanding of the song is invalid. Different covers convey different additional knowledge. This is not just one particular song's page but also links to artists' pages. So a cover art of Felix Jaehn's version featuring Jasmine Thompson is directly related to Felix Jaehn's discography and his successes or Jasmine Thompson's discography not to Chaka Khan. I think all covers of charting cover versions need to stay and do play a role in widening our knowledge of not just the song and its appeal and variety and adaptability, but also of the so many new artists who found it worthwhile to remake in their own unique way. werldwayd (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your sentiment about the cover arts. However, the consensus decided that the cover art of the LL Cool J release (showing just Beavis and Butt-Head) failed NFCC, especially the "contextual significance" (#8) and "minimal number of items" (#3a) criteria. Saying that the deletion argument is invalid would contrast the decision made at and be inconsistent with the other FFD discussion. For consistency, I think one main infobox image would be enough and any other non-free image is unnecessary. Besides, we have free images of specific singers to fill the void, even when they aren't suitable substitutes for front covers. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
What I meant is that there is no cover-all way treating such instances when they occur. You bring the example of LL Cool G / Beavis and Butthead. I can give you many others of exactly opposite outcome. But there is no clear Wikipedia policy either way. For me, the significance of the cover as a stand-alone hit is of essence, as that specific new hit is an achievement on its own, or else we would not have infoboxes, just a brief one sentence listings for each cover, not separate infoboxes. If there is an infobox(es), like in this case, it deserves its own cover art. werldwayd (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not every infobox, either a top/lead or a section, needs an image, does it? To me, a mere infobox would be sufficient enough. An image is a bonus, yet adding it is very tempting because... an image has mass appeal, doesn' it? George Ho (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep They are separate versions, and used for identification of those particular version and justifiable under criterion #8 to distinguish the different versions. I would understand the "minimal number of items" (#3a) argument if these were for the same version, but they are not, and one for the version is minimal. They are not equivalent items. Hzh (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    To put this another way, you thought the decision to delete the LL Cool J cover art was wrong then, right? --George Ho (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say that those who argue on the basis of #3a are wrong, given that #3a is meant for equivalent items, and these are not (different song covers are different items, because their inclusion is determined by their individual notability criteria per WP:SONGCOVERS outside of the main version. Once you remove the #3a argument, it's at best no-consensus. Hzh (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
As I argued in another FFD discussion, WP:SONGCOVER doesn't mention images especially as part of a cover version's notability. Also, WP:SONGCOVER is part of the WikiProject instead of a guideline. Furthermore, a cover art of a cover version would be unnecessary if that version doesn't have a strong stand-alone article. Either a cover art of the original (e.g. Rufus and Chaka Khan's "Ain't Nobody") or the most significant cover version (if the primary article subject, e.g. Carpenters' "(They Long to Be) Close to You") should suffice. George Ho (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The notability is about the cover version being assessed separately, an indication it is considered a separate item even if placed under the same article. The #3a argument does not apply for a separate item. There is nothing in WP:NFCC about any separate cover art for any version, so the argument is of no relevance. Hzh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
#3a aside, the #8 criterion determines whether deleting the image would affect understanding of the article subject, e.g. the song originally sung and then covered. Furthermore, WP:NFC#CS clarifies that criterion. AFAICS, neither one cover version is the primary subject of the article. The original version has been notable for years and predominates the song article, and later versions of the same song are covered as sections of the article. Furthermore, the spirit of the policy matters more (WP:NFCCEG) than the lettering. To me, NFCC can apply to any separate cover art for any version in order to determine whether a cover art passes NFCC, especially spiritually.

