Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19

File:AnnieNOGWT.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add much understanding to the series The Old Grey Whistle Test. Also, against rules about images of living persons from WP:NFC#UUI. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StarKicker.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:The Old Grey Whistle Test title card 1970s black sky variant.png, which I uploaded, as infobox image. George Ho (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing by Donny and Marie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close/not actionable as-is. This appears to be an editorial matter/dispute, which is better suited for the article's talk page. -FASTILY 00:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a prior unrelated FFD discussion, I promised the uploader that I wouldn't nominate any more of the uploads if the result was not "delete", but then the result became "delete" anyways. Now here I am nominating both: the one I previously listed, and reluctantly the other I uploaded. I just wanna compromise if the other uploader is willing as well, but I don't know. He hasn't seemed happy with my past nominations. Well... I'm nominating mine as well, hoping that I'm showing a compromise. I also hope the whole discussion focuses solely on the images I'm listing here, not primarily about either of us, like what I saw (or believe that I saw) at one of FFD discussions (still ongoing to this date), which I won't discuss in detail... yet.

I nominated the German single picture sleeve (discogs, 45cat, ebay?), assuming that any portion of a single release was unneeded (like some other song articles having a bunch of cover arts, like Ain't Nobody), but then the consensus disagreed with me, leading to "keep". I had thought about what the uploader/participant said about the version: charted in the biggest music market in the world, the United States. If that's the case, then I wonder why a portion of the US single release wasn't used. Oh wait, the release wasn't packaged in a picture sleeve, was it? Telling from the sources here (ebay, discogs, 45cat), I guess not, especially when a picture sleeve of the US single hasn't been known to exist.

Nonetheless, per MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, a free image is preferable "whenever possible", be it a sleeve or a label. Speaking of "free", even after the other FFD discussion that led to one non-free image being deleted, regardless of which release a portion belongs to, I couldn't find a suitable free replacement, like a free portion of a release, so now we're left with two non-free images to debate. (BTW, that discussion kinda has affected how I will argue and how I can select a portion of any release from any location in the future.)

If at least one image shall be kept as before, but then if using more than one image exceeds the "minimal number of items", then I have no choice but to choose one of them. Like the uploader said, there's no specific rule on which release should be chosen, unlike WP:VGBOX (which normally prefers an English-language video game cover art). It all comes down to our own interpretations of consensus, "contextual significance", WP:NFC#CS, and MOS:MUSIC.

Preferably, the one I uploaded (the label portion of the US single) a few months ago should be kept to illustrate what was distributed and sold to "the biggest music market in the world, the United States". Indeed, I don't think an average American music customer at that time would afford an expensive imported single, like one from Germany packaged in a picture sleeve. Also, the US label portion should be identifiable to those who bought the release and to those curious about what the US market was like in the pre-CD era. Otherwise, I'd be happy to keep both images I'm listing here. I'm unsure how I would handle the omission of the US label portion well, but... We'll see how this discussion goes. George Ho (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stridently oppose, on the basis that even by the nominator's own acknowledgment, readers find picture sleeves to be of substantially greater popular interest than side labels, regardless of the sleeve's nation of origin. Yet the nominator tendentiously and systematically (and, might I add, tediously) seeks to replace picture sleeves with side labels, generally using the pretense that they are "more free," whether such is actually the case or not. But most of these picture sleeves have remained unmolested on the articles for several years, becoming familiar and even cherished to readers, as opposed to cold, boring, clinical record labels. And just such is the case with this article and image in question. - JGabbard (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, as your first choice, you favor keeping the non-free German sleeve you uploaded and scrapping out the non-free US label I uploaded, right? What about keeping both images of the Osmonds version as the second choice? Well, I still don't know whether someone interested in reading the section about the Osmonds version is more curious about the historical context of the manufacturing and distribution of the single release or more interested in what the Osmonds look like in a sleeve portion. George Ho (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what are your definition and examples "free" besides what's seen in c:COM:TOO US? George Ho (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I certainly do, though the latter proposal is also acceptable. I have no objection to the occasional addition of side labels, and even welcome those that are unique or rare. Just "please" stop continually forcing your fellow editors to have to waste their time wrangling with you over your penchant heretofore to supplant sleeves and replace them with labels. - JGabbard (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a vast source of free images, but it is not an exhaustive source. - JGabbard (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tommy Scott Boys Cry picture sleeve.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free album cover art being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of Tommy Scott (Scottish musician) which fails WP:NFCC#1. Non-free album cover art can sometimes be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but generally only when the cover art itself is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone article about the album in question. Other types of non-free use or uses in other articles is not really allowed for the reasons given in WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3 unless the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. The single "Boys Cry" is mentioned briefly twice within the "Biography" section, but neither mentions is sourced critical commentary about the cover itself; therefore, there's no real reason for the reader to see this image and omitting it is not going to be deterimental to the reader's understanding of the single sentence about the song. The file was originally being used in Tommy Scott (Scottish musician)#Biography and prodded for deletion as such here, but it was moved to the main infobox here and deprodded here. Non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, and non-free cover art is also pretty much never allowed to identify individuals appearing in cover art per item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you got me! Feel free to find a suitable alternate image of Tommy Scott to add to the article. Design (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parks and recreation the camel.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the illustration of a "murinal" depicting a beautiful pointillist photomosaic of city hall and critics' mention about the "murinal". However, the whole episode (The Camel (Parks and Recreation)) has been about replacing a mural with "racist overtones". The "murinal" photomosaic is one of the proposals; the whole episode hasn't focused primarily on it. Furthermore, I wonder whether the (fictional) term "murinal" would be still clear without the screenshot. I can stand corrected about this. George Ho (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GenoPro-Multiple-Marriages 2.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-free [1] software. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as above, though the user Jcmorin also created the article, and "if" they are the developer, may be able to release screenshots into the public domain (although I cannot see any evidence of this). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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