In this case, I am unconvinced that cover arts of later versions have tremendously increased readers' understanding of (what the article conveys about) the song. Their presences, including their own respective elements, merely identify the releases themselves. However, no face of a different singer or no random drawing on a front cover can increase the understanding of the song and its success(es). I'm still confident that the song can be already understood, regardless of content size, without those cover arts, be it a singer's face or a drawing or any other. The later artists' own successes with the same song can still be understood without them as long as they are discussed in the same article and still wouldn't triumph the original's success. George Ho (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of the guidelines, and none of guidelines you cited specifically deal with the issue. WP:NFC#CS may apply to an album but it says nothing about multiple versions of the same song. The topic of a song article is the song, however within the article there may be multiple versions that are contextually significant. Sometimes it is also hard to determine which version is the most significant one, see for example, "Without You". Within the Ain't Nobody article, the Scooter version clearly does not warrant its own section, therefore if someone adds a cover art for it, it can be deleted, but the others are contextually significant. I'm only bringing up the #3a argument because you specifically asked about the LL Cool J's version, and there was no clear consensus once you eliminated that argument (therefore you can argue that it was erroneously deleted). As mentioned by someone else above, there is no clear Wikipedia policy on this, trying to randomly delete cover art based on your personal interpretation is not really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talkcontribs) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
You said my interpretation was personal. As I can assure you, it's not. I'm trying to make things consistent. Deleting one and keeping the others usually wouldn't make sense. If you still have issues with the deletion, please talk to Anarchyte about it.

About WP:NFC#CS, as I hate to admit, it is kinda subjective at best. Nonetheless, an "album" is just an example. The guideline can also apply to songs and says that one non-free content would be typically enough to identify the subject of discussion. Well, every case is different and subjective at best.

In this case, by reading the article, later versions were successful in music charts and received critical reviews at time of their own releases. However, I'm neither sure nor convinced that, no matter how well a version did, a "version" is a subject or an aspect. Actually, aspects of a song I can come up with are an image of a single release and a music sample, which we all know should be covered by critical commentary. Merely identifying the releases, successful or not, with their respective cover arts just... wouldn't cut it (for me, anyways). Furthermore, I'm unsure whether the later versions of the song have made lasting impact as much as the original has done. By the way, the File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg is free from the shackles of NFCC because... it's free in the US. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep These are song covers of notable cover versions that if they were the original song would pass WP:GNG and WP:SONGS, thus it an acceptable fair use and passes WP:NFCC#8. I believe that the previous discussion was closed errornously based on two editors claiming WP:NFCC#3a, which should be for cover files by the same artist and not by different artists. I was going to argue this point before it closed, but obviously never got around to it. Since you did not state #3a in your nomination, with the previous discussion being based on that point, means that only WP:NFCC#8 should be considered, which is not how the previous deletion was closed and should not serve as precedence. Aspects (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Torn (Ava Max song)

[edit]

File:Ava Max - Torn.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eklxtreme (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Ava Max Torn 2.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Angryjoe1111 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

If having two covers in Torn (Ava Max song) violates WP:NFCC#3a (minimal number of items) and WP:NFCC#8 (contextual significance), then let's choose either the (animated/comic) replacement cover or the original (live-action) one. The digital downloading/streaming uses the replacement cover more and more. Unsure about original/physical cover, but physical formats have been (steadily) declining and less and less used. Maybe earliest digital releases used the original cover. The song performed differently in various countries, but I don't see it charted in the US. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep animated cover (cover 2) as uploader: The first cover was only sporadically released in German CD single release and as the song's initial digital release cover for a month before it was silently updated, with the first cover seemingly out of print and non-existent without being accessed with an internet archive. The second cover is also more recognizable to most readers than the first since it is currently used in several digital services. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both. If I remember correctly, the original cover was used for over a month until it was changed. Can "one item can convey equivalent significant information"? I don't think so. It's not like it was only used for one day and then changed to the animated one. It was representative of the song when it was released and when it charted. Heartfox (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

File:TheWire28.jpg

[edit]

File:TheWire28.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joshadler (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 25 -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article; therefore, it fails to meet WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Image makes it clear, for anyone who watched the series, what episode is being discussed (he says as someone that just rewatched this during Covid). Thus meets NFCC#8 as it certainly makes it easier for me to recall which episode we are talking about. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Violates WP:NFCC#8. As laid out at WP:NFC#CS, a non-free item is required to either "itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article" or "only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article" to be considered contextually significant. This image satisfies neither. NFCC#8 always requires for the removal of said item to be detrimental to the understanding of the article, but no detriment occurs as the screenshot is not critically discussed to any extent that would enhance the readers' understanding of the article. It fails every single aspect of policy. plicit 06:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. This image neither adds significant context that couldn't be replaced with text nor is it the subject of in-depth analysis in the body of the article. Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. -FASTILY 02:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per NFCC#8, this image would enhance my understanding of the topic by enabling me to identify the episode easily.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png

[edit]

File:Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) by Lady Gaga alternative cover.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Infsai (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Dubious according to WP:NFCC criterion 3 ("minimal usage") and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover. The original cover (as published onto iTunes) is already included in the infobox. I do not see why this is needed, as it does not substantially increase readers' understanding of the subject. (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this file actually meet criteria, since it's much different than original one and use photo took from music video and if you search for "Eh, Eh" on iTunes or Spotify you'd rather get this artwork, rather the original one. But like in "Salt" I think both artworks are worth including. infsai (dyskusja) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe the artwork of the most notable release should be the main image. Taking a quick glance at this article, the remix EP only seems to be mentioned in the Track listings section, so it is clearly not the more important one. Including an extra image, such as the one in "Salt", is okay in cases like that, but I'm not so sure about "Eh, Eh". I also agree that it does not significantly increase my understanding of the article's topic. Why include the artwork for a specific remix when there are tens or hundreds of others out there that also did not experience notable success? I don't see the point. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 14:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If the cover on iTunes is the most notable, then I think this should be kept, while the other file should be deleted. (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @ResolutionsPerMinute, Infsai, and : Also, from the comments here I am sometimes a little unsure which file folks are talking about when they say "this" or "it" and that makes it hard to tell what should be kept and what should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been suggested that File:Lady Gaga - Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say).png should be deleted, so I have tagged it as such.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate screenshots

[edit]

File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Word for Mac screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silikonz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Word 2010.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Silvergoat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jlin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:MS Word 2007.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stephenchou0722 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3a, only one screenshot is required to identify the software. It is simply the same software running on different operating systems, they both serve the same purpose. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Added 3 more which are not used for identification, nor are they being used to illustrate anything in particular and where its omission would be detrimental to any sort of understanding. Dylsss(talk contribs) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: Not really. They're different versions, not just running on different versions of operating systems. I do agree with WP:NFCC#3, though - but these are vital to show the history of Office for Mac. Also, compare File:Microsoft Office Excel 2007.png, File:Screenshot of Microsoft Office Excel 95, an application part of Microsoft Office system.png, and File:FileScreenshot_of_Microsoft_Office_Excel_2000.png. Again, all non-free licences, but used to show the history of a particular piece of software. This qualifies under minimal use in my opinion and are not, in any way, duplicate, as you mentioned. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you initially only added three screenshots, and all are the ones I uploaded. Office for Mac and Office for Windows have almost always, in the history of Office, been independent releases and almost completely different, so these screenshots qualify for minimal use. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And, as I quote from WP:NFCC#3, minimal use, not only one as you said. Silikonz (💬 | 🖋) 04:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Silikonz. These aren't duplicate screenshots, they are being used to illustrate the history and evolution of Office for the Mac. Jlin (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello? Dylsss, are you here? I think this discussion is worthy of being closed with no action taken, unless you have something to say... any comments? Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 07:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Silikonz and Jlin: Sorry, I've been busy in real life, please let me clarify why I nominated them for deletion. File:Excel for Mac screenshot.png, File:PowerPoint for Mac screenshot.png, File:Word for Mac screenshot.png all identify their respective Microsoft Office applications along with Windows screenshots on each page. Because they both serve the same purpose of identifying the software portrayed in the article, they are not minimal use, and only one is required to identify the software. Consider this, can you tell from one screenshot File:Microsoft_Word.png, or do you need both the Mac and Windows screenshot to recognise the software. You could argue that both are needed to identify the software for each operating system, but I personally would struggle to tell the difference between the Mac and Windows screenshots if you were to crop the title bar, WP:NFCC even clarifies that "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion". I would definitely consider only one screenshot to be a "depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject" and this relates to my point about how you can identify the respective software with only one screenshot and how they are both very visually similar that one displays a prominent aspect of the software. This may be different if there were separate articles for the software on each OS, but the article is for the software as a whole. In my interpretation of policy, unless you cannot recognise Word/Powerpoint/Excel without the use of both screenshots (you can), then they should be deleted. There does not seem to be any commentary at all about Microsoft Word 2007, next to where the image is placed, there are brief mentions, but not where including File:MS Word 2007.png would help the reader understand the text content. Again I see very little commentary at all related to Word 2011, and none where including File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png would help the reader understand the text content. If you could point out what these two images help the reader understand, whether that be a feature or part of the UI which is described in the text, that would be helpful. Lastly, File:Word 2010.png is placed next to a table, it is out of place and basically serves no purpose from what I can see, it is not even placed next to any sort of text at all, nevermind relating to Word 2010, and I think it quite clearly fails WP:NFCC. It is important to understand that non-free content is there to supplement free content, which is why they have to be contextually significant, whether that be so the reader can identify the article, or content described in text. An example of a very good use of fair use in my opinion are the non-free images on Ribbon (computing), they supplement the text content and in my opinion, removing them would be detrimental, in contrast to the images here, which do not help represent any sort of feature or UI element. I would also note that the information page Wikipedia:Software screenshots, implies that software articles should only use a screenshot from one OS in the infobox, but this is not a policy or guideline page. Thanks. Dylsss(talk contribs) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Mac and Windows Office releases differ greatly; it was only until recently that Microsoft made Office for both OSs more similar.
    Thus, it is vital to show the history of Office for Mac; it is completely different than that of Office for Windows; I'll give an example here: Office 2011 and Office 2010. Completely different. This is the reason why Office 2011 has its own article, seperate from Office 2010.
    The Office for Windows screenshots you mentioned above could be added to their individual Wikipedia articles, if they have them.
    I feel that Office for Mac and Office for Windows still differ enough that they require separate screenshots. WP:NFCC#3 says minimal use. Multiple screenshots are permitted. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look like duplicates to me. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Sorry, when I first created the nomination page it was just
The reason I titled it duplicate screenshots is because their respective articles Excel, PowerPoint and Word, already had screenshots of the same software but on the Windows operating system. Silikonz argues that these are different enough to warrant use, but the question is not necessarily whether they are different, but whether you can identify the software with only one screenshot. It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system. Similarly to the reasons that we do not have both front and back covers of books or historical logos (unless they are discussed in critical commentary), these should be deleted. In terms of the other 3 screenshots, there has still been no arguement from other about how these possibly meet WP:NFCC#8. "illustrate the history and evolution" and "it is vital to show the history of..." are ridiculous reasons for keeping non-free content but they in no way explain how they a significant in the context of the article, i.e. what specific commentary or point in the article do they help support or explain. I could for example upload a load of non-free screenshots of different versions of Word and place them in a table of all the different iterations of the software, I could say that this illustrates the history of Microsoft Word, but this would clearly fail WP:NFCC#8 because there is not contextual significance. As a matter of fact, it is really no surprise that they fail WP:NFCC#8 because they were originally uploaded in 2008, 2009, and 2010 to be put in the infobox, then when a new one is uploaded, someone has just willy-nilly dumped them somewhere in the article to prevent deletion, they should have been deleted per WP:F5, thus it is quite obvious why these would fail WP:NFCC as they were never uploaded with the intent to be used in the way they are being used now. Dylsss(talk contribs) 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be quite silly for me to argue that as a Windows user, I could not recognise the Mac version of the software, or vice versa, as they are so similar that readers would be able to identify that it is the Excel/PowerPoint/Word software regardless of the operating system.
@Dylsss: My mother can't even tell the difference between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office while using it. (until she runs into something that works slightly different) Would you call her silly? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I think in this case, the files which I have said have 'illustrated the history of Microsoft Word' could possibly be deleted, as their individual articles themselves DO include screenshots of Word.
I do wish to keep the images I uploaded, they do serve a purpose. Thanks. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬🖋) 23:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Iwgp-h0.png

[edit]

File:Iwgp-h0.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Piotr Bart (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No non-free use rationale can be written without failing WP:NFCC#4. Simply, it's an image from an unendorsed fan site which itself isn't in compliance of fair use, at least not sufficiently enough to be copied over to Wikipedia. The image can never be used in an article and would be deleted for being orphaned. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood the policies. Wanchan2020 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. @Wanchan2020: This is a very clear misinterpretation of WP:NFCC#4 which requires that copyrighted works are published or publically displayed. Copyright subsists in two works here, the 3D belt itself, and the picture of the belt. The belt meets WP:NFCC#4 because as an award, it has been publically displayed, and I am guessing belts like these can also be bought? The picture meets WP:NFCC#4 because it has been published on the source website. It doesn't require that the images from these websites must also have been produced with permission from or by the copyright holder, this would essentially disallow derivative works of copyrighted 3D objects apart from by the copyright holder. If this interpretation were to be correct, it would mean that most of the 1,877 images in Category:Fair use images of three-dimensional art would fail WP:NFCC and be eligible for deletion. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dylsss: 1) No, this belt can't be bought. No maker has been officially licensed to make and sell exact replicas of this belt. 2) This is not for every case but you are allowed by the copyright holder to take photos of (for example) monuments and photos in mass media are published with the copyright holder's permission. This is neither. 3) Most of the 3D art images are on public display (i.e., you can go and see them in person) and you can infer where the photos came from. This belt isn't inside some museum. You can't tell where Iwgp-h0.png came from or you'd be able to replace the fan site URL in the rationale with a credible source (as well as replace the image with a better, undoctored one). Wanchan2020 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I know little about wrestling, but from my knowledge these belts are worn by wrestlers who are champions of that title at wrestling events, so it would have been publically displayed at an event. If we can reasonably assume this, then I would say that it passes WP:NFCC#4, otherwise delete. Dylsss(talk contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dylsss: Then that's what our disagreement boils down to. Whether assumption is sufficient for copyright matters, which Wikipedia takes seriously. It's not only the assumption that the belt was displayed. You're also assuming conditions of entry at those events. And assuming where the image came from: could be a video screencap, could be a photo from an event, could be a photo of an unlicensed replica. With the image being doctored, what can you deduce that isn't an assumption? If it were text, it would be removed for being from an unreliable source and we wouldn't need this discussion. Wanchan2020 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur with nominator. The image was previously published, but is a derivative image of the belt. Because we have no evidence that the source website has the permission of the belt's copyright owner, I believe the image fails WP:NFCCP#4. A screenshot of a wrestler wearing the belt, even cropped to feature the belt, would pass because the belt's copyright owner would have permitted the original publication of the image.  ★  Bigr Tex 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

File:1951MaistoBeetleFrontTrunk.jpg

[edit]

File:1951MaistoBeetleFrontTrunk.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cstevencampbell (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

One of four fair-use images on Maisto, including the logo. There are also three "free" images of models being hosted on Commons included on the page.

I believe that this image currently violates WP:NFCCP#3a - any one of the six images would be sufficient. However, because this image does detail the opening features and details of the model, I believe that it should be kept and placed at the top of the page if the above two images and the three Commons images are removed. I do believe that a better image could be created, showing the multiple scales manufactured and the details in a single image.  ★  Bigr Tex 22:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - The "free" images at Commons are likely to be deleted as the underlying copyright on the model car itself makes the photos derivative of a copyrighted work. Of all the images, this one does show the features that are typical of the products from this company as described with sourced text in the article. It meets WP:NFCC#8, and [[W{P:NFCC#3a]] would be met with the other images removed. It's placement within the article is one of editorial discretion and I provide no opinion there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 23:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion[edit]

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

June 9[edit]

File:HataLocation.png[edit]

File:HataLocation.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jusenkyoguide (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

"Picture was licensed for Wikipedia" and the source, w:ja:ファイル:長野県波田町県内位置図.svg was deleted due to WP:CSD マルチメディア2 投稿者依頼 (machine translation: "Multimedia 2 Contributor Request"?) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

File:CCR Logo.png[edit]

File:CCR Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

They have a new logo now, so fair use no longer applies. Ich (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as PD-textlogo. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as PD-textlogo, but reccomend exporting to Commons later and tagging as {{NowCommons}}. 🐶EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 22:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Muferiat Kamil.jpg[edit]

File:Muferiat Kamil.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abenezer40 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The linked source gives a server that does not even exist. The licensing uses {{self}} (which means the uploader claims to own the copyright) and claims to be granting a GFDL license and a cc-by-sa-4.0. It seems very unlikely on the surface of it that the uploader could possibly own the copyright. So I believe there is no evidence of these licenses. Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent nominations[edit]

June 10[edit]

File:PTVLogo2017.svg[edit]

File:PTVLogo2017.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Moonrivers (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

While the PTV logo might be in public domain as a Philippine government work, this image file uses a licensing that is invalid and not recognized at Wikimedia Commons. This prevents its successful transfer to Commons via either FileExporter or CommonsHelper. This may need an admin intervention. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

June 12[edit]

June 13[edit]

File:Quebec Capitales cap.PNG[edit]

File:Quebec Capitales cap.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PennaRican81 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_June_5#Files_in_Category:Cap_logos was recently closed as keep, partially due to the large number of files listed. While I think that baseball cap logos are generally acceptable as a valid, widely-used alternate logo, in this specific case, the cap logo is almost identical to the standard logo. As a result, I believe that this is one of the few cap logos from the previous discussion to fail WP:NFCC #3a (minimal number of items), as there are no significant differences between this one and the standard logo. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per the old discussion - duplicate or near-duplicate cap logos do not help with identification, and I agree NFCC #3a applies. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Sculture on the esplanade of Espace Léopold.jpg[edit]

File:Sculture on the esplanade of Espace Léopold.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ssolbergj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Belgium has Commons-acceptable FOP since 2016, and this fair use file which is a redundant duplicate of File:Sculture by the European Parliament 1.jpg is no longer needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

File:T. P. Ashrafali in a protest against CAA-NRC.jpg[edit]

File:T. P. Ashrafali in a protest against CAA-NRC.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Heminvv (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

uploader states "T. P. Asharafali published this image in his Facebook profile" on the file description page, but also claims own work. Unless the uploader is also T. P. Asharafali (unlikely), then this is probably a copyright violation. At the minimum, permission (via VTRS) is needed to keep this image FASTILY 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - claim of own work is likely invalid, file would not meet NFCC if converted to fair use, so this cannot be kept. Hog Farm Talk 20:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. The EXIF data indicates this likely comes from Facebook, but Facebook's general licensing isn't really compatible with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files or c:COM:L. If the uploader is the Facebook account holder and added a acceptable free license to the photo, then perhaps that would be OK; I say perhaps, however, there would still need to something confirming that the uploader is the copyright holder and just wasn't uploading someone else's work per c:COM:LL. I think this probably could've been tagged with {{npd}}, but it's hear now and perhaps the uploader will clarify the provenance. The "own work" claim could just be a mistake as is often the case, but WP:CONSENT needs to be verified regardless and the way to do that would be to send an email to Wikimedia VTRS. In addition, per Hog Farm, there seems to be no way to use re-licenses this as non-free content given the way it's currenlty being used and the lack of clarity about it's provenance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Concord Regional Airport Logo.jpg[edit]

File:Concord Regional Airport Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AirportExpert (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Originally uploaded as non-free content, but subsequently converted to {{PD-logo}} per WP:MCQ#File:Concord Regional Airport Logo.jpg. A clean svg version was created over at Commons per the request made at c:COM:GL/I#Convert local Wikipedia jpg logo to PD vector version and has replaced this jpg version in the main infobox of Concord Regional Airport. The jpg was tagged with {{Now Commons}}, but speedy deletion doesn't apply because of the difference in file format. So, bringing the file here for discussion as suggested here. There seems to be no reason to keep this local version since any possible use of it should be covered by the svg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Vixens omorashi.png[edit]

File:Vixens omorashi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fsecret (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFCCP #8. Not used for "critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents", and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. Sandstein 21:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. It might be possible for the cover art of the first issue of the manga, or either the video or dvd box cover art or the OVA that was subsequently released in main infobox of an article such as this, but not a screenshot like this. A screenshot could possibly used in the body of the article if it was the subject of sourced critical commentary about some aspect of the animation technique or themes the animation is based upon, but it would need to be much more substantial than the simple statement "It contains three episodes and contains the use of BDSM and Omorashi" and a infobox caption stating basically the same even if properly sourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

June 15[edit]

File:Helmut Ruhemann.jpg[edit]

File:Helmut Ruhemann.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ceoil (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helmut Ruhemann.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 00:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as fair use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as fair use. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Dougherty. Jpeg.JPG[edit]

File:Dougherty. Jpeg.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rucks1989 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused file that primarily shows the logo of Dougherty Comprehensive High School on the building of said school. As there is no FoP in the US, this file shouldn't be moved to Commons. For reference, it was taken with a Nikon Coolpix L20, same as File:Dougherty Comprehensive High School in 2009.jpg. I do believe the photo is own work, the issue is FoP for the logo. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Mathewson statue.png.jpg[edit]

File:Mathewson statue.png.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael J (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Unused photo of a statue of Christy Mathewson. It's located in the US and there is no FoP in the US, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Mathewson statue.png[edit]

File:Mathewson statue.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Michael J (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same photo of a statue of Christy Mathewson, used on his article and Factoryville, Pennsylvania. It's located in the US and there is no FoP in the US, so it shouldn't be moved to Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Warkworth Castle MAP.jpg[edit]

File:Warkworth Castle MAP.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nurrak (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Looks to be an uncredited scan of a book, possibly a guidebook from the castle itself. The exact same map appears in somebody's collection of photos from the castle site at http://cdn.seearoundbritain.com/images/37132/p1160251.jpg, including a key which was omitted here. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Zhurong rover and lander on Mars.jpg[edit]

File:Zhurong rover and lander on Mars.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Shujianyang (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Failing WP:NFCC#1 as free equivalent images are available (e.g. File:Zhurong payload.jpg, File:Mars Global Remote Sensing Orbiter and Small Rover at IAC Bremen 2018 02.jpg) that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose of identifying the appearance of the Zhurong rover in the main infobox. Wcam (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Koo's transformation from old to new.png[edit]

File:Koo's transformation from old to new.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Badassboy 63637 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Incorrect rationale - "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question" is what File:Kooapp new.png does. If this doesn't meet the copyright threshold then it should be at Wikimedia Commons, not here. If it does then I doubt that it passes WP:NFCCP, and if it does then it needs a substantial correct fair use rationale. I'm nominating for discussion, not deletion, because I'm not experienced enough to know what the right outcome is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - The image is not being used to serve as the primary means of identification as claimed. This illustrates the logo change but there is no significant sourced commentary about the logo change beyond stating the logo changed. As currently used, fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete fails NFCC #8 as currently used, as there is not significant sources commentary about the logo change, just a statement that one occurred. Hog Farm Talk 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Screenshot of official account of koo app.jpg[edit]

File:Screenshot of official account of koo app.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Badassboy 63637 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The stated purpose of this non-free images is "To show the official account of koo app" but there is no significant sourced commentary in the article that requires this image to be present to enhance understanding. The lack of this image in no way impairs a reader's understanding of the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:UFHealth logo.png[edit]

File:UFHealth logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mathew105601 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Most likely does not satisfy commons:COM:TOO, as a bicolor logo with blocky font. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • P,TO 19104, @Clindberg: looks like a clear case of {{PD-textlogo}} to me? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @P,TO 19104: - Did you get your nomination backwards? Did you mean to say it does satisfy COM:TOO? Because the logo is currently licensed as non-free and if you believe the logo is too complex for copyright, then there is no reason to nominate the file. In any case, Relicense as a PD text logo and export to Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does not meet the TOO and is PD. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @P,TO 19104: Oops. Sorry. I should have had my coffee first. I have everything in my brains backwards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Panorama of South Utopia Planitia, Mars, taken by Zhurong rover.jpg[edit]

File:Panorama of South Utopia Planitia, Mars, taken by Zhurong rover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KevWang (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Failing WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c, as the non-free image is merely decorative and is placed in the "gallery" section of an article (WP:NFG) and is not accompanied by any sourced commentary about the image. The image is used in multiple articles without providing "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Wcam (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8 as decorative use for all instances mentioned in the nomination. I've removed the image from the articles with no rationale for use. -- Whpq (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Ccfc.jpeg.jpg[edit]

File:Ccfc.jpeg.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stuart166axe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploaded one month before http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuart166axe/495619479/ was uploaded. As the photo is from 1967, the photographer realistically is at least 70 years old, but Stuart looks younger than that. The Flickr photo page states "Please note this is an actual photograph print from my collection and not taken from elsewhere." which combined with his about page suggests to me that this is a photo from someone else that he has a physical copy of which he scanned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Chelmsford City Football Ground, 1967.jpg[edit]

File:Chelmsford City Football Ground, 1967.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Stuart166axe (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

See above. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Footer[edit]

Today is June 16 2021. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 16 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===June 16===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